City of Fremont

Postwar Development and Architecture Historic Context Statement, 1945-1970

PUBLIC DRAFT, March 2017

Prepared for:

Community Development Department Planning Division 39550 Liberty Street Fremont, CA 94538 Illustration of the Fremont Community Center (Source: Fremont Public Library Local History Collection) Prepared by:

610 S. Olive Street, Suite 910 Los Angeles, CA 90014 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 Purpose ...... 2 Goals & Objectives ...... 2 Methodology & Scope of Study ...... 3 Team ...... 5 Criteria for Evaluation ...... 6 National Register of Historic Places ...... 6 California Register of Historical Resources ...... 7 Fremont Register of Historic Resources ...... 8 Historic Context Statement ...... 10 Prewar Development: The Eight Small Towns of Washington Township...... 10 Postwar Development: Suburbia, Commerce, Industry, Incorporation, and Beyond ...... 15 Themes, Associated Property Types, and Registration Requirements ...... 23 Theme: Residential Development ...... 23 Registration Requirements ...... 25 Theme: Business and Commerce ...... 30 Registration Requirements ...... 33 Theme: Industry ...... 36 Registration Requirements ...... 37 Theme: Institutional Development ...... 40 Registration Requirements ...... 44 Theme: Civic Improvements and Municipal Infrastructure ...... 47 Registration Requirements ...... 49 Theme: Postwar Architectural Styles in Fremont ...... 53 Registration Requirements ...... 66 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 68 Municipal Code Revisions ...... 68 Reviewing Alterations to Postwar Resources ...... 72 Potential Neighborhood Conservation Areas ...... 75 Selected Bibliography ...... 76 Appendix A: Research List of Properties and Recommendations for Further Study Appendix B: Biographical Data on Postwar Architects Appendix C: Pictorial Glossary Appendix D: Potential NCA Maps Appendix E: Original Tract Maps Appendix F: Historic Preservation Reference Material

2nd DRAFT Historic Context Statement Contents

Executive Summary

The purpose of the City of Fremont, Postwar Development and Architecture Historic Context Statement, 1945-1970 is to assist the City in the identification, evaluation, and protection of potential historic resources representing the City’s development and architecture dating from the post-World War II period through 1970. The City commissioned this report to implement General Plan Policy, which stresses protection of buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts that are reminders of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or national history. General Plan Implementation Measure 4-6.1.B specifically suggests developing a “mid-century” historic context report to provide direction and criteria for evaluating post-1955 buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts to determine their historical significance. The report presents a historic context statement for the postwar development and architecture of the City of Fremont, as well as recommendations for revisions, processes, and future, more detailed analysis of potential historic resources identified in this context statement. It was prepared by GPA Consulting (GPA) on behalf of the City of Fremont. The historic context statement describes the broad patterns of development in the City, organized by period and then theme. It also identifies associated property types and registration requirements to aid in the City’s ongoing efforts to identify historic resources. The context statement was informed by primary and second source research; oral interviews with local historians; and a reconnaissance survey of the City, conducted by GPA staff. The recommendations that follow the historic context statement address the specific goals and objectives of the City. They are based on the results of the context statement, as well as research into historic resource processes and programs in comparable California cities.

At the end of the document, there are six appendices. Appendix A includes a list of properties identified during this project which may warrant further research if modifications or demolition are proposed in the future. The Research List is not a list of properties that are necessarily eligible for designation. They may or may not possess sufficient significance and integrity to be eligible. Property-specific research and evaluation would be required to make such determinations, and those tasks were not a part of this project. Appendix A also includes recommendations for future studies. Appendix B provides information on architects who worked in Fremont during the postwar period. It is included for informational purposes only and may be used to prepare detailed evaluations in the future. Appendix C provides a glossary of select architectural terms used in this report. Appendix D includes maps of potential Neighborhood Conservation Areas identified during the reconnaissance survey. Appendix E includes maps of older residential tracts identified during the research phase and mentioned in this report to the extent that such maps were available in the City’s files. Lastly, Appendix F contains references for information on various aspects of professional historic preservation planning.

The project was contracted to GPA, who prepared the historic context statement, as well as the accompanying recommendations and appendices. The GPA project team consisted of professionals that meet the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications for Historic Preservation, including Teresa Grimes, Principal Architectural Historian; Laura O’Neill, Senior Architectural Historian; and Allison M. Lyons, Associate Architectural Historian.

Introduction

Purpose The City of Fremont commissioned this report to implement General Plan Policy and assist in the identification and protection of potential post-World War II historic resources. The context statement and accompanying recommendations are part of the City’s effort to ensure potential historic resources from this period are identified and evaluated using a consistent and efficient methodology that evaluates buildings in the overall historical context of the postwar development and architecture of Fremont.

The population of the Fremont area grew dramatically in the twenty-five years following World War II. Once a small agricultural and light manufacturing community of eight unincorporated towns known as Washington Township, after World War II and the completion of the Nimitz Freeway, the area grew into a densely developed suburban residential community and manufacturing center. The resulting population boom required the construction of housing in all of its forms and associated services, institutions, and infrastructure. In 1956, five of the eight towns incorporated as the City of Fremont. The built environment of Fremont includes numerous modern buildings representing a variety of styles and types popular during this postwar construction boom.

The historic context statement describes the broad patterns of development in the area, organized by period and then theme. It also identifies associated property types and registration requirements to aid in the City’s ongoing efforts to identify historic resources. As a whole, the historic context statement provides a general framework for evaluating the historical significance of buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts from the years 1945 to 1970. The recommendations that follow it provide suggestions for getting the most use value out of the context statement and for meeting the City’s specific goals and objectives.

Goals & Objectives In particular, the goals of the project are as follows:

• Gain a better understanding of the city’s postwar past;

• Gain a better understanding of its postwar resources;

• Identify ways to streamline the current process for reviewing alterations and demolition applications for structures over 50 years old, which may be postwar resources;

• Designate significant postwar resources in the future; and

• Comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations for avoiding/minimizing impacts to historical resources.

To achieve these goals, the objectives of the project are as follows:

• Identify, describe and evaluate the significant forces, actions, actors, and activities that shaped and began to define the community of Fremont as a place to live, work, and play in the postwar period of 1945 to 1970;

• Identify potentially eligible historic resources which may warrant research and evaluation if modification or demolition is proposed in the future;

• Develop recommendation(s) for new Historic Overlay Districts (HODs) that may apply to areas with particular historical significance and existing resources, and/or Neighborhood Conservation Areas (NCAs), which may not fully meet the criteria for HOD designation, but have architectural qualities that warrant special design consideration;

• Develop standards and eligibility criteria to assist staff in evaluating postwar resources;

• Develop recommendations for future preservation activities; and

• Develop recommendations regarding the City’s process for evaluating potential historical significance of post-1945 structures, buildings, or objects proposed for demolition, relocation, or alteration.

Methodology & Scope of Study The historic context statement and reconnaissance survey were developed in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation and National Register Bulletin #24, Guidelines for Local Survey: A Basis for Preservation Planning. A historic context statement is a technical document that consists of specific sections recommended by the Secretary of the Interior in National Register Bulletin #24. The bulletin defines a historic context as a body of information about historic properties organized by theme, place, and time. Historic context is linked with tangible historic resources through the concept of property type. A property type is a group of individual properties that share physical or associative characteristics. A historic context statement provides a framework for determining the relative significance of properties and evaluating their eligibility for landmark designation.

There are two types of historic resource surveys: reconnaissance and intensive. A reconnaissance survey was a part of this project, but an intensive survey was not. A reconnaissance survey includes a “once over” inspection of a community or neighborhood. Reconnaissance surveys are used to inform the development of a context statement. They also form the basis for more intensive, detailed survey efforts. During a reconnaissance survey, descriptive information about buildings, structures, and objects are collected and analyzed primarily through architecture and dates of construction. Property-specific research is not conducted and evaluations are considered preliminary.

The specific methodology employed to complete this project included the following:

1. Meeting with the City Staff. The project team met with the city staff to identify the specific needs of the historic context statement and to gather information on previous studies and known historic resources. The project manager clarified the goals for the City and reviewed the project scope and schedule.

2. Oral Interviews. GPA staff conducted telephone interviews with two local historians, Bruce Anderson and Woodruff Minor. These interviews included recommendations for buildings to research; names of local architects of significance; and general research advice.

3. Reconnaissance Survey. The project team conducted a reconnaissance level survey of the City of Fremont, concentrating on properties constructed between 1945 and 1970 in the city boundaries. The project team digitally photographed and took field notes on properties that appeared architecturally significant or appeared representative of the postwar period of development and took field notes on properties and districts. These photographs and notes were used to develop the Research List (Appendix A) and to develop the relevant themes for the historic context statement. The field notes were used to identify the properties included in Exhibit A.

4. Existing Information. The project team collected and reviewed existing information on the area including:1

• Files in the collection of City of Fremont Planning Division, including historic maps of Fremont and Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record (DPR) 523 forms prepared with historic resource evaluations of individual properties throughout the city.

• Archival collections of the Fremont Public Library Local History Collection

• Archival collections of the Washington Township Museum of Local History

• Historic Context of Glenmoor Gardens and Mission Ranch Subdivisions and Ranch House Architecture

5. Contextual Research. The project team identified information gaps and conducted additional contextual research. Archival research was conducted at the Washington Township Museum of Local History (sources included locally published historical research, historic photographs, historical documents, and newspaper clippings), and Fremont Public Library Local History Collection (sources included City of Fremont directories, historic photographs, historical documents, and newspaper clippings). The Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals was consulted for information on architects, styles, and noteworthy buildings in the Fremont area. The California Index database was also searched for relevant information. Parcel Quest, an online database of parcel information, was used to research dates of construction for buildings identified during the reconnaissance level survey. This information was used as a foundation for developing the historic context for the city.

6. Outline and Bibliography. The existing information and contextual research was used to develop the outline and bibliography for the historic context statement. The historic maps were used to identify the development patterns and determine the approximate build dates for the individual buildings. The general reference material and reconnaissance survey was used to identify the significant themes and property types. The outline and bibliography were submitted to city staff for comments and were revised accordingly.

7. Historic Context Statement. A historic context statement was developed for the City of Fremont’s postwar period. The historic context establishes the significant themes

1 Please see Bibliography for a complete list of sources consulted for this project.

and property types that reflect those themes. Eligibility requirements and integrity thresholds were developed based upon the reconnaissance survey using local, state, and national designation criteria. Themes were only developed for the events, trends, periods, and architectural styles relevant to the postwar period. The context statement was submitted to the city staff for comments and was revised accordingly.

8. Final Report. The results of all of the tasks outlined above were synthesized into this final report, which includes the historic context statement, recommendations, and appendices.

Team The project was contracted to GPA Consulting (GPA), who prepared the historic context statement, as well as the accompanying recommendations and appendices. The GPA team consisted of Teresa Grimes, Laura O’Neill, and Allison M. Lyons, all of whom meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. City staff from the Community Development Department, led by Wayland Li and Ingrid Rademaker, guided the project. Local historians and planners, including Bruce Anderson and Woodruff Minor, provided thoughtful comments and graciously shared valuable research.

Criteria for Evaluation Primarily, this project focused on establishing the historic context for Fremont during the period of 1945 to 1970. The scope did not include an intensive historic resources survey to identify all existing resources that may be eligible for local, state, or national designation within this context in Fremont; however, this report does include registration requirements for all associated property types to assist with evaluating potential resources in the future. The registration requirements are based on the criteria set forth in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and Fremont Register of Historic Resources (Fremont Register). Thus, an understanding of each of these designation programs is critical to using and interpreting this document. The following is a discussion of each of the programs.

National Register of Historic Places The National Register is "an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment."2

Criteria To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property customarily must be at least 50 years of age and possess significance in American history and culture, architecture, or archaeology. A property of potential significance must meet one or more of four established criteria:3

A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Physical Integrity Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register, a property must not only be shown to be significant under one or more of the criteria, but it also must have integrity. The evaluation of integrity is grounded in an understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance. The California Office of Historic Preservation utilizes the same aspects of integrity as the National Register.

Historic properties either retain integrity (that is, convey their significance) or they do not. Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. These seven aspects include location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property will always

2 Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.2. 3 Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4.

possess several, and usually most, of the seven aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. The seven aspects of integrity are defined as follows:

• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.

• Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

• Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Criteria Considerations Certain kinds of properties, such as those less than 50 years of age, are not usually considered eligible for listing in the National Register. Fifty years is generally recognized as a sufficient amount of time needed to develop historical perspective and to evaluate significance. Properties less than 50 years of age can be eligible for listing, however, if they meet special requirements called Criteria Considerations, in addition to meeting the regular requirements. National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation states that a property less than 50 years of age may be eligible for the National Register if it is of exceptional importance.4 Demonstrating exceptional importance requires the development of a historic context statement for the resource being evaluated, a comparative analysis with similar resources, and scholarly sources on the property type and historic context.

California Register of Historical Resources In 1992, Governor Wilson signed Assembly Bill 2881 into law establishing the California Register. The California Register is an authoritative guide used by state and local agencies, private groups and citizens to identify historic resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse impacts.

The California Register consists of properties that are listed automatically as well as those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process.5 The California Register automatically includes the following:

4 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin #15, p. 2. 5 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

• California properties listed in the National Register and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register;

• California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 0770 onward; and

• Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and have been recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for inclusion on the California Register.

Criteria The criteria for eligibility of listing in the California Register are based upon National Register criteria, but are identified as 1-4 instead of A-D. To be eligible for listing in the California Register, a property must be at least 50 years of age and possess significance at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important in the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Historic resources eligible for listing in the California Register may include buildings, sites, structures, objects, and historic districts. Resources less than 50 years of age may be eligible if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance. While the enabling legislation for the California Register is less rigorous with regard to the issue of integrity, there is the expectation that properties reflect their appearance during their period of significance.6

Fremont Register of Historic Resources Chapters 18.175 of Fremont Municipal Code, commonly known as the city’s Historic Resource Ordinance, identifies the criteria under which an individual resource may be added to the Fremont Register of Historic Resources. In addition, Chapter 18.135 identifies the criteria for establishing historic districts. Per Chapter 18.175, the Fremont Register consists of:

• Those historic resources which were listed in Appendix to the General Plan on January 1, 2007; and

• Those additional historic resources designated for listing by resolution of the City Council pursuant to Section 18.175.100 of the Fremont Municipal Code.

6 Public Resources Code Section 4852.

Buildings, structures, objects, places, trees, plant life, and sites may be designated a historic resource by the City Council following consideration of the recommendation of the Historical Architectural Review Board (HARB). HARB recommends that a resource be designated if it retains sufficient historical significance and integrity to merit classification as a potential register resource or listing as a register resource. To be significant, a resource must meet one of the following designation criteria:

1. It is listed or has been determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register or the National Register; or

2. It has been determined by the City Council to be significant on the national, state, or local level under one or more of the following five criteria:

A. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or to the cultural heritage of California, the United States, or the City; or

B. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or

C. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or it is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect; or

D. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation; or

E. Its unique location or singular physical characteristic(s) represents an established and familiar visual feature or landmark of a neighborhood, settlement or district, or the City.

A historic resource of local significance need not qualify for listing on the California Register to be included on the Fremont Register. The Municipal Code does not mention an integrity requirement or an age threshold for a resource to be eligible; however, it does include a definition of integrity in the Glossary located in Chapter 18.175.430:

“’Integrity’ means the ability of an historic resource to convey its historical significance through the retention of its original location, setting, design, materials, craftsmanship, feeling and association.”

Historic Context Statement

Prewar Development: The Eight Small Towns of Washington Township The development of the area that would become the City of Fremont dates to the founding of Mission San Jose in 1797. From the time of the missions through the early twentieth century, this area grew mostly as an agricultural community centered on eight unincorporated towns united by Alameda County under the jurisdiction of Washington Township in 1908: Alvarado, Centerville, Decoto, Irvington (called Washington Corners), Mission San Jose, Newark, Niles, and Warm Springs.7 Transportation networks, first the railroad in 1869 and later the Nimitz Freeway in the 1950s, facilitated the development of the township, linking agriculture, industry, and people with the greater Bay Area economy. It is important to understand the origins of the city in order to understand its postwar development. The following subsections provide a brief overview of Fremont in the nearly 100 years leading up to the postwar period. Mission San Jose, originally constructed in 1797, reconstructed in 1985 (GPA Consulting, 2015) Early American Period, 1850-1869 The secularization of the missions in 1834, the arrival of American settlers in the 1840s, and the Gold Rush in the 1850s brought changes to southern Alameda County as towns began to emerge in the former ranch lands.8 Alameda County was divided into townships in 1853.9 By the 1850s, the former mission lands and ranchos of Washington Township were separating into dry farmlands with new services and businesses centered around what would become the eight small towns.10 A small settlement grew around Vallejo Mills, a flourmill constructed by Don J.J. Vallejo between 1841 and 1856 in an area that would become the town of Niles.11 John Horner, a Mormon businessman, established a farm and towns in present-day Irvington and Centerville after arriving in 1847.12 Grain dominated agricultural production, and the area around Centerville became a leading producer of goods bound for San Francisco, as well as a trade

7 Centerville Area Plan Study Committee, “Centerville Area Plan: Final Study Committee Report and Environmental Impact Report” (March 1976), 5. Thomas Reimer, Washington Township Incorporation Survey (San Francisco: Coro Foundation, 1953), 2. 8 Centerville Committee, “Centerville Area Plan,” 5. 9 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years: History of Growth (Fremont, CA: Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, 1989), 7. 10 The town of Mission San Jose formed in 1868, but was not officially recorded until later. Woodruff Minor, “Historic Context of Glenmoor Gardens and Mission Ranch Subdivisions and Ranch House Architecture” (May 2009), 3; Winifred Handley Bendel, History of Washington Township (Fremont: Country Club of Washington Township, 1965), 24. 11 Harold F. Wise Associates, “A Study Illustrating alternative plans for the future development of the Niles Commercial Center, Niles, Fremont,” 1958. 12 Centerville Committee, “Centerville Area Plan,” 5. Philip Holmes and Jill M. Singleton, Irvington, Fremont (Mount Pleasant, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2005), 7; Philip Holmes and Jill M. Singleton, Centerville, Fremont (Mount Pleasant, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2011), 13.

center for miners during the Gold Rush.13 The first salt drying operations were founded at the mouth of Alameda Creek in 1852. The demand for salt, used in silver refining, spiked after the discovery of the Comstock Lode in 1858.14 The area became a small resort destination when Clement Colombet built a resort hotel in Warm Springs in 1861 (demolished).15 Though dry land farming of cattle and cash crops such as grain, wheat, barley, and oats on ranches of two hundred or more acres would continue through the 1880s, the economy of southern Alameda County diversified as the region became less insular.16

Growth with the Railroad, 1869-1919 Significant changes came to southern Alameda County in the second half of the nineteenth century following the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad at Niles in 1869.17 Town plats for the future eight towns of Washington Township were recorded between the arrival of the railroad in 1869 and 1908.18 Towns were platted by locally based real estate developers and investors with the exception of Niles, which was officially laid out by Central Pacific Railroad.19 Centerville and Irvington emerged as centers of township life with schools, churches, banks, a country club, and newspapers.20 In addition to settlers from the eastern United States who arrived with the Gold Rush, the residents of Washington Township at this time included many Japanese and Portuguese immigrants.21 By the early 1900s, several fraternal organizations, initially formed to pay for burials, served these immigrant communities.22 The Centerville Chamber of Commerce started in 1907 and would play an important role in incorporation efforts almost 50 years later.23

Through the 1910s, the railroads and transportation networks continued to expand, linking the growing towns and spurring industrial development. Railroads used locally sourced gravel for their tracks, creating a gravel industry in Niles that expanded during the twentieth century.24 The California Nursery encompassed 463 acres in Niles and for many years was the largest commercial nursery in California.25 Areas near the railroads were the first to be subdivided into tracts of five to ten acres for fruit orchards.26 A second phase of agricultural production began as landowners shifted from dry farming to orchards and vineyards, made possible through

13 Centerville Committee, “Centerville Area Plan,” 5. 14 Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 13 and 17. 15 Holmes, Warm Springs, Fremont, 7. 16 Centerville Committee, “Centerville Area Plan,” 5; Philip Holmes and Patricia Wipfli Schaffarczyk, Warm Springs, Fremont (Mount Pleasant, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2013), 13; Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 12; Michael R. Corbett, “Rodrigues Farmhouse: Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record and Building, Structure and Object Record” (May 2015), 19. 17 Holmes, Warm Springs, Fremont, 7. 18 Derivations of the name of author Washington Irving were popular for small American towns that took pride in education. Washington Corners, later called Irvington, was named by settler Reverend James McCullough, formerly of Irvington, Indiana. Holmes, Irvington, Fremont, Fremont 24; Reimer, Washington Township Incorporation Survey, 2. 19 Minor, “Historic Context of Glenmoor Gardens,” 4. 20 Washington College of Science and Industry, later the Curtner Seminary and Anderson military academy, opened in Centerville in 1872. Bendel, History of Washington Township, 109; Centerville Committee, “Centerville Area Plan,” 5; Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 21, 26, 95, 96; Holmes, Irvington, Fremont, 7, 28, 32, 36. 21 Bendel, History of Washington Township, 25. 22 The Centerville Japanese language school was founded in 1925. Michael R. Corbett, “George’s Fruit Stand: A Cultural Landscape Evaluation,” (March 2009), 23-24. Bendel, History of Washington Township, 32; Holmes, Warm Springs, Fremont, 43. 23 Bendel, History of Washington Township, 109. 24 The Thompson and West Atlas Map of 1878 shows gravel pits in Niles. Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 65. 25 Woodruff Minor, et. al, “Clifford J. Johnson House, 36837 Second Street: Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record and Building, Structure and Object Record,” (September 2009), 3. 26 Bendel, History of Washington Township, 26.

irrigation. Improvements in food processing and distribution technology, including refrigerated rail cars and the establishment of canneries, helped the agricultural economy of Washington Township flourish.27

The Interwar Years, 1919-1941 In the 1920s and 1930s, Niles was the center of industrial growth in Washington Township as rail lines, local boosters, and availability of land due to subdivisions of the California Nursery property encouraged tile, gravel, and steel businesses to move into the area.28 California Brick Company and Kraftile Clay Products (both demolished) opened near Niles because of high grade clay deposits in the area and access to the railroads..29 Pacific States Steel Company converted the scrap metal of old rail cars into materials for the growing ship building production in the East Bay. Though the plant was outside the future boundary of Fremont and has since closed, the United Steelworkers union headquarters was located in Niles (37835 30 Niles Boulevard). Advertisement for Schuckl & Co showing cannery in Niles (Western Canner and Packer 13, no. 10 (1922): After World War I, a third phase of agriculture 109.) began in Washington Township. Agricultural production during the third phase focused on poultry, flowers, and nurseries.31 Among the businesses in this phase of agriculture was the Kimber Poultry Company.32 During the 1920s and 1930s, farmers, farm workers, and vegetable packers in

27 Corbett, “Rodrigues Farmhouse,” 19. 28 Boosters credited with bringing industries to Niles in the 1920s were realtor Ned Ellsworth and RV Jones. Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 83; Basin Research Associates, “Kraftile Company: Historic Recordation Report,” 6; Minor, “Historic Context of Glenmoor Gardens,” 2. Rock and gravel companies included Pacific Aggregates Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 65. 29 Kraftile, originally Kraft Clay Products, was founded in 1924 on land subdivided from the California Nursery Company. The company grew out of K & L Box and Lumber Company which made cheese boxes. Tile making started as side business using mill scrap from the boxes to fuel kilns. Products made at Kraftile over years included structural tile, pyrolite blocks, and Nukem acid-proof materials. The company closed in 1996. Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 71, 85, 95; Basin Research Associates, “Kraftile Company: Historic Recordation Report,” 4 and 7. 30 Pacific States Steel was established at time when railroad companies were selling off their older railcars and steam engines for scrap. Large steel plants in the East Bay needed custom steel for Liberty Ships. The company was a major employer in the defense industry during World War II. The plan site was incorporated into Union City in 1959. Pacific States Steel closed its plant in 1978. Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 72, 86, 87. Another large business with multiple locations across the township, PC Hansen Lumber Company was the township’s leading supplier of building materials prior to World War II. Yards in Centerville, Niles, Irvington, Decoto, and Alvarado handled all aspects of building with cement, plaster, paints, oils, nails, tools, and other supplies. The firm closed in 1964. Woodruff Minor, “Domingos Silva House, 37050 Elm Street: Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record and Building, Structure and Object Record” (August 2009), 3. 31 This phase continued through the 1960s, when the agricultural industry was significantly reduced as the last farming areas of Warm Springs were subdivided. Holmes, Warm Springs, Fremont, 7; Corbett, “Rodrigues Farmhouse.” 32 A poultry breeding company that bred chicks for disease resistance and premium egg quality characteristics, it was established in Niles by John E. Kimber, a “poultry genetics pioneer.” Basin Research Associates, “Kraftile Company: Historic Recordation Report,” 4. Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 92.

Washington Township were predominately Portuguese and Japanese immigrants and first generation Americans, but people from Oklahoma and Arkansas settled in Washington Township on the heels of the Dust Bowl and Depression.33

As the population of the region expanded, the existing towns grew. School districts began to form in each town.34 Though early plans for residential subdivisions on former agricultural lands were officially filed during this period, many platted subdivisions remained unbuilt until the postwar period.35

Aerial view of Kimber Poultry Breeding Farm in Niles, no date (Kimber Hills Academy)

Residential development in Tract 508 on Niles Boulevard between D and E streets. The tract was platted in 1934 by the Shinn family (GPA Consulting, 2015).

33 Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 78; Bendel, History of Washington Township, 25. 34 Bendel, History of Washington Township, 35; Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 73. 35 One of these, Adobe Acres, was laid out by California Nursery in 1928 and included some of the first Ranch-style influenced home designs in Washington Township. Adobe Acres was designed by Frederick Reimers, a San Francisco architect. The subdivision was located on Niles Boulevard and is significantly altered. Off Mission Boulevard, the Ellsworth family subdivided Orchard Homes in 1941, the last prewar subdivision in present-day Fremont. Basin Research Associates, “Kraftile Company: Historic Recordation Report,” 4; Minor, “Domingos Silva House,” 3. Minor, “Historic Context of Glenmoor Gardens,” 4 and 35; Minor, “Clifford J. Johnson House,” 3.

While railroads defined the first period of American development in Washington Township, automobiles increasingly defined development patterns in the twentieth century.36 In the late 1920s, Alameda County initiated a program of road construction in the Washington Township area.37 One major undertaking was the Mission Boulevard Bypass project from 1936 to 1937, which re-routed Mission Boulevard away from the commercial center of Niles.38 This had a long term impact on the commercial vibrancy of Niles and other historic town centers in the postwar period.

World War II, 1941-1945 Japanese field laborers packing cauliflower in field on large-scale ranch owned by L. E. Bailey, Centerville, 1942 During World War II, the major contribution of (Dorothea Lange, in collection of Bancroft Library, Washington Township to the war effort was University of California, Berkeley) supplying troops with food. Apricots, one of the leading crops of the township, were standard rations for American soldiers. The tile companies of Washington Township manufactured products for wartime supply. In Niles, California Pottery (demolished) made sewer pipes for septic tanks used in South Pacific airfields.39 Social organizations also assisted. The ladies of Washington Township Country Club, for example, filled medical support tasks during the war.40

The Japanese-American community was forcibly removed from Washington Township and sent to relocation camps following Executive Order 9066 in February 1942.41 Some of the most lasting images of the forced removal come from Centerville, where noted WPA photographer Dorothea Lange captured

older members of the community waiting for Older members of the Japanese community in buses to the camps. The Japanese-American Washington Township await relocation from Centerville, community returned to Washington Township 1942 (Dorothea Lange, in collection of Bancroft Library, after the war, where they were forced to University of California, Berkeley)

36 All rail lines canceled passenger service by 1941.Bendel, History of Washington Township, 30; Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 84. 37 Bendel, History of Washington Township, 29. 38 The new roads separated highway traffic from railroads and increased safety, but the result was a loss of direct traffic into Niles, leading to the decline of Niles’ commercial center in 1940s. Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 76. Basin Research Associates, “Kraftile Company: Historic Recordation Report,” 5; Philip Holmes, “Rose City and the International Kitchen,” (Tri-City Voice, September 24, 2004), Access online, . 39 Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 95. 40 Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 87. 41 Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 78

convert former Japanese language schools into hostels while searching for housing.42 They would also reestablish and grow commercial enterprises and religious organizations, including the Southern Alameda County Buddhist Church in Union City (32975 Alvarado-Niles Road).43

Postwar Development: Suburbia, Commerce, Industry, Incorporation, and Beyond Present-day Fremont is largely a postwar city. While the roots of its former towns date back to the mid-1800s, it did not develop on a grand scale until after World War II. Though not an immediate postwar boom town, the availability of land in the area and East Bay location eventually made it attractive to real estate developers and large, distinctly postwar housing developments were constructed quickly thereafter. In response to local needs and outside pressures, five of the eight towns of Washington Township incorporated to become Fremont in 1956. The city’s early leaders initiated planning strategies that would lead to further development in the second half of the postwar period, creating the city as it is known and recognized today. The following subsections provide a brief overview of Fremont between 1945 and 1970 and immediately after. Details on the relevant postwar themes are provided in the corresponding sections later in this document.

Suburban Growth Begins, 1945-51 For the isolated communities of Washington Township, “there was no immediate and dramatic postwar boom.”44 Real estate values, which had fluctuated throughout the 1920s, dropped dramatically in 1947. Orchards were not yielding high profits. Agricultural land was not productive because of issues with water supply. Town leaders with foresight saw that rapid transportation and industrial progress along the East Bay would lead to a rise in real estate values for residential development inland.45 By the early 1950s, Washington Township experienced the rapid growth of subdivisions of single-family homes.46 According to historian Woodruff Minor, “The unincorporated and relatively cheap farmland of Washington Township represented the new frontier of the expanding East Bay metropolis, beckoning builders as if to greener pastures.”47

By 1950, each town within Washington Township was a small urban center at the nucleus of residential growth that was expanding without zoning and careful oversight from the county government.48 The first conversations about incorporation took place as subdivision activity increased across Washington Township and local businesses became frustrated with the Alameda County Board of Supervisors who had jurisdiction over, but little informed regard for, local planning.49 In addition to concerns about planning, incorporation efforts were driven by a need to consolidate services, especially fire departments, and fears of annexation by neighboring cities.50

42 Corbett, “George’s Fruit Stand,” 29. 43 The community held religious services at Warm Springs Grammar School until 1947. Corbett, “George’s Fruit Stand,” 30. 44 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 17. 45 Bendel, History of Washington Township, 37. 46 Minor, “Historic Context of Glenmoor Gardens,” 5. 47 Minor, “Historic Context of Glenmoor Gardens,” 6. 48 Ronald Bartels, “The Incorporation of the City of Fremont, CA: An Experiment in Municipal Government” (B.A. thesis, Pomona College, 1956), 10. 49 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 21. 50 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 21 and 22.

Agriculture remained the most widespread industry, accounting for 23 percent of southern Alameda County’s annual wealth in the immediate postwar period.51 Poultry, nurseries, vegetables, dairies, fruit growers, and livestock remained dominant. Vineyards in the Warm Springs area thrived. The Weibel Winery, specializing in sparkling wines, was founded in 1946.52 Centerville was the vegetable shipping center for the whole central township.53 New canneries and packing companies opened in Niles.54 The Kimber Poultry Company expanded, and its new administration building constructed in 1956 became the first concrete tilt-up construction project in Washington Township.55

At the start of the 1950s, the traditional town centers with commercial shopping districts organized along a main street were in decline. The road patterns were poorly equipped to manage automobile traffic. Several main streets were congested with cars that detracted shoppers. Others were unable to attract shoppers because grade separations detoured drivers away from town centers, especially in Niles. The collection of shops in the traditional town centers inadequately addressed postwar consumers’ desires for large shopping centers with a variety of shops and ample parking. Town boosters and civic organizations recognized the decline of town centers, which had been the historic pattern of commercial development in Washington Township, and commissioned studies on approaches to modernize the commercial districts of Centerville, Irvington, Niles, and Mission San Jose.

Significant changes to the transportation network of the Bay Area began in the early postwar period, directly affecting Washington Township. Construction began on the East Shore Freeway (later Nimitz or Interstate 880) in 1946. In 1948, Alvarado-Irvington Highway No. 17 was widened and repaved.56 By 1951, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) laid out plans for a commuter light rail connection.57 Freight trains still operated throughout Washington Township, but automobile- centric thoroughfares connected the residents of the eight towns.

Push for Incorporation, 1951-1956 While acknowledging that “no precedent exists for the incorporation of so many separate units into a single city in one movement,”58 local chambers of commerce began to push for incorporation in 1951.59 In 1953, the greater Washington Township Chamber of Commerce, without the participation of Alvarado and Decoto, commissioned the Coro Foundation to conduct a Washington Township Incorporation Survey.60

51 Bartels, “The Incorporation of the City of Fremont,” 10; John Sandoval, A Century of Agriculture in the East Bay (Hayward: Hayward History Society, 1971), 7. 52 Holmes, Warm Springs, Fremont, 87. A fire destroyed much of the winery, but a store room and state historical marker still exist on its site. 53 Bartels, “The Incorporation of the City of Fremont,” 13. 54 Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 91; Holmes, Irvington, Fremont, 98. 55 The Kimber offices, located at 39700 Mission Boulevard, are now a school. Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 93; “History: Fowl Business” Tri-City Voice, March 31, 2010. Access online: http://www.tricityvoice.com/articlefiledisplay.php?issue=2010- 03-31&file=Poultry+History.txt. 56 Bendel, History of Washington Township, 30. 57 Sandoval, A Century of Transportation in the East Bay, 15. 58 Reimer, Washington Township Incorporation Survey, Conclusion. 59 “The role of the local chambers of commerce in the political life of the area cannot be overestimated.” Bartels, “The Incorporation of the City of Fremont,” 17; Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 22. 60 Bartels, “The Incorporation of the City of Fremont,” 23.

Washington Township in 1955 with proposed boundaries for the City of Fremont (City of Fremont, Department of City Planning)

By 1955, three reasons dominated the argument for incorporation of the towns of Washington Township into one incorporated city. The first reason, articulated in the Coro Foundation report, was the poor planning decisions made by Alameda County. The urgent need for effective planning was amplified as the completion of the Nimitz Freeway, begun in 1946, drew near, increasing anticipation of population growth.61 A second reason for incorporation was that the towns of Washington Township would benefit from an economy of scale for mutual services. As Washington Township, each unincorporated town provided resources on a small, inefficient scale.62 The third reason for incorporation was increasing fear of annexation by the City of Hayward. The pressure exerted by Hayward as it annexed subdivisions at its borders threatened

61 Future mayor Jack Stevenson reflected, “The one thing that was really needed, which was so obvious to everyone there, was to have control of our planning. We knew that if you have roads that come in and hit you, and which bring a lot of people into the area, you can really get fouled up badly, and very quickly, if there is no sense of planning.” Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 29. 62 Each town had its own fire department. Each town had its own school district, though one high school, Washington Union High School, served the entire township. Carruthers, Washington Township: A Pictorial History, Chapter 9.

to disrupt the tax base of the township.63 In 1955, an area called Hillview Crest, which included 2,400 acres of agricultural and industrial land, including three large factories, applied to be annexed into Hayward. Hillview Crest represented an eighth of Washington Township’s wealth. The potential loss of Hillview Crest was the moment of awakening for the urgent need to incorporate as a separate city.64

On January 10, 1956, the people of Centerville, Irvington, Mission San Jose, Niles, and Warm Springs voted to incorporate. Newark had decided to incorporate as its own city in 1955.65 Alvarado and Decoto incorporated as Union City in 1958.66 Due to conflicts with the postal service, the new city could not be called Washington. Leroy Broun, the secretary of the Centerville Chamber of Commerce, came up with the name Fremont for the new city because it was “Western, historic, nonduplicating.”67

Postcard showing community pool at Starlite Hills residential community, c. 1960s (Postcard image from Ebay)

63 Hayward was a “bankrupt city” with a tax base that could not keep pace with rising municipal costs so the City initiated an aggressive policy of annexation in the mid-1950s. In 1954, Hayward annexed 337 acres near Decoto. Developers planned to build 1,700 houses there and “The developers explained that Hayward could provide water, which the township could not, and an economically advantageous arrangement for connection with the City sewers.” Allen Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City (Dallas: Heritage Media Corporation, 2002), 20; Bartels, “The Incorporation of the City of Fremont,” 11. 64 Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 20. 65 Newark had a “Desire to remain separate from other township communities…generally conceded to be a feeling of ‘nationalism’ and an unwillingness to share its industries for tax purposes.” Bartels, “The Incorporation of the City of Fremont,” 48. 66 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 30. 67 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 169; Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 21.

Post-Incorporation, 1956- 1970 Unlike Washington Township, which was defined by railroads, the vast area within the boundaries of the new city of Fremont was defined by wide boulevards, highways, and the major interstate freeway. Automobile traffic was the primary mode of transportation and the matrix around which the city developed, influencing everything from the location of new industries to the proliferation of sound walls surrounding residential

developments constructed to Irvington Savings Bank on Fremont Boulevard from 1960s newspaper house highway commuters.68 The advertisment. Prominently sited commercial banks in Fremont were often designed in the International and Mid-Century Modern architectural city was an enormous 95.53 square styles (Image from clippings files of Fremont Public Library Local History miles, which at the time was the Collection) third largest city based on land area in California behind Los Angeles and San Diego.69 The need for zoning played an important role in motivating incorporation, and one of the first acts of the new city government was to hire a planning firm to draft a general plan. The resulting zoning of the new City of Fremont truly reflected the automobile-centric planning philosophies of the late 1950s and early 1960s.70

The increasing suburbanization of Fremont and the transition away from agriculture coincided with the completion of the Nimitz Freeway in 1957. At the same time, competition from the increasingly irrigated Central Valley reduced the

Community Center, opened in 1962 and designed by local architect Norman financial viability of farming in D. Hale of firm Hale and Jacobsohn (Image from clippings files of Fremont the East Bay area.71 These Public Library Local History Collection) changes were reflected in early city planning policies. The Preliminary General Plan for Fremont recommended that land

68 Wise Associates, “Preliminary General Plan for Fremont, California,” 19. 69 Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 20. 70 Centerville Committee, “Centerville Area Plan,” 3. 71 Corbett, “Rodrigues Farmhouse,” 2.

for agriculture be maintained in large, concentrated farms until it was “ripe for urban development.”72 Zoning and tax policies were implemented to preserve farmland, but residential development moved quickly regardless.

Small-scale subdivision activity peaked leading up to incorporation in 1956.73 After incorporation, zoning and tax policies, such as those in the new general plan, encouraged concentrated, large-scale development.74 New and existing subdivisions were expanded between 1956 and 1960.75 To encourage thoughtful growth that would not burden the city with infrastructure funding, the first city manager and council of Fremont passed a resolution applying a benefit theory to zoning decisions for new developments. Developers had to provide property for the city to make sure the streets would be wide enough to accommodate increasing traffic and services. The city was immediately sued over the requirements of the benefit theory and the resolution was overruled by a judge. Future city managers would continue to make attempts to minimize the financial burden of infrastructure for new developments on Fremont’s residents. They ultimately succeeded with a street improvement ordinance that set aside enough land for a street and highway network through the city.76

Map showing location of Mission Valley Homes development, emphasizing proximity to transportation networks (Fremont City Directory, 1969).

Along with the significant residential development after incorporation, new shopping and commercial centers emerged. They were typically located on major boulevards in close proximity to newly developed housing tracts. Like most postwar construction, the new commercial centers catered to drivers rather than pedestrians, with ample, prominently located parking.

72 Harold F. Wise Associates, “Preliminary General Plan for Fremont, California,” (1956), 22. 73 Minor, “Historic Context of Glenmoor Gardens,” 5. 74 Wise Associates, “Preliminary General Plan for Fremont, California,” 22. 75 Centerville Committee, “Centerville Area Plan,”6. 76 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 53.

Warm Springs, the least urban of the original five towns of Fremont at the time of incorporation, became a center of industrial growth beginning in the 1960s, as remaining farmland was converted to other uses. For example, the 411-acre General Motors plant opened in the area in 1961 (45500 Fremont Boulevard).77 The plant became the City’s largest employer and yielded the development of housing tracts for workers.78 Several industrial parks also developed in Warm Springs during the period.

The multiple towns that comprised Washington Township created a unique pattern of development for the new City of Fremont. Rather than growing from an existing central core, it formed from its outermost extremities inward.79 Many operational systems of the formerly separate towns remained in place for years following incorporation, but by 1964, the city had a unified school district, postal service, and fire 80 department. The culmination of City Hall, designed by Robert Mittelstadt and completed in incorporation was the construction of 1968. Demolished in 2004. (Robert Mittlelstadt Architecture, Fremont’s first Civic Center and Central Park, http://www.rmarch.net/Fremont/fremont.html) creating a unified center for the city more than a decade after incorporation. From 1956 to 1968, the old Mission San Jose grammar school (demolished) served as Fremont’s City Hall, but plans for the construction of a central Civic Center were underway by 1959.81 Land acquisition for the Civic Center and Central Park took nine years.82 Fremont held a national contest for a city hall design.83 The winner was Robert Mittelstadt, a recent Yale graduate.84 Construction of the Brutalist building began in 1967 and was completed in December 1968 (demolished in 2004). Landscape designs for Central Park were completed by the city’s own Recreation and Leisure Services Department.85 Lake Elizabeth, comprising eighty acres and the centerpiece of the park, opened in January 1969. It was named after Fremont’s sister city, Elizabeth, Australia.86 Other facilities in the park included the Irvington library (demolished), built in 1966 adjacent to the community center, which opened in 1962, and the Puerto Penasco Swim Lagoon (demolished), which opened in 1969.87

77 Holmes, Warm Springs, Fremont, 96. 78 Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 26. 79 Bartels, “The Incorporation of the City of Fremont,” 152. 80 Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 100); Carruthers, Washington Township: A Pictorial History, 142; Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 30. 81 Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 31. 82 Douglas A. Tinney, Life and Liberty at Lake Liz (Fremont, CA: Tinney, 2009), 5. 83 The sixty-six entries were judged by a panel of several prominent architects and scholars from around the United States: Pietro Bellushi, former dean of architecture at MIT, Paul Rudolph, former dean at Yale School of Architecture, architect John Merrill, of SOM, Lawrence Halprin, a San Francisco landscape architect, and Raymond Tucker, professor of urban government at Washington University. Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 93. 84 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 94. 85 Holmes, Irvington, Fremont, 108. 86 Tinney, Life and Liberty at Lake Liz, 8; Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 31. 87 Tinney, Life and Liberty at Lake Liz, 9; Holmes, Irvington, Fremont, 111.

After 1970 Development in Fremont continued throughout the 1970s. The long-planned BART station finally opened in Fremont on October 11, 1972.88 School enrollment peaked in 1972, and Fremont entered a period of reverse population growth as the baby boom era ended.89 However, residential development and subdivision activity continued, along with other significant changes. Older industrial and agricultural lands were converted into large scale subdivisions with central commercial districts and parks. John Brooks’ Singer Housing Company acquired the Patterson Ranch and began the development of a new city within the City at Ardenwood.90 The former Nike Missile site and Stanford Research Institute at Coyote Hills was converted to Coyote Hills Regional Park Interpretation Center.91 In 1972, construction began on the Ohlone College campus at the former Huddleson Ranch. The campus opened in 1974.92 Though most farms had disappeared by the late 1950s, agricultural product processing was still one of the largest industries in the south county in the 1970s.93 Industrial office parks emerged as sites of technological innovation in the 1970s, a trend that continues through the present with the numerous high tech companies headquartered in Fremont. The plans and policies developed in the late 1950s right after incorporation remained the operating principles for development in Fremont through the 1970s.

Ohlone College buildings, constructed in 1970s (GPA Consulting, 2015)

88 Kraftile, a company in Niles, produced the flooring material for thirteen BART stations. Basin Research Associates, “Kraftile Company: Historic Recordation Report,” 9; Sandoval, A Century of Transportation in the East Bay, 15. 89 Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 33. 90 Nolte, “John Brooks—major developer in Fremont, Co-founder of Raiders,” D7. 91 Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 114. 92 Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 30. 93 Sandoval, A Century of Agriculture in the East Bay, 7.

Themes, Associated Property Types, and Registration Requirements

Theme: Residential Development The 1940s and early 1950s were transformative times for residential development patterns in Washington Township. Before World War II, landowners platted small subdivisions, but relatively few homes were constructed on the empty parcels, which were sold to individuals to build on as they pleased. Following the war, landowners carved additional parcels out of their agricultural land near existing towns, mostly enlarging existing tracts.

The principles dictating the design of subdivisions in the Fremont area have their roots in regulations set by the Federal Housing Authority. The FHA published a series of informational pamphlets to help spread these ideas and to inform land developers and speculative builders of the economic advantages of good planning in the creation and maintenance of real estate values.94 In 1944, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, more commonly known as the GI Bill, authorized the Veteran’s Administration (VA) to oversee a package of benefits that included federally insured mortgages with no down payment and 30 years to maturity. Both the FHA and VA concentrated their investment on new houses in the suburbs. Moreover, the FHA developed specific guidelines that were set for qualifying houses including the price range between $6,000 and $8,000 and the size range between 800 and 1,000 square feet. In addition, the government also dictated a modest house style and form, furthering the emergence of the conservative Minimal Traditional style and Ranch styles (described under the Postwar Profile of Orchard Homes residential development (Architect and Engineer, January 1950) Architectural Styles Theme).95

The typical township developers of the late 1940s and early 1950s were not large-scale builders; they sold empty lots to individuals or to builders who constructed less than twenty houses on speculation. The first postwar subdivision in Washington Township was in Niles. It was an extension

94 Excerpted almost directly from HRG, Cultural Resources of the Recent Past, City of Pasadena, p. 28. 95 Excerpted almost directly from San Diego Modernism Historic Context Statement, p. 38.

of a tract initially subdivided by Joseph Shinn in 1935 and then expanded in 1945.96 Other tracts, including the Orchard Homes Tract in Niles and the Hansen Tract in Centerville, followed this postwar pattern of expanding previously undeveloped subdivisions.97 The Hansen Tract was the largest residential subdivision prior to the 1950s and encompassed 105 lots by 1947.98 Prewar patterns of small residential tracts slowly expanding evolved into larger scale residential developments in the early 1950s.

The pattern of development changed dramatically in the early 1950s. Developers such as John Brooks’ Besco Company and James R. Meyer’s Glenmoor Homes took over the entire process of subdividing former agricultural land, constructing and selling houses on a massive scale.99 The Glenmoor subdivision, constructed by Glenmoor Homes Incorporated beginning in 1951, had 1,624 homes, more than ten times the size of the Hansen Tract.100 Washington Township was a prime location for developers constructing middle class homes within commuting distance of the Bay Area’s growing industrial and commercial employment opportunities.

Typical ranch house subdivision, Westwood Avenue in Typical ranch house subdivision in Mission San Jose area, Glenmoor Gardens neighborhood (GPA Consulting, 2015) LeMarc Street house built in 1953 (GPA Consulting, 2015) Subdivision activity on a massive scale would expand, peaking in 1956. Roy Dean, a resident of Mission San Jose, noted that developers, “…seemed like they had no regard for the aesthetics of the city or of what people wanted.”101 Longtime and new residents recognized that more attention to planning and zoning was needed to control developments expanding across the township, sparking their desire to incorporate Fremont as its own city.

After incorporation, existing subdivisions were expanded and new developments took over swaths of former agricultural land. The existing subdivisions of Glenmoor and Cabrillo were expanded between 1956 and 1960. Centerville was a hub of development activity, with new

96 Minor, “Historic Context of Glenmoor Gardens,” 7. 97 Orchard Homes was originally platted in 1941 and then expanded in 1947. The Hansen Tract was originally platted in 1926 and expanded in 1947. Minor, “Historic Context of Glenmoor Gardens,” 7; Woodruff Minor, et. al, “Kvistad Homes Inc. Tract House, 3673 Kvistad Drive: Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record and Building, Structure and Object Record,” (July 2009), 3; Minor, “Domingos Silva House,” 3. 98 Minor, “Domingos Silva House,” 3. 99 John Brooks was a large scale developer who began selling Washington Township homes in the early 1950s and would go on to lead Besco and Singer Housing Company, building one of every four houses in Fremont. Carl Nolte, “John Brooks—major developer in Fremont, Co-founder of Raiders,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 24, 2015: D7. 100 Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 88. 101 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 23.

residential neighborhoods planned by developers, including Parkmont (after 1960) and Brookvale (1966-1970), emerging in the northeast areas.102 Typical resources representing residential development are single-family housing tracts from the 1950s and 1960s.

Associated Property Types Fremont is largely a postwar, suburban city comprised of large single-family housing tracts. Thus, the most common property type associated with this theme is the single-family residential housing tract. Multi-family developments, such as garden apartments and bungalow courts, appear to be few and far between, as developers in the areas clearly focused on tracts of single-family homes. The tracts usually feature Ranch or Minimal Traditional style buildings, one to two stories in height. Street features, such as setbacks, sidewalks, driveways, and trees, vary significantly from tract to tract.

Registration Requirements The property type that will be best able to represent the significant trends of residential development in Fremont’s postwar period is the single-family housing tract. Tracts would be evaluated as historic districts, rather than evaluating each house individually. It is very unlikely that an individual tract house would be able to represent the larger trends on its own, as a standalone resource, and they should not be evaluated as such. Only tracts with demonstrated significance and integrity are eligible for designation. Significant tracts may include: those developed early in the city’s postwar history, those that represent specific city planning efforts, and those as representative examples of the work of important developers.

Property Type Significance: A district evaluated under this theme may be considered significant if it is an important example of a single-family housing tract directly related to the postwar residential development of Fremont or if it represents the work of an important developer. In many cases, if a district is significant under this theme, it may also be significant under the architecture themes of Ranch or Minimal Traditional.

Period of Significance: 1945 -1970

Period of Significance Justification: Tracts developed prior to incorporation in 1956 would be able to convey the city’s pre-incorporation development, while those after 1956 would represent the more regulated development following the creation of city government and implementation of local planning policies. Important developers may have worked in the city at any time during the postwar period.

Geographic Location: Citywide, in areas of single-family residential zoning. Earliest examples will be located in Niles, Centerville, and Irvington.

Area(s) of Significance: Postwar residential development

102 Centerville Committee, “Centerville Area Plan,”6.

Criteria: National: A/B California: 1/2 Local: 1/2103

Associated Property Types: Single-family housing tracts (districts)

Property Type Description: Single-family housing tracts are neighborhoods of detached residences developed over a short period of time by a single developer. Postwar tracts usually exhibit a few different house plans and styles which repeat throughout. Setbacks, streets, sidewalks, driveways, streetlights, and street plantings are typically uniform throughout. Street patterns are often curvilinear with narrower streets bisected by wider main boulevards. Many streets dead-end into cul-de-sacs. Earlier tracts will likely be smaller and have more traditional street grids than later tracts.

Eligibility Standards: • Has a direct and significant relationship to postwar residential development and/or represents the work of a significant developer

• Was constructed during the period of significance

• Simply being a postwar tract is not enough to justify significance. An eligible tract must have been important in the overall residential development of the city. Examples might include very early tracts or ones that set precedents.

Character Defining / Associative Features: • Clearly defined tract boundaries

• Made up of single-family residences constructed within a distinct period of time, usually by a single developer, but not always

• Houses designed in popular styles of the period

• Uniform setbacks and lot plans (driveways, attached or detached garages)

• Uniform street pattern

• Often will have uniform street plantings (trees, medians, planting strips between sidewalks and streets), streetlights, curbs, and sidewalks (or deliberate lack of sidewalks)

Integrity Considerations: • Tract as a whole should retain integrity of Location, Setting, Design, Feeling, and Association from its period of significance

• Must be composed of a majority of contributing resources (more contributors than non- contributors)

• Contributors would include all buildings and street features that both date from the period of significance and retain sufficient integrity

103 Housing tracts may also be significant under Criterion C/3/3. Details on what would make a tract significant under Criterion c/3/3 are provided in the Postwar Architectural Styles Theme.

• For contributors to retain sufficient integrity, they should retain integrity of Location, Setting, Design, Feeling, and Association from the district’s period of significance

• Contributors’ integrity of Materials and Workmanship may be compromised somewhat by limited materials replacement, though on the whole the original materials and workmanship must remain intact

o Replacement of some windows and doors may be acceptable if the openings have not been resized and original fenestration patterns have not been disrupted

o Replacement of cladding material may be acceptable if the new materials are compatible with the rest of the district and if they would have been used during the period of significance (see the Postwar Architectural Styles Theme for more information)

• If a tract is a rare surviving example of its type and/or period, a greater degree of alterations that have already occurred may be acceptable, when evaluating the resource’s integrity.104

The following table was compiled during research for this context statement and contains information about active firms, people, and residential developments from the postwar period in Fremont. This table is intended to be a foundation, but is by no means a comprehensive list of all firms, people, and places involved with postwar residential development in the Fremont area. It is provided for informational, future research purposes only. Several of these firms were also involved in other types of postwar development that are not listed in the table, including commercial shopping centers, industrial buildings, and institutional facilities.

Table of Fremont Postwar Developers Associated Development Firm Name Developers, Years Active Postwar Residential Developments or Tracts Postwar Period* Barlow Unknown 1960s • Build-your-own home developments in Paramont and Warm Springs Besco and Singer Housing John “Jack” 1954-1980s • From offices at 390 Thornton Avenue in Company Brooks Centerville, the company was responsible for constructing 25% of the homes in Fremont. Developments include: o Arden Forest-New Town o Brookvale o Cabrillo Park (partial) o Mission View o Northgate o Rancho Coronado o Sundale Bodily Construction Dan Bodily 1943-1970s • Centerville, unknown tract name, first building Company project started in 1943 • Orchard Homes tract: Tract of speculative homes designed by Herbert T. Johnson in 1950. An extension of Ellsworth's 1941 tract. • Niles Crest: Extension of Orchard Homes tract

104 A greater degree of alterations may be present and yet the resource may still be considered eligible when it is initially evaluated. This statement is not related to future alterations proposed for a historic property. In other words, it does not mean that a rare example of an important property type may be allowed to be more altered in the future than other examples; it means that it may still be eligible at the time of its evaluation, despite some of its previous alterations. Future projects proposed for such resources should strive to restore as much historic fabric as possible.

Table of Fremont Postwar Developers Associated Development Firm Name Developers, Years Active Postwar Residential Developments or Tracts Postwar Period* which was originally subdivided in 1949. Niles Crest contained 50 lots, constructed. • Valley Sierra: Contained 100 lots, located next to California Nursery in Niles, purchased land from Joseph Shinn's widow, begun in 1954. • Parkmont: Between Niles and Centerville. Designed by Hale and Jacobsohn architects. First townhouse-type apartments constructed in Fremont. Brad-Rick Homes Unknown 1964 • Way Out West Ellsworth family Edward Ellsworth 1940s • Orchard Homes tract: Ellsworth family platted in 1941 and expanded it in 1947. In 1949, Dan Bodily built a speculative tract with the name Orchard Homes. • Ellsworth Tract • Niles Glen Tract • Overacker Tract in Centerville FJ Leonardo & Sons Frank J. Leonardo 1950s • Cabrillo Park: Leonardo was developer and John “Jack” owner of builder Best-Bilt Construction Brooks Company. Built at least 425 of 1,700 homes in Cabrillo Park. Jack Brooks worked for the company through 1953. Glenmoor Homes, Inc./ James R. Meyer 1950-1960s • Glenmoor Gardens contained 1,624 houses. Glenmoor Companies Originally, the firm was based in San Leandro, but moved to Centerville in 1952 and changed its name to Glenmoor Companies. KP Suhnel KP Suhnel 1940s • Mt. Vernon Avenue was developed by this smaller scale developer based in Centerville. Mt. Vernon was 16 houses. • Suhnel Tract of 1946 was the second post- World War II subdivision in the Centerville area. Kvistad Homes David Kvistad and • Small-scale builder-developers throughout Robert C. Dickey Fremont area, Kvistad Drive one of its developments. Lincoln Lumber Company Richard H. Lincoln 1950-1954 • Tract name unknown: Sixty houses at the north edge of Centerville near Peralta, near the 1920 Overacker Tract, constructed between1950- 1951. • Tract name unknown: 300 houses and a shopping center, the first postwar tract in Mission San Jose, constructed between 1952- 1954. Mason Enterprises Unknown • Friendly Woods in Warm Springs McGah & Cramer Unknown c. 1965 • Thornton Meadows Oliver Rousseau Oliver Rousseau 1960s-1970 • Mission Valley Homes • Pepperwood Otto Hirsch Otto Hirsch 1947-1956 • A family of early settlers who subdivided sections of a dairy farm in Irvington beginning in 1947. • Mission Ranch and the Hirsch tract: Homes built by JH Holland. Mission Ranch was the last subdivision before the city incorporated in 1956. Peter Hygelund Peter Hygelund 1948 • Peter Hygelund constructed homes in the Hansen Tract, a tract in Centerville. He expanded the tract by two streets in 1948.

Table of Fremont Postwar Developers Associated Development Firm Name Developers, Years Active Postwar Residential Developments or Tracts Postwar Period* Shinn Family Shinn Family 1930s-1950s • A family of early settlers who subdivided large land holdings over generations. • Tract 508: Extended west along Niles Boulevard from E Street to D Street, one of the earliest developers in Niles. • Tract 623 of 1949: Extended west along Niles Boulevard from D Street to the vicinity of Hillview Drive and the California Nursery. Block C contained a row of 10 lots on the north side of First Street, or Main Street (Niles Boulevard). Smith-Peters, Inc. George O. Smith 1950-1952 • Development name unknown, but was located in Centerville. Smith-Peters built 165 houses across four blocks on Thornton and Blacow. Stanley Davis Stanley Davis 1930s-1960s • Davis was an insurance broker in East Bay who began working in development around 1930. • Westward Homes was begun in 1952. • Development around Central Park (including streets directly south of the park). Part of Civic Center constructed on this land. Also developed in Irvington. Starlite Homes Unknown 1962-1967 • Starlite Hills Development Stevenson family E. Maxwell 1947-1950s • Tract 783: First post-World War II subdivision in Stevenson and Irvington, and third postwar subdivision in Jack Stevenson Fremont area. Homes built by JH Holland between 1947-1949 • Stevenson Gardens: Development west of Grimmer Boulevard began in 1953. Unknown A.L. Brandon • Peralta Village Unknown Unknown • Canyon Heights Unknown Unknown • Lindsay Gardens Unknown Unknown • Rancho Arroyo Subdivision *Only includes individuals associated with the firm during the postwar period.

Theme: Business and Commerce

Subtheme: Retail and Entertainment Washington Township after World War II was a region of connected small towns, each with its own commercial buildings and social centers. Movie theaters, skating rinks, and bowling alleys were the centers of town life. Fremont had many bowling alleys, in fact. One extant example, the Cloverleaf Bowl in Irvington, was constructed in 1959 and expanded in 1963 and 1974.105 Elsewhere in the city, Fremont and Peralta Boulevards through Centerville had a “Restaurant Row” with large restaurants and cocktail lounges.106 Centerville was the largest commercial center at the time of incorporation.107 International Kitchen logo from matchbook, c. 1960s (http://www.ebay.com/itm/International- After incorporation, new forms of suburban Kitchen-1065-Fremont-Niles-CA-Alameda-County- commercial development in Fremont boomed as Matchcover-070315-/351453512392) residents and consumers poured into the city. The preliminary general plan recommended the quick development of a completely new and central community shopping district for the city.108 The plan recommended the selection of an undeveloped core area, preferably in the vicinity of Fremont Boulevard and Mowry Avenue. This would become the Fremont Hub, planned by the Hapsmith Company in 1956 and opened in

Fremont Hub Shopping Center, advertisement (left, Fremont City Directory, 1969) and as remodeled (right, GPA Consulting, 2015)

1961.109 The Fremont Hub, an open-air pedestrian mall, provided a model for future commercial shopping centers in the city. The selected site supposedly avoided competition with the established commercial centers of Centerville, Irvington, Niles, and Mission San Jose.110 However,

105 40645 Fremont Blvd in Irvington. Holmes, Irvington, Fremont, 104. 106 Weibel Vineyards, a popular sparkling brand, built a hacienda-style tasting room, but it was primarily for tourists. Holmes, Warm Springs, Fremont, 88; Holmes, “Rose City and the International Kitchen.” 107 Reimer, Washington Township Incorporation Survey, 3. 108 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 57; Wise Associates, “Preliminary General Plan for Fremont, California,” 16. 109 Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 122. 110 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 57.

over the next fourteen years, competition from new shopping centers, including the Fremont Hub, “undermined the economic viability of the historical centers of Washington Township.”111

Community shopping centers typically consisted of a junior department store, a branch bank, grocery stores, restaurants, clothing shops, and similar retail and personal service establishments to serve the weekly convenience-shopping needs of a community of people. The centers were accessible from major thoroughfares without interfering with through-traffic circulation. Large areas of parking were located at the perimeter.112 Though surrounded by parking, walkways within the shopping centers connected shops, creating pedestrian-only areas. Centers were often named after the nearby residential developments they served, such as the Brookvale, Glenmoor, and Cabrillo shopping centers. These types of comprehensively planned shopping centers were the commercial centers of Fremont through the 1970s.

Associated Property Types Extant associated property types observed during the fieldwork for this project include strip malls, shopping centers, restaurants, bowling alleys, and storefront buildings constructed as infill within older commercial districts. They are typically low-rise buildings, one to two stories tall. Styles, details, and construction materials vary widely. The buildings constructed as shopping centers or along major boulevards have large parking lots, designed to accommodate the automobile. Those constructed within the older commercial districts of the original five towns sometimes have small associated parking lots, but not always. Some of the buildings and centers have original, freestanding signs in their parking lots.

Subtheme: Office Buildings Office buildings were not a prominent feature of the postwar commercial landscape of Fremont, though a number of examples exist. Many of the Advertisement for Brookvale Center, opened in 1970 (Progress Edition, special section of The Argus, no date). city’s residents either commuted elsewhere to work or were employed in the city’s industrial sector, so there was not a great demand for office space, especially prior to incorporation. Locally-oriented businesses, such as local banks, newspapers, and medical offices, were the exception. Two newspapers serving the township, the Centerville News and Township Register, for example,

111 Niles commercial had been in decline since the 1940s, following the Mission Boulevard Bypass project. Basin Research Associates, “Kraftile Company: Historic Recordation Report,” 5; Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 27. 112 Wise Associates, “Preliminary General Plan for Fremont, California,” 16.

merged in 1954 and moved to a small office building at 3684 Peralta Boulevard in Centerville.113 Centerville was also home to the Southern Alameda County Office Building (2550 Peralta Boulevard, completed in 1948).114 A private airport, Center Field Airport, was located on eighty acres at Blacow and Mowry between 1945 and 1961 (demolished).115 In 1956 the Oakland Aviation Center for Federal Aviation Administration opened an office building (5125 Central Avenue).116 After incorporation, office buildings were increasingly constructed, and replaced former manufacturing facilities.

The office buildings from the period were often constructed as individual infill projects within or adjacent to the older commercial centers of the former small towns. They were also constructed as isolated developments along major boulevards newly zoned as commercial after incorporation. Bank buildings were often located on the same parcels as shopping centers, but constructed as stand-alone buildings with their own architectural styles, rather than connected to the larger commercial strips of the centers. In the 1970s and later, office parks developed in the southeast area of the city, but these all postdate the period of study for this project.

Associated Property Types

Extant associated property types observed during the fieldwork for this project include low-rise office buildings. Most range from one to two stories, though a few examples as tall as four stories exist, as well. Styles, details, and construction materials vary widely. Most are simple in terms of plan and design, exhibiting basic references to Mid-Century Modern, New Formalism, and the International Style. Office buildings tended to house locally oriented businesses, such as doctors, dentists, newspapers, insurance agencies, banks, and the like. The bank offices typically exhibit the most fully developed architectural designs.

Subtheme: Auto-Related As a postwar city, Fremont was planned with particular consideration for the automobile, especially after incorporation. In addition to I-880, the city has wide, long boulevards to provide local connectivity. Businesses and shopping centers were designed with ample, prominently located parking lots and tall, freestanding signs to attract passersby. The automobile industry was not just an inspiration for planning decisions in the city; it was also a major employer with the opening of the General Motors plant in 1961.

Associated Property Types

Given the city’s auto-centric planning and economy, one would expect to find a large number of auto-related resources; however, not many resources from the period appear to exist. There are a limited number of extant car washes, freestanding signs, and drive-up/roadside restaurants, based on the fieldwork for this project. The Pacific Car Wash located at 41080 Trimboli Way appears to date from the period, for example. There may be service stations and auto dealerships, as well, but none were observed. The extant auto-related properties are usually located along commercial streets, though not necessarily along the major commercial

113 Located at 3684 Peralta Blvd. Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 95. 114 Southern Alameda County Office Building was located at 2550 Peralta Blvd., Fremont, California. It is now the New Horizons School. Reimer, Washington Township Incorporation Survey, 3. 115 Bendel, History of Washington Township, 110; Paul Freeman, “Abandoned and Little Known Airfields: California- San Jose Area” Airfields, Accessed September 2015, http://www.airfields- freeman.com/CA/Airfields_CA_SanJose.htm#centerville. 116 Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 8.

boulevards. They are simple and utilitarian in terms of plan and style, exhibiting common details and materials from the period, such as low-pitched shed roofs, stucco, wood siding, large panes of glass, and stone, brick, or lava rock as accent materials.

Registration Requirements The property types with the potential to represent the significant trends in business and commerce include shopping centers, strip malls, bowling alleys and other commercial entertainment venues, stand-alone retail and restaurant buildings, office buildings, banks, car washes, drive-up/roadside restaurants, and signs. Only properties with demonstrated significance and integrity are eligible for designation. Groupings of commercial buildings, such as those found in shopping centers or along a commercial corridor, may be significant collectively and constitute a historic district. Commercial buildings may also be significant individually. Significant buildings, signs, and districts may include: those developed early in the city’s postwar history, those that represent specific city planning efforts, and those that were the primary place of business for an important business or for a person significant within the business and commerce theme.

Property Type Significance: A building, sign, or district evaluated under this theme may be considered significant if it is importantly and directly related to postwar commerce in Fremont or if it was the location of an important business. It may also be significant under this theme if it was the primary place of work for an individual who was significant within the theme of business and commerce. In many cases, if a resource is significant under this theme, it may also be significant under one of the postwar architecture themes.

Period of Significance: 1945 -1970

Period of Significance Justification: Commercial resources developed prior to incorporation in 1956 would be able to convey the city’s pre-incorporation development, while those after 1956 would represent the more regulated development following the creation of city government and implementation of local planning policies. Important business may have developed at any time during the postwar period. Likewise, important businesspersons may have worked in the city at any time during the postwar period.

Geographic Location: Citywide, in or near the downtown commercial centers of the five original towns and along commercial corridors and major boulevards

Area(s) of Significance: Postwar business and commerce

Criteria: National: A/B California: 1/2 Local: 1/2

Associated Property Types: Shopping centers, strip malls, bowling alleys and other commercial entertainment venues, stand-alone retail and restaurant buildings, office buildings, banks, car washes, drive-up/roadside restaurants, signs, and districts composed of these property types

Property Type Description: Commercial resources from the period are largely one to two stories tall, though a few taller examples exist. Some are large centers with multiple businesses; others are stand-alone buildings built for one particular business. Most are simple in terms of plan and architectural design. They exhibit elements of the popular commercial styles of the day, such as Late Moderne, Mid-Century Modern, New Formalism, Googie, and International Style (see Postwar Architecture Styles Theme for information on each style). Common materials include stucco, wood, large plate glass windows, brick, stone, tile, and lava rock.

Eligibility Standards: • Has a direct and significant relationship to postwar commercial development; and/or was the primary location of an important business; and/or was the primary place of work of an individual important within the theme of business and commerce

• Was constructed during the period of significance

• Simply being a postwar commercial resource is not enough to justify significance. An eligible resource must have been important in the overall business and commercial development of the city. Examples might include resources related to very early businesses, pioneering businesses, and businesses particularly important to the local economy.

Character Defining / Associative Features: • Constructed in one of the popular architectural styles for commercial buildings of the period or may have a utilitarian design without many architectural details

• Features typical of commercial design, such as large display windows and signage

• In or adjacent to original town centers, often constructed right up to the sidewalk with no setback

• In later, more suburban areas, large, prominently located parking lots

Integrity Considerations: • Eligible resources should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association from their period of significance

o Setting may be compromised by nearby construction that post-dates the period of significance

o The majority of the resource's original materials and design features must remain intact and visible, including wall cladding, windows, fenestration pattern, roof features, and details related to its architectural style

o Limited door and window replacements may be acceptable if they are located on secondary elevations, do not change the original fenestration pattern, and are compatible with the original design of the resource

• If a resource is a rare surviving example of its type and/or period, a greater degree of alterations that have already occurred may be acceptable.117

117 A greater degree of alterations may be present and yet the resource may still be considered eligible when it is initially evaluated. This statement is not related to future alterations proposed for a historic property. In other words, it does not mean that a rare example of an important property type may be allowed to be more altered in the future than other examples; it means that it may still be eligible at the time of its evaluation, despite some of its previous alterations. Future projects proposed for such resources should strive to restore as much historic fabric as possible.

Theme: Industry Industrial development in the immediate postwar period was scattered across Washington Township and catered to the construction and defense industries. Gravel and aggregate companies, in demand to supply massive highway construction projects throughout the United States, dug new quarries across the township.118 By 1953, five different lumber companies supplied building materials for the construction of new housing.119 As part of the Cold War defense industry, a Nike Missile site was built in the northwest section of the future city at Coyote Hills.120

Aerial view of General Motors Corporation automotive After incorporation, industry in Fremont assembly plant under construction, 1962 (Sourisseau geographically shifted from Niles and Academy for State and Local History) Centerville to zones concentrated in the southeast sections of the city that had been specially designated for industrial development.121 In Centerville, office buildings replaced former manufacturing industries.122 Planners designated industrial zones in southeast areas that were served by two railroads, Southern Pacific and Western Pacific, and the Nimitz Freeway.123 The railroads and freeway served as desirable “buffers between the industrial area, with its heavy truck traffic and other disturbing features, and the living areas of the city.”124

Large areas of perpetually vacant land, marshes, and areas formerly used for agriculture created opportunities for large General Motors Corporation automotive assembly plant factories and industrial office parks. Near building, 1965 (Sourisseau Academy for State and Local Warm Springs, 2,500 acres were zoned for History) future industrial development.125 The large tracts were not suitable for other development because the locations were too far from other residential areas or the soil quality was too poor for agriculture. Planners recognized the unusual

118 Bendel, History of Washington Township, 28; Holmes, Irvington, Fremont, 95. 119 The lumber companies were: PC Hansen, Newark Lumber Company, Newark Mill and Lumber Company, Colma Mill and Lumber Company, and Warm Springs Lumber Company. Bendel, History of Washington Township, 37. 120 Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 114. 121 Wise Associates, “Preliminary General Plan for Fremont, California,” 20; Centerville Committee, “Centerville Area Plan,” 9. 122 Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 8. 123 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 56. 124 Wise Associates, “Preliminary General Plan for Fremont, California,” 20. 125 Harold F. Wise Associates, “Industrial District Plan for Fremont, CA,” (1958), 1.

opportunity in Fremont “to encourage the establishment of integrated industrial ‘parks’—in place of scattered, haphazard development.”126 The General Motors plant (now the Tesla factory) was the most significant industrial development in Fremont during the midcentury period. The 411-acre plant opened in Warm Springs in 1964.127 The plant became the city’s largest employer, initially employing 4,150 people.128

Associated Property Types

Property types associated with the theme of industry include individual industrial facilities and industrial parks. The individual facilities were typically constructed by a particular business for the production, refinement, and/or packaging of goods. They range in size from small, singular buildings to larger campuses of multiple buildings. The smaller facilities often have administrative offices integrated within the building; the larger facilities may have an entire building dedicated to administration. Most are located in the areas zoned industrial after incorporation, though some may exist in non-industrial zones, if they predate the comprehensive planning efforts of the late 1950s and early 1960s. They are often utilitarian in plan, design, and materials, but some exhibit elements of the International Style and Mid-Century Modern.

From research and fieldwork, it appears that most of the industrial parks post-date the period of study for this project; however, early examples from the 1960s may exist. They were planned and developed similarly to residential housing tracts: developers laid out and constructed groups of industrial buildings on spec and then leased or sold them to businesses. Simple plans and the use of concrete, steel, and curtain walls with references to the International Style are common. The parks are located in areas zoned industrial after incorporation, particularly in the Warm Springs area.

Registration Requirements The property types with the potential to represent the significant trends in industry include industrial buildings constructed for important local businesses. Since most, if not all, of the industrial parks post-date the period of study for this project and since many were built on spec, it is unlikely that they would be eligible for designation at this time, though the property type may require study in the future. Only properties with demonstrated significance and integrity are eligible for designation. A grouping of industrial buildings located along an industrial corridor or a campus of buildings constructed for a particular important business may be significant collectively and constitute a historic district. Industrial buildings may also be significant individually. Significant industrial resources may include: those developed early in the city’s postwar history, those that housed an important industrial business, and those that were the primary place of work for a person significant within the industry theme.

Property Type Significance: A building or district evaluated under this theme may be considered significant if it is importantly and directly related to postwar industry in Fremont or if it was the location of an important industrial business. It may also be significant under this theme if it was the primary place of work for an individual who was significant

126 Wise Associates, “Preliminary General Plan for Fremont, California,” 20. 127 “Fremont’s Giant GM Plant Formally Opens,” San Jose Mercury, March 18, 1964: 17; Holmes, Warm Springs, Fremont, 96. 128 Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 26; “Chevrolet-Fisher Body Fremont Fact Sheet,” September 19, 1961, located in Fremont Library local history archives.

within the theme of industry. In some cases, if a resource is significant under this theme, it may also be significant under one of the postwar architecture themes.

Period of Significance: 1945 -1970

Period of Significance Justification: Industrial resources developed prior to incorporation in 1956 would be able to convey the city’s pre-incorporation development, while those after 1956 would represent the more regulated development following the creation of city government and implementation of local planning policies. Important industrial companies may have developed at any time during the postwar period. Likewise, important persons may have worked in the city at any time during the postwar period.

Geographic Location: In the southern parts of the city with industrial zoning, such as Warm Springs; older industrial resources near the original downtowns and along the railroad tracks

Area(s) of Significance: Postwar industry

Criteria: National: A/B California: 1/2 Local: 1/2

Associated Property Types: Individual industrial buildings and districts composed of multiple industrial buildings, such as within campuses or along corridors

Property Type Description: Industrial resources from the period are largely one to two stories tall. Many are high-bay buildings. Most are simple and utilitarian in terms of plan and architectural design. Some exhibit elements of the popular industrial styles of the day, such as Mid-Century Modern and International Style. Common materials include concrete, steel, stucco, large plate glass windows, and brick.

Eligibility Standards: • Has a direct and significant relationship to postwar industrial development; and/or was the primary location of an important industrial business; and/or was the primary place of work of an individual important within the theme of industry

• Was constructed during the period of significance

• Simply being a postwar industrial resource is not enough to justify significance. An eligible resource must have been important in the overall industrial development of the city or within its larger respective industry. Examples might include resources related to very early industries, leaders within their respective fields, and industrial companies particularly important to the local economy, such as major employers.

Character Defining / Associative Features: • Utilitarian plan and materials

o May exhibit elements of the popular architectural styles for industrial buildings of the period

• Features typical of industrial design, such as loading docks, large roll-up doors, and exposed structure and materials

Integrity Considerations: • Eligible resources should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association from their period of significance

o Setting may be compromised by nearby construction that post-dates the period of significance

o The majority of the resource's original materials and design features must remain intact and visible, including wall cladding, windows, fenestration pattern, roof features, and details related to its architectural style

o Limited door and window replacements may be acceptable if they are located on secondary elevations, do not change the original fenestration pattern, and are compatible with the original design of the resource

• If a resource is a rare surviving example of its type and/or period, a greater degree of alterations that have already occurred may be acceptable. 129

129 A greater degree of alterations may be present and yet the resource may still be considered eligible when it is initially evaluated. This statement is not related to future alterations proposed for a historic property. In other words, it does not mean that a rare example of an important property type may be allowed to be more altered in the future than other examples; it means that it may still be eligible at the time of its evaluation, despite some of its previous alterations. Future projects proposed for such resources should strive to restore as much historic fabric as possible.

Theme: Institutional Development The centers of institutional and social life in Fremont from the end of World War II to 1970 were typical for a city of the period and included schools, social organizations, and churches. The city’s Portuguese and Japanese communities created many of the social organizations, which included clubs and language schools. The city also welcomed its own hospital during this era, an important local development.

Subtheme: Schools Individual towns managed their own public schools in Fremont until 1964, even in the years after incorporation. After World War II, construction of schools struggled to keep pace with growing school-age populations in the expanding residential developments of the city. Enrollment in schools increased exponentially. In the fall of 1949, 3,675 students registered, an increase of 1,100 students from the previous year.130 Districts applied for funding based on the number of homes in their jurisdiction.131 At a minimum, a foundation had to exist for a house

to count towards funding calculations, and “It Mattos Elementary School, 1960 (GPA Consulting, 2015) was not uncommon for superintendents to spend their Saturdays counting foundations!”132 The school districts of Centerville, Mission San Jose, and Irvington all opened new schools between 1952 and 1955.133 Forty-five new public schools opened in Fremont between 1950 and 1979.134 During the mid-1960s, student enrollment increased by about 1,000 per year; one third of Fremont’s 90,000 residents were enrolled in school.135

Fremont Unified School District formed in 1964 following state legislation to encourage unification. 136 Irvington and Mission San Jose merged their school districts earlier, in 1959. In the early 1960s, the state of California provided incentives to eliminate small districts by providing

Irvington High School, 1960 (GPA Consulting, 2015)

130 Bendel, History of Washington Township, 35. 131 Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 32. 132 Philip Holmes and Dolores Rose. Reflections: The Educational Heritage of Fremont. Fremont: Fremont Unified School District, 1983. 133 Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 32. 134 Minor, “Historic Context of Glenmoor Gardens,” 6. 135 Holmes, Reflections: The Educational Heritage of Fremont. 136 Holmes, Irvington, Fremont, 7.

additional state funding for the first five years after unification. This appealed to districts with tax rates that were increasing to provide for rapidly growing enrollments. Centerville, with lower tax rates, and Warm Springs with a large tax base provided by the General Motors plant, felt removed from the anxiety about taxes.137 Fremont Unified School District formed in 1964 and comprised forty-eight schools by 1975.138 Each new grammar school had an associated playground and associated park called a neighborhood park.139

A junior college district was established around the same time as the formation of the unified school district. In 1967, the junior college was named Ohlone College and began leasing space at the Serra Center for Girls from the Dominican Sisters, which had closed in August 1967.140

Private schools, including Washington College, Curtner Seminary, Anderson Academy, operated in various buildings throughout the Fremont area beginning the nineteenth century; however most were no longer in operation by the postwar era. Private religious schools were often constructed on church campuses. The California School for the Blind and California School for the Deaf both moved to Fremont in 1980, outside of the period of significance for this study.

Associated Property Types

Property types associated with the subtheme of schools include individual school buildings and larger school campuses composed of numerous buildings and related features, like playgrounds and stadiums. Fremont has both public and private school buildings. While most, if not all of the public schools were built expressly as schools, some of the private schools currently occupy buildings which were originally used for other purposes. Fremont’s smaller schools are located in residential neighborhoods. Its larger campuses are often located on major boulevards on the perimeters of residential areas. Many of the schools are adjacent to community parks. Mid- Century Modern is the dominant architectural style for schools in Fremont, though some other styles exist. Common materials and features include stone, block, and brick masonry, stucco, synthetic wall panel systems, wood post and beam structures, gabled and flat roofs, large plate glass windows, clerestories, and covered outdoor walkways. Site planning was often more important than architectural details in the design of schools.

Subtheme: Churches During the postwar period, many existing organizations expanded their facilities or commissioned new buildings to accommodate the larger population of the region. Churches expanded to larger campuses with prominent main buildings and ancillary school buildings in the 1950s and 1960s.141 After years of renting facilities, the Japanese-American community constructed its own church and language school in Union City in 1962.142

137 Holmes, Reflections: The Educational Heritage of Fremont. 138 Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 28. 139 Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 28. 140 Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 29. 141 For example, in 1969 the Holy Ghost Catholic Church and School enlarged and become the Holy Spirit church. Holmes, Centerville, Fremont, 86. 142 The church and language school is located on Alvarado Niles Road in Union City, near the north border of Fremont. Corbett, “George’s Fruit Stand,” 30.

Front and side elevations of Irvington Presbyterian Church, 4181 Irvington Ave, 1964 (GPA Consulting, 2015)

Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints, 810 Walnut Ave, built c. 1969-1979 (GPA Consulting, 2015)

Associated Property Types

Property types associated with the subtheme of churches include individual church buildings and larger church campuses composed of numerous buildings and related features, like office buildings, living quarters, and schools. Fremont’s churches vary in size, but many are quite large and surrounded by large lawns and parking lots. They are located both in residential neighborhoods and on major boulevards. Mid-Century Modern is the dominant architectural style, though there are also examples of New Formalism. Many of the churches feature dynamic roof shapes and geometric fenestration patterns. Common materials and characteristics include stone, block, and brick masonry, stucco, gabled and folded plate roofs, large plate glass windows, stained glass windows, and clerestories.

Subtheme: Social Organizations Social organizations were important to the city in the postwar period. The Niles Veterans’ Hall, originally constructed after World War I, was expanded in 1958.143 Fraternal organizations of men, women, and children in the Portuguese community were popular social gathering places.144 The Japanese community created language schools, which functioned as another kind of social group. Other clubs met at International Kitchen and the Fremont Motor Inn, the first modern motel in Warm Springs.145 The Washington Township Country Club, a women’s club founded in 1896, constructed a clubhouse on Parish Avenue in 1914. Their clubhouse was a Niles Veterans Memorial Hall, construction began in 1930 meeting location for many other groups until and the first renovations took place in 1958 (GPA its sale and demolition in the 1990s.146 Consulting, 2015)

Subtheme: Hospitals In 1946, the Washington Township Country Club first proposed constructing a local hospital. At the time, there was no major medical facility in Washington Township. A site at the exact center of the township was purchased in 1952 from the Stivers family and voters passed a bond issued to fund construction.147 Washington Hospital opened in 1958.

Associated Property Types

There is only one known property associated with this subtheme from the period: Washington Hospital. It is a campus of related buildings, some of which may be original. Based on historic imagery, the original main building was four stories tall and composed of intersecting rectangular volumes. It exhibited features of the International Style. Washington Hospital is located at 2000 Mowry Avenue.

143 Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 99. 144 John S. Sandoval, A Century of Portuguese in the East Bay (Hayward: Hayward History Society, 1971), 32. 145 Holmes, Warm Springs, Fremont, 101. 146 “History: The Country Club of Washington Township,” Tri-City Voice, August 5, 2009. Accessed September 8, 2015, http://www.tricityvoice.com/articlefiledisplay.php?issue=2009-08-05&file=Washington+Township.txt. 147 Carrie Carruthers, Washington Township: A Pictorial History (Fremont, CA: Washington Hospital Healthcare Foundation, 2000), 141.

Advertisement for votes in favor of the bond issue to fund construction of Washington Hospital, 1952 (from collection of Washington Township Museum of Local History)

Registration Requirements The property types with the potential to represent the significant trends in institutional development include school buildings and campuses, churches and associated church buildings, like rectories, schools, and offices, buildings that housed important social organizations, and the original buildings of Washington Hospital. Buildings associated with important social organizations may take a variety of forms. Some may have been built expressly for use by a particular organization; others may have had different primary uses, such as an individual’s home, offices, churches, retail stores, hotels, and restaurants, but were utilized by organizations after hours or on weekends. Only properties with demonstrated significance and integrity are eligible for designation. Groupings of institutional buildings, such as school and church campuses, may be significant collectively and constitute a historic district. They may also be significant individually. Significant buildings and districts may include: those developed early in the city’s postwar history, buildings that were the primary home of important social organizations, schools that represent important planning principals and building programs, the original buildings of Washington Hospital, churches that were the locations of important events or associated with important community leaders or congregations, and any institutional buildings that were directly associated with a person significant within the institutional development theme.

Property Type Significance: A building or district evaluated under this theme may be considered significant if it is importantly and directly related to postwar institutions in Fremont or if it was the location of an important event, such as a political rally, speech, or march. It may also be significant under this theme if it is the place most directly associated with the work of an individual who was significant within the theme of institutional development. In many cases, if a resource is significant under this theme, it may also be significant

under one of the postwar architecture themes. This appears to be especially applicable to Fremont’s churches.

Period of Significance: 1945 -1970

Period of Significance Justification: Institutional resources developed prior to incorporation in 1956 would be able to convey the city’s pre-incorporation demography and values, while those after 1956 would represent the growth and demographic shifts associated with new infrastructure and governmental organization. Important institutions may have developed at any time during the postwar period. Likewise, important community leaders may have contributed to the city at any time during the postwar period.

Geographic Location: Citywide, in or near the downtown commercial centers of the five original towns and along commercial corridors and major boulevards, some may also be present within residential neighborhoods

Area(s) of Significance: Postwar institutional development

Criteria: National: A/B California: 1/2 Local: 1/2

Associated Property Types: School buildings and campuses, churches and associated church buildings, buildings constructed specifically for social organizations, other property types (residences, offices, commercial buildings, etc.) used by social organizations as meeting places, the original buildings of Washington Hospital, and districts composed of these property types

Property Type Description: Institutional resources from the period are largely one to two stories tall, though a few taller examples exist. Some are clustered into campuses; others are stand-alone buildings built for one particular institution. Many of the schools exhibit elements of the Mid-Century Modern style (described under the Postwar Architectural Styles Theme). Churches are often dynamic and modern in design, exhibiting elements of both Mid-Century Modern and New Formalism. Buildings related to social organizations vary widely in terms of style and level of design detail. Washington Hospital’s original buildings were designed in the International Style. Common materials among the different property types and styles include stucco, brick, stone, tile, lava rock, and large plate glass windows.

Eligibility Standards: • Has a direct and significant relationship to postwar institutional development; and/or was the primary location of an important organization; and/or was the primary place of work of an individual important within the theme of institutional development

• Was constructed during the period of significance

• Simply being a postwar institutional resource is not enough to justify significance. An eligible resource must have been important within its community. Examples might include resources related to veterans’ organizations, ethnic groups, important church congregations and leaders, Washington Hospital, schools representing important planning principals, other types of pioneering institutions, and institutions particularly important to the local community.

Character Defining / Associative Features: • Constructed in one of the popular architectural styles for institutional buildings of the period

o May also have a utilitarian design without many architectural details • Features typical of its property type, such as steeples and stained glass windows for churches

• Most will have at least one large gathering space, such as an auditorium at a school or the nave in a church

• In or adjacent to original town centers, often constructed right up to the sidewalk with no setback

• In later, more suburban areas, large, prominently located parking lots

Integrity Considerations: • Eligible resources should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association from their period of significance

o Setting may be compromised by nearby construction that post-dates the period of significance

o The majority of the resource's original materials and design features must remain intact and visible, including wall cladding, windows, fenestration pattern, roof features, and details related to its architectural style

o Limited door and window replacements may be acceptable if they are located on secondary elevations, do not change the original fenestration pattern, and are compatible with the original design of the resource

• If a resource is a rare surviving example of its type and/or period, a greater degree of alterations that have already occurred may be acceptable. 148

148 A greater degree of alterations may be present and yet the resource may still be considered eligible when it is initially evaluated. This statement is not related to future alterations proposed for a historic property. In other words, it does not mean that a rare example of an important property type may be allowed to be more altered in the future than other examples; it means that it may still be eligible at the time of its evaluation, despite some of its previous alterations. Future projects proposed for such resources should strive to restore as much historic fabric as possible.

Theme: Civic Improvements and Municipal Infrastructure When the city was incorporated, the preliminary general plan recommended that Fremont construct a central Civic Center with a Central Park.149 The Civic Center and Central Park were the grandest projects of the new city, though the Recreation and Leisure Services Department played an important role in creating community space throughout the city. In addition to concerns about planning, incorporation efforts were driven by a need to consolidate services, especially fire departments.150 A public safety department was the first operational department of the new city and a citywide fire department was established in 1958. Community center buildings were an important property type to emerge after incorporation, but somewhat surprisingly, no public libraries were constructed in the postwar period.

Subtheme: Parks and Recreation Land acquisition for the Civic Center and Central Park took nine years. The city made its initial land purchase of twelve acres for Central Park from Stanley Davis, a local developer.151 The first public building in the city of Fremont was the community center constructed in 1962 on those first acres.152 As plans progressed, planners recommended that the park have a flood control basin that could double as a recreational lake, now known as Lake Elizabeth.153 Central Park officially opened in 1969.154

While Central Park was a major focus of planning efforts in Fremont’s early years Central Park and Lake Elizabeth (GPA Consulting, 2015) as a city, several smaller, neighborhood parks appeared throughout the city during the late 1950s and 1960s. Theodore Harpainter, leader of the Recreation and Leisure Services Department from 1959 to 1979, designed most parks during this period.155 Under Harpainter’s leadership, the park system grew from zero to thirty-seven parks and developed thirty miles of street landscaping.156

Public parks were financed through fees paid to a park benefit fund by residential developers. Space for public parks was allocated by developers through programs such as the Planned Unit Development Program that incentivized developers to allocate space for public parks.157 Parks were often planned adjacent to schools. Homeowners’ associations privately maintained many

149 Wise Associates, “Preliminary General Plan for Fremont, California,” 26. 150 Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, The First Thirty Years, 21-22. 151 4375 Cahill St, Fremont, CA 94538. Tinney, Life and Liberty at Lake Liz, 5. 152 Gardiner, Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City, 31. 153 Tinney, Life and Liberty at Lake Liz, 6. 154 Holmes, Irvington, Fremont, 112. 155 Holmes, Irvington, Fremont, 109. 156 Holmes, Warm Springs, Fremont, 121. 157 John Brooks was first developer in Bay Area to allocate space for public parks under this ordinance. “John Brooks,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 21, 2015: C3.

parks.158 Because much of Centerville was built prior to the city’s incorporation, the park benefits funds for this area were too small for new park developments. Consequently, Centerville has fewer parks than other areas of the city.159

Many of Fremont’s parks grew from the industries that characterized the first century of Washington Township’s development. In 1962, for example, the Shinn Ranch became the first of several older ranches and remaining agricultural properties to become a park.160 Quarry pits around the city, once part of asphalt and gravel companies, were Community Center in Central Park, opened in 1962, re-engineered into ponds.161 Recreational designed by Norman D. Hale (GPA Consulting, 2015) activities took place at a raceway and glider airport opened on a former Army Air Corps airfield from World War II.162 Though these industries no longer played a role in Fremont’s economy, their legacy remained imprinted on the landscape of the city.

Associated Property Types

Property types associated with the subtheme of parks and recreation include Central Park, smaller neighborhood parks adjacent to schools, parks located in former industrial areas such as gravel pits, and community centers. Central Park is a relatively enormous park comprising over 450 acres. Other recreational areas and parks range in size. Community centers are typically located within parks and exhibit Mid-Century Modern design details. Common materials and characteristics include stone, block, and brick masonry, stucco, synthetic or wood wall panel systems, wood post and beam structures, gabled roofs, large plate glass windows, and clerestories. Other features of parks include playgrounds, playing fields, designed landscaping, walking/running trails, ponds, and furnishings, such as benches, trash receptacles, picnic shelters, and light standards.

Subtheme: Government Although the city did not incorporate until 1956, it was home to at least one government building by 1953: the Southern Alameda County Office Building (now the New Horizons School at Martha Avenue and Peralta Boulevard). At the time, it was surrounded by agricultural land, though new residential tracts were quickly encroaching. Other than the county building, the main government buildings from the postwar period in the unincorporated towns were fire stations. Prior to incorporation, each town had its own fire department staffed largely by volunteers. Immediately following incorporation, police and fire duties were both carried out by

158 Centerville Committee, “Centerville Area Plan,”21. 159 Centerville Committee, “Centerville Area Plan,”21. 160 Remaining sections of other historic landholdings were designated as historic resources in the City during the 1960s, but did not become public parks until the 1970s and 1980s. These included the California Nursery 1972 and the Patterson Ranch, now Ardenwood, which was designated in 1965 and donated to the City in 1978. 161 The Army Corps of Engineers redesigned Alameda Creek to a flood-control channel. Completed in 1972, the flood control plan created the Shinn and Grau ponds from re-used gravel pits. In the 1990s, the Kaiser and Lonestar Quarry Pits were later reengineered to increase groundwater capacity. Holmes, Niles, Fremont, 101. 162 Holmes, Irvington, Fremont, 116.

firemen. In 1958, the Fremont Fire Department was officially established, and by 1969, volunteer firefighters were phased out. At least six fire stations were constructed between 1946 and 1964.

Of course, the most important government building constructed during the postwar period was Fremont’s first city hall. The brutalist building by Robert Mittelstadt was completed in 1968, but has since been demolished. It was vacated in 1992 after the city discovered that it was located atop the active Hayward fault. The building was completely demolished in Fremont Fire Station No. 1, 1963 (GPA Consulting, 2015) 2004.

Rendering of Fremont City Hall (Robert Mittlelstadt Architecture, http://www.rmarch.net/Fremont/fremont.html)

Associated Property Types

Property types associated with the subtheme of government include buildings constructed for city, county, state, and federal entities. They include fire stations, office buildings, and potentially police stations, though no postwar police stations were identified in the reconnaissance survey. The buildings observed in the survey exhibit elements of the Mid-Century Modern and Late Moderne styles.

Registration Requirements The property types with the potential to represent the significant trends in civic improvements and municipal infrastructure in the postwar period include parks, community centers, and government buildings, like offices and fire stations. Eligible parks may be large or small. Some may have associated buildings and structures, while others may just be designed landscapes. Community centers and government buildings may also vary in size. Only properties with demonstrated significance and integrity are eligible for designation. A park with multiple buildings and structures may constitute a historic district. Other property types will likely be considered as individual resources. Significant buildings and districts may include: those

developed early in the city’s postwar history, buildings and parks that represent important planning principals and building programs, and those that were the locations of important events or associated with persons significant under this theme.

Property Type Significance: A building or district evaluated under this theme may be considered significant if it is importantly and directly related to postwar civic and municipal development in Fremont or if it was the location of an important event, such as a political rally, speech, or march. It may also be significant under this theme if it is the place most directly associated with the work of an individual who was significant within the theme of civic and municipal development. In many cases, if a resource is significant under this theme, it may also be significant under one of the postwar architecture themes.

Period of Significance: 1945 -1970

Period of Significance Justification: Civic and municipal resources developed prior to incorporation in 1956 would be able to convey the city’s pre-incorporation infrastructure, while those after 1956 would represent the actions of the city’s early government. Important civic and municipal resources may have developed at any time during the postwar period.

Geographic Location: Citywide, within Central Park, in or near residential neighborhoods and schools

Area(s) of Significance: Postwar civic improvements and municipal infrastructure

Criteria: National: A/B California: 1/2 Local: 1/2

Associated Property Types: Parks, community centers, government office buildings, and fire stations

Property Type Description: Civic and municipal resources from the period vary. The parks range from very large to small in size. Some have numerous associated buildings and structures; others are strictly landscapes. Many of the buildings exhibit elements of the Mid-Century Modern style. Common park materials include manicured grasses, native and non-native trees, and lower shrubs and plantings around buildings, structures, and pathways. Other park materials vary widely. Buildings exhibit materials common to their architectural style. Since many are Mid-Century Modern, these include brick, stone, tile, lava rock, wood post-and-beam, and large plate glass windows.

Eligibility Standards: • Has a direct and significant relationship to postwar civic improvements and municipal infrastructure; and/or was the primary location of an important event; and/or was the primary place of work of an individual important within the theme of civic and municipal development

• Was constructed during the period of significance

• Simply being a postwar civic or municipal resource is not enough to justify significance. An eligible resource must have been important within its community. Examples might include the earliest fire stations and government office buildings, as well as parks that exhibit important planning principles and recreational programs.

Character Defining / Associative Features: • For buildings, constructed in one of the popular architectural styles for government buildings of the period

• For parks, large areas of landscaping

o May include buildings constructed in one of the popular architectural styles of the period, such as Mid-Century Modern and International Style.

o May include recreational facilities, such as fields, courts, and playgrounds

o May be either formal and heavily designed or informal and more natural • Features typical of its property type, such as large garages for firetrucks at a fire station

Integrity Considerations: • Eligible resources should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association from their period of significance

o Setting may be compromised by nearby construction that post-dates the period of significance

o The majority of the resource's original materials and design features must remain intact and visible, including wall cladding, windows, fenestration pattern, roof features, and details related to its architectural style for buildings, and plant materials, site plan, and related buildings, structures, and fixtures for parks

o For buildings, limited door and window replacements may be acceptable if they are located on secondary elevations, do not change the original fenestration pattern, and are compatible with the original design of the resource

o For parks, minor changes to the overall site plan or replacement of limited plant materials with similar materials may be acceptable, but significant demolition or reconfiguration of spaces and amenities would not

• If a resource is a rare surviving example of its type and/or period, a greater degree of alterations that have already occurred may be acceptable. 163

163 A greater degree of alterations may be present and yet the resource may still be considered eligible when it is initially evaluated. This statement is not related to future alterations proposed for a historic property. In other words, it does not mean that a rare example of an important property type may be allowed to be more altered in the future than other examples; it means that it may still be eligible at the time of its evaluation, despite some of its previous alterations. Future projects proposed for such resources should strive to restore as much historic fabric as possible.

Theme: Postwar Architectural Styles in Fremont This section describes the architectural styles currently represented in Fremont among resources constructed between 1945 and 1970. The following are descriptions of the origin of each style and its presence in the local landscape. Where possible, architects known to have worked in the style locally are identified, and representative local examples are listed. In addition, character- defining features are provided to aid in the identification of the style in Fremont, as well as to guide in future assessments of historical significance.

Architectural styles of the postwar period in Fremont are typical of a low-rise community with numerous large-scale developments of single-family homes. The majority of postwar-era buildings in Fremont date from the 1950s and 1960s phases of the postwar housing boom. Though many buildings in Fremont are typical of the period, with Minimal Traditional and Ranch-style houses by far the most dominant, the commercial and institutional buildings of the period often display more sophisticated statements of modern architectural design. This distinction is logical, because while the residences were built largely by contractors and developers as part of sprawling, speculative housing tracts, the commercial and institutional buildings were often designed by architects for specific clients. Naturally, the resulting commercial and institutional buildings are more customized and reflective of the needs and tastes of specific clients. Characteristics evident in the majority of designs from this period, regardless of property type, include: honest expression of structure, use of contemporary materials and techniques, integration of outdoor and indoor spaces, and functional floor plans.

Architects active in Washington Township and later in Fremont during this period include: Frederick Reimers, an early Ranch-style practitioner; Hale & Jacobsohn, modernist designers of public and commercial buildings; Herbert T. Johnson, designer of Modern residential tracts; Robert Mittelstadt, architect of the brutalist city hall; and nationally recognized modernist William Wurster. Buildings designed by these architects are discussed within the following themes for architectural styles. Biographical information on architects who worked in Fremont is included as Appendix C. Within the scope of this project, seven postwar architectural styles were identified as particularly relevant to Fremont: • Late Moderne

• International Style

• Mid-Century Modern

• Googie

• New Formalism

• Minimal Traditional

• Ranch

Subtheme: Late Moderne The Late Moderne style was popular during and immediately after World War II. Late Moderne buildings are typically more boxy and angular than their Streamline Moderne predecessors and emphasize verticality over rounded edges. The most readily identifiable design element of this style is the bezeled window. Windows are often outlined in a protruding, bezel-like molding. Frequently the molding extends beyond the windows to wrap around corners. While Late Moderne buildings were usually solid wall structures with punched windows, sometimes they featured continuous lateral window bands, which increased the ratio of void to solid. Because of the limited construction activity during the Depression, World War II, and immediately following the war, buildings of this style are relatively rare in Fremont. Extant examples may be constructed prior to the

Southern Alameda County Office Building, 1948 (GPA Consulting, 2015) Postwar Development period of 1945 to 1970.

Character-defining Features of Late Moderne • Boxy angular masses • Flat rooflines • Smooth stucco or concrete exteriors often incised with grid-like patterns • Brick or stone sometimes used as secondary accent material • Projecting frames around windows • Pronounced canopies over entrances • Horizontal bands of steel

sash windows Cloverdale Creamery building on Fremont Boulevard, a “main street” shop • Bezeled windows founded in 1938 and closed in 2001 (GPA Consulting, 2015)

Select examples in Fremont • Cloverdale Creamery, 37085 Fremont Boulevard, built 1938164 • Center Theater, 37405–37415 Fremont Boulevard, built 1945-1946 (altered) • Southern Alameda County Office Building, 2550 Peralta Boulevard built 1948 (now New Horizons School)

164 Susan Dinkelspiel Cerny, An Architectural Guidebook to San Francisco and the Bay Area (Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, 2007), 234.

Associated Property Types

Property types associated with the Late Moderne style observed during the reconnaissance for this project include commercial and institutional. Examples of industrial buildings may also exist. It is highly unlikely that there are any residential buildings in this style. Representative properties are likely to be located within or adjacent to the original commercial districts of the five original towns. They may also be located in early postwar commercial strips.

Subtheme: International Style The International style developed as an architectural style in the 1920s and 1930s, during Modernism’s formative years prior to World War II. The International style originated in Western Europe, but it had an impact on architectural design throughout western society. The style rejected vernacular or traditional building forms in favor of simplification of forms and absence of ornament. Common features include square or rectangular building footprints, horizontal bands of windows, flat roofs, and the use

of stucco, concrete, brick, and glass. Grau Medical Offices, 37250 Niles Boulevard, designed by After World War II, the International style William Wurster completed c.1941 (GPA Consulting, 2015) was used in the design of public and residential buildings in the postwar building boom of the 1940s. The acceptance of the style in America grew considerably after World War II.

Within the International Style, two dominant trends emerged after World War II. Walter Gropius, a leader of the Bauhaus in Germany, was the primary influence on the first postwar interpretation of International Style. This first trend borrowed materials and methods of construction from modern technology and industrialized building techniques, including standardization and prefabrication. Gropius introduced the curtain wall system that utilized a structural steel frame to support the floors and which allowed the external glass walls to continue without interruption. No examples of this first trend were observed in Fremont during the fieldwork for this project; however, examples may exist, given the large number of buildings in the city from the time period.

The second postwar trend in the International Style was represented by Mies van der Rohe and his followers. Within the Miesian tradition there are three subtypes: the glass curtain wall

skyscraper, such as his design for the Seagram Walters and Wolf Precast offices at 41777 Boyce Road (GPA Consulting, 2015) Building (1954) in New York, the glass and steel pavilion used in his design for the Barcelona

Pavilion (1929), and the modular office. Mies van der Rohe created the modular office building prototype with his designs for the campus of the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chicago (1939-40), and considered Crown Hall (1956) at IIT, with its main floor an undivided space measuring 120 by 220 feet, as his finest creation.165

The most common subtype of the Miesian International Style observed during fieldwork was the modular office building, which was used as the style for many office parks in the late 1960s. This trend continued through the

1980s. Most of the buildings of this subtype in Fremont post-date the period of study for Office building at 4510 Peralta Boulevard in Centerville (GPA Consulting, 2015) this project. The modular office building encloses open and adaptable “universal” spaces with clearly arranged structural frameworks, featuring pre-manufactured steel or precast concrete shapes filled with large sheets of glass or precast panels. In Fremont, the style was more often executed with precast concrete panels than with large sheets of glass. This may be due to the historic presence of the concrete and gravel industry in the area.

Character-defining Features of Gropius Subtype of the International Style • Single or groups of rectangular masses • Balance and regularity, but not symmetry • Clear expression of form and function • Placement or cantilevering of buildings on tall piers • Flat rooflines • Frequent use of glass and steel • Horizontal bands of flush windows • Windows meeting at corners • Absence of ornamentation

Select Examples in Fremont • Grau Medical Offices, 37250 Niles Boulevard, built 1941, architect: William Wurster166

Character-defining Features of Miesian Subtype of the International Style • Single rectangular shapes • Horizontal lines of perspective • Flat rooflines • Steel frame structure used as an organization device • Absence of ornamentation • Glass curtain walls • Column free interior spaces

Select Examples in Fremont167

165 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, “City of Riverside, Modernism Context Statement,” 2009, 15. 166 “History: Dr. Eugene and Ethel Grau,” Tri-City Voice, June 25, 2008. Accessed September 9, 2015. http://www.tricityvoice.com/articlefiledisplay.php?issue=2008-06-25&file=History+Eugene.txt

• Irvington Savings Bank, 40587 Fremont Boulevard, built 1963 • Office building, 4510 Peralta Boulevard, built 1966 • Walters & Wolf Precast Company, 41777 Boyce Road, built 1969

Associated Property Types

Property types associated with the International Style observed during the reconnaissance for this project include commercial and industrial. It was a particularly popular style for banks, both in Fremont and elsewhere. It is highly unlikely that there are any residential buildings in this style. Early examples are likely to be located within or adjacent to the original commercial districts of the five original towns and along early postwar commercial strips. Later examples will likely be standalone buildings located in larger shopping centers.

Subtheme: Mid-Century Modern Mid-Century Modern is a term used to describe the evolution of the International Style after World War II and encompasses a range of buildings forms. Mid-Century Modern architecture is more organic, its materials less industrial, and its approach less doctrinaire and more lighthearted than the International Style. The Mid-Century Modern style often references local vernacular traditions, particularly in the use of materials such as local wood. It is characterized by more solid wall surfaces. It was during this period that stacked brick became a popular material in commercial and educational buildings. In residential buildings, post-and-beam with an exposed wood structural system became the preferred method of construction for Mid- Century Modern architects.

As a residential style in the Bay Area, Mid-Century Modern evolved from a regional variant of modernism, the Second Bay Area Tradition, which emerged in the 1930s. The First Bay Area Tradition dated to the early twentieth century and the work of Julia Morgan and Bernard Maybeck, who designed buildings for steep sites with an emphasis on verticality and wood construction.168 The modernism and design characteristics of the Second Bay Area Tradition were unique to the San Francisco Bay Area and borrowed influences from vernacular farmhouses and local materials. Sometimes called redwood post-and-beam, the style was applied mostly to residential buildings. Buildings had open plans, glass walls, low pitched roofs, and exposed wood truss support systems. The style was common in middle class suburbs of the Bay Area.169 William Wurster was the preeminent architect of the style, emphasizing the “relaxed way of indoor-outdoor living in the Bay Area.”170 Wurster’s mastery of style occurred after his work in the Fremont area, and further research is necessary to identify examples of his Second Bay Area Tradition designs in Fremont. The style would heavily influence Ranch-style houses constructed en masse in suburban developments of the 1950s and 1960s.

The Mid-Century Modern style appeared mostly in the commercial and institutional buildings and campuses of Fremont. Horizontal massing and flat roof motifs of modernism were introduced to Fremont by Bay Area regional modernists such as Wurster and Gardner Dailey in the early 1940s.171 A few small-scale commercial buildings in Niles and Centerville exhibit basic

167 There are many examples of the Miesian subtype in the office parks in the Warm Springs area; however, these buildings post-date the period of study for this project. They are from 1970s and later. 168 Roth, American Architecture, 313-314. 169 Dave Weinstein and Linda Svendsen, Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area (Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, 2006), 100. 170 Roth, American Architecture, 363. 171 Minor, Johnson House, 4.

elements of the style, such as canted walls, dominant roofs, and brick and stone veneer. Large campuses constructed by churches exhibit design flourishes unconstrained by the boxy, square doctrine of the International Style, with swooping roofs, geometric folded plate roofs, and distinctive dormers. The schools constructed to meet the massive population increases of the 1950s and 1960s are all Mid-Century Modern in style and plan, exhibiting simple geometric masses, post-and-beam construction, and open site plans, as are other public buildings, such as fire stations and community centers. The local firm of Hal and Jacobsohn was responsible for the design of many Mid-Century Modern buildings in the Fremont area, including the city’s first institutional building, the Community Center in Central Park.

Portion of John G. Mattos Elementary School campus (GPA Consulting, 2015)

Commercial building at 37495 Niles Boulevard (GPA Consulting, 2015)

Character-defining Features of Mid-Century Modern • Simple geometric forms • Post-and-beam construction • Flat or low-pitched gabled or shed roofs • Geometric roof forms, such as folded plates, dramatic gables, and A-frames • Flush mounted steel framed windows or large single-paned wood-framed windows • Brick or stone veneer often used as primary or accent material • Wood or stucco siding, often used in combination • Canted walls • Large, single pane windows • Clerestories

Select Examples in Fremont • Commercial building, 37495 Niles Boulevard, built 1956 • Fremont Hub, Fremont Boulevard and Mowry Avenue, opened in 1961 (altered) • Community Center, Central Park, opened in 1962, architect: Norman D. Hale of firm Hale and Jacobsohn • Fire Station Number 1, 4200 Mowry Avenue, built 1963 • United Auto Workers Building, 45201 Fremont Blvd, built 1965 (altered) • Peralta Plaza, Peralta Boulevard and Maple Street in Centerville, (multiple buildings and sign), built circa 1965 • Numerous elementary and middle schools all over the city, such as John G. Mattos Elementary School and Mahoney Elementary School

Associated Property Types

Property types associated with the Mid-Century Modern style observed during the reconnaissance for this project include commercial and institutional. It was a particularly popular style for community centers and park buildings, schools, and commercial strips. While no specific examples were identified in the reconnaissance, it is possible that residential tracts of Mid- Century Modern residences exist within the city. Examples of the style exist citywide.

Subtheme: Googie During the 1950s and 60s, a unique form of roadside architecture developed that made dynamic use of a variety of building materials, structural forms, and spectacular signage. Such innovative architecture was utilized in cities throughout the nation, but the style was particularly prevalent in automobile-centric Southern California. Referred to today as Googie, a term coined from the boldly-designed Googie’s coffee shop that once graced the Sunset Strip, the style is characterized by contrasting building materials, bold angles, distinctive roof lines, expansive glass windows, and oversized signage. The term “Space Age” has also been applied to examples of Googie architecture in which futuristic shapes and forms utilized for buildings and signage were inspired by the optimism engendered by the popularity of the Space Age. With space travel so much a part of the national consciousness, architects decided to give the people a taste of the future. The Googie, or Space Age style was characterized by designs that depicted motion, such as boomerangs, flying saucers, atoms, starbursts, and parabolas. These shapes were boldly applied to over-scaled roofs and signs. Materials typically included glass, steel, and neon.

There are notable examples of the style in Fremont, including the Cloverleaf Bowl (1959). While much of the surrounding shopping district consists of fairly conventional Mid-Century Modern

storefronts, the more exuberant elements associated with the Googie style, such as the angled roofline and natural stone are used throughout. Fremont also exhibits freestanding signs related to the Googie style. In some cases, the shopping center or business associated with the sign no longer exists or has been altered, so it no longer reflects the postwar period, but the sign remains intact.

Character-defining Features of Googie • Organic, abstract, and parabolic shapes • Distinctive rooflines such as folded-plates and boomerangs • Assortment of materials including concrete, steel, plastic, lava rock, and tile • Large and expansive plate glass windows • Thematic ornamentation including Polynesian and Space Age motifs • Bright colors • Oversized signage

Select Examples in Fremont • Cloverleaf Bowl, 40645 Fremont Blvd, built 1959

Associated Property Types

Property types associated with the Googie style observed during the reconnaissance for this project include commercial buildings and signs. Googie buildings appear to be rare, which is somewhat surprising, given the city’s auto-centric planning history. Examples of the style are typically located along major boulevards where they are best positioned to attract motorists.

Prominent roofline and boomerang, exemplifying Googie style at the Cloverleaf Bowl, established in 1959, expanded in 1963 and 1974 (rendering in Argus newspaper, 1962)

Cloverleaf Bowl following alterations (GPA Consulting, 2015)

Subtheme: New Formalism New Formalism developed in the mid-1950s as a reaction to modernism’s total rejection of historical precedent. A maturing modernism grasped the many commonalities with classicism, such as emphases on structure and a uniform construction grid, a carefully organized hierarchy, and clarity of geometric form. Searching for symbolic meaning, modernist architects of the mid- 1950s through the early 1970s embraced classical precedents in establishing building proportions; in the use of the arch, stylized classical columns, and entablatures; and in the use of the colonnade as a compositional device, as well as the elevated podium. Historically expensive materials such as travertine, marble, or granite were used (usually as thin veneers), as were manmade materials that mimicked their luxurious qualities. However, they were used in a panelized way that was non-traditional. On a larger urban design scale, grand axes and symmetry were used to achieve a modern monumentality. Primary in developing New Formalism were three architects: Edward Durrell Stone, Philip Johnson, and Minoru Yamasaki, all of whom had earlier achieved prominence working within the International Style and other modernist idioms. Stone’s well-published American Embassy in New Delhi (1954) is considered by many to mark the origin of the movement.

In California, the style was applied mainly to auditoriums, museums, and educational facilities. In these campus settings, buildings were often arranged symmetrically along grand axes and landscape features to achieve a modern monumentality. There are very few examples of New Formalism in Fremont, mostly applied to commercial buildings. For example, the former bank building at 35880 Nicolet Avenue reflects many of the characteristics of the style with its classical round plan and abstract column supports, as does the Fremont Bank building at 39200 Fremont Boulevard with its wide entablature and sculptural colonnaded perimeter walls.

Unoccupied bank building at 35880 Nicolet Avenue (GPA Consulting 2015)

Character-defining Features of New Formalism • Symmetrical plans • Evidence of classical precedence • Flat rooflines with heavy overhanging entablatures • Full height colonnades and elevated podiums used as compositional devices • Repeating arches and rounded openings • Large screens of perforated cast stone or concrete or metal grilles • Smooth wall surfaces • Tile accent • Buildings set behind plazas

Select Examples in Fremont • Unoccupied bank building, 35880 Nicolet Avenue, built 1970

Associated Property Types

Property types associated with the New Formalism style observed during the reconnaissance for this project include commercial buildings, especially bank and office buildings. Examples from the period of study for this project appear to be rare, though later examples from the 1970s exist. They are typically located in shopping centers along major boulevards.

Subtheme: Minimal Traditional The Minimal Traditional style is defined by a simple exterior, with a simplified use of traditional architectural motifs from the American Colonial Revival and other Period Revival styles without extensive architectural detailing. The style had its origins in the principles of the modern movement and the Federal Housing Authority and other Federal program requirements of the 1930s. The Minimal Traditional style was reproduced on a massive scale and dominated the large tract housing developments of the 1940s and 1950s. Modern construction methods addressed the builders’ need to keep homes affordable for the middle class and the style’s open plan reflected the developer’s desire for greater efficiency. Conventional detailing appealed to conservative home buyers and mortgage companies. Primarily associated with the

detached single-family house, Minimal Traditional detailing may also be applied to apartment buildings of the same period.172

Row of Minimal Traditional residences on Niles Boulevard (GPA Consulting, 2015)

In Fremont, the style was popular in Mission San Jose and areas of Centerville, Irvington, and Niles developed from the 1930s until the city’s incorporation in 1956. Because the style could be replicated on a massive scale, tracts of Minimal Traditional homes may vary in size, but usually feature rectilinear streets and very little architectural differentiation from one house to the next.

Character-defining Features of Minimal Traditional • One-story configuration • Rectangular or L-shaped plans • Medium or low-pitched roofs with shallow eaves • Hipped, cross-gabled, or side-gabled roofs • Smooth stucco wall cladding, often with wood lap, clapboard, brick or stone veneer accents • Wood multi-light wood windows (picture, double-hung sash, casement) • Projecting three-sided oriels (bay windows) • Shallow entry porches with slender wood supports • Wooden shutters • Lack of decorative exterior detailing

Select Examples in Fremont173 • Hansen Tract, Centerville, 1920s-1940s • Tract 508, Niles, 1930s • Suhnel Tract, Centerville, 1946 • Mt. Vernon Avenue, Centerville, 1940s

172 Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984), 478. 173 Original tract maps of all except the Suhnel Tract are located in Appendix D. The tracts likely expanded from their original boundaries. More information may be on file with the City’s Engineering Department.

• Tract 783, Irvington, 1947-1949 • Tract 623, Niles, 1949

Associated Property Types

Property types associated with the Minimal Traditional style observed during the reconnaissance for this project include single-family residences and tracts of single-family residences. They are typically some of the older residences from the postwar period. Consequently, they are located in the earliest subdivisions.

Subtheme: Ranch The Ranch style has its origins in the hacienda ranch homes of early California families of Mexican and Spanish decent. California architect Cliff May is attributed with developing the Ranch style as early as the 1930s; however, it did not gain popularity throughout the United States until the late 1950s and 1960s. A uniquely American residential style, Ranch dominated the Californian and American housing markets after World War II, when

America’s demand for single-family housing reached high levels. Ranch houses Modern Ranch on Cashew Way (GPA Consulting, 2015) were the first to directly address the growing importance of the automobile to urban living, with attached garages or carports incorporated into the design.

Across California, the Ranch style morphed into a variety of sub-styles, but generally it is characterized by its one-story horizontal massing and sprawling L- or U-shaped floor plan around an outdoor patio area. While there are many variations in the postwar ranch houses of Fremont, most Ranch-style residential developments were constructed in variations of the Modern Ranch and Traditional Ranch (also known as California Ranch). Within a housing tract, building massing and siting had little variation. Differentiation was typically limited to minor variances in decorative details.

The Modern Ranch style is characterized by minimal exterior detailing.174 It adapted the clean, bold lines and liberal use of glass characteristic of mid-century post-and- beam architecture to the rambling, pitched-roof Ranch house building form. Though not nearly as common as Traditional Ranch, local variations of Modern Ranch were constructed throughout the 1960s. Modern Ranch in Glenmoor (GPA Consulting, 2015)

174 Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984), 479.

The Traditional Ranch is characterized by more exterior detailing and combinations of siding materials across elevations. Traditional Ranch designs incorporated fanciful interpretations of rustic building forms, including half-timbering in gable ends, board-and-batten siding, Dutch doors, diamond pane windows, and dovecotes above garages.

Character-defining Features of Ranch

Style • One-story configuration Traditional Ranch house on Joyce Road (GPA Consulting, 2015) • Low, horizontal massing and wide street façade • Horizontal rambling layouts • Overhanging eaves, extended roof beams, and exposed rafter tails • Low-pitched hipped, cross-, or side-gabled roof • Recessed front porch • Large wood or metal-frame windows • Wide masonry chimney

• Attached garage or carport Traditional Ranch house on Converse Street (GPA Consulting, 2015)

Features Specific to the Modern Ranch Subtype • Extending rectangular or L-shaped plan • Exterior cladding of stucco, board-and-batten, or clapboard siding • Brick or stone veneer accents • Clerestory windows • Minimal decorative details • Replicated across development tract • Plain fascia board trim • Decorative elements of the Mid-Century Modern or International Styles

Select Examples of Modern Ranch Subtype in Fremont Housing tracts with Modern Ranch buildings are found throughout Fremont’s postwar residential developments with concentrations in Glenmoor Gardens and Niles.

Features Specific to the Traditional Ranch Subtype • Sprawling plan, often with radiating wings (L-shaped, U-shaped) • Exterior cladding of board-and-batten siding, shingles, or stucco, often used in combination • Brick or stone veneer accents • Wood shutters • Half-timbering • Rustic-looking elements, such as railings, dovecotes, and garage doors with barn-like “X” patterns

• Exposed rafter tails • Carved fascia boards • Replicated across development tract

Select Examples of Traditional Ranch Subtype in Fremont Housing tracts with Traditional Ranch buildings are found throughout Fremont’s postwar residential developments with concentrations in Glenmoor Gardens, Irvington, Centerville, Niles, and Warm Springs.

Associated Property Types

Property types associated with the Ranch style observed during the reconnaissance for this project include single-family residences and tracts of single-family residences. They typically date from later in the postwar period and are located in subdivisions developed after incorporation.

Registration Requirements The property types with the potential to be considered distinctive and important examples of postwar architecture in Fremont include commercial, institutional, industrial, and residential. The residential properties are almost always located in tracts of repeated models and therefore are best considered as districts, rather than as individual buildings. The other property types are more likely to be isolated examples and best considered as individual resources, though some districts, like a particularly well-designed Mid-Century Modern school campus or an International Style office complex, may exist. Only properties with demonstrated significance and integrity are eligible for designation.

Property Type Significance: A building or district evaluated under the postwar architecture theme may be considered significant if it embodies the distinctive characteristics of one of the styles outlined as subthemes.

Period of Significance: 1945 -1970

Period of Significance Justification: The postwar architecture theme covers a variety of styles from the period. Buildings constructed prior to incorporation will likely exhibit elements of the Late Moderne, Mid-Century Modern, or Minimal Traditional, while those constructed later will exhibit Ranch, International Style, or New Formalism details. Significant buildings may have been constructed at any time in the postwar period.

Geographic Location: Citywide

Area(s) of Significance: Postwar architecture

Criteria: National: C California: 3 Local: 3/4

Associated Property Types: Single-family residences, housing tracts, commercial, institutional, and industrial buildings, signs

Property Type Description: Property types associated with this theme include all buildings and structures designed in one of the identified architectural styles from the postwar period. Significant examples of each style will truly reflect the important design features and principles of the style.

Eligibility Standards: • Was constructed in one of the identified styles from the period

• Was constructed during the period of significance

• Exhibits most, if not all, of the listed character-defining features of its style

• Represents a distinctive example of its style, rather than a typical or common example

• Exhibits a high degree of integrity

Character Defining / Associative Features: • See character-defining features listed under each style and sub-style

Integrity Considerations: • Eligible resources should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association from their period of significance

o Setting for individual resources may be compromised by nearby construction that post-dates the period of significance, but setting for districts must remain intact

o The majority of the resource's original materials and design features must remain intact and visible, including wall cladding, windows, fenestration pattern, roof features, and details related to its architectural style

Conclusions and Recommendations

Fremont is predominantly composed of postwar construction. Property types from the period include single-family residences, commercial buildings, low- to mid-rise office buildings, institutional buildings, and industrial buildings. Architectural styles include the most popular ones from the period, such as Ranch, Mid-Century Modern, International Style, and New Formalism, among others. Of the many postwar buildings, those most likely to be individually eligible for designation under local, state, or national programs are non-residential buildings related to the themes of business, industry, institutions, infrastructure, and architecture. Because most of the city’s single-family residences were developed en masse as part of large housing tracts, it is unlikely that they will be individually eligible, unless they are associated with an important individual; however, important housing tracts or portions of tracts may be eligible as historic districts.

In addition to the completion of the historic context statement, the City requested that GPA develop a number of recommendations related to the local historic preservation program. These recommendations fall into three categories:

1. Revisions to relevant chapters of the Fremont Municipal Code;

2. Procedures for reviewing alterations to postwar resources;

3. Potential Historic Overlay Districts (HODs) and Neighborhood Conservation Areas (NCAs); and

The recommended revisions to the city’s code are designed to bring the city’s historic resource programs and policies up to date, in accordance with best professional practices in historic preservation. They are also intended to provide clarity and consistency, and to minimize subjectivity in historic resource and historic overlay district evaluations. Implementing the recommended revisions would make this Historic Context Statement a more useful and effective tool in the future.

The recommended procedures for reviewing alterations to postwar properties are designed to streamline the process for such reviews, given that most of the city developed in the postwar period and the review process is currently burdensome. The recommendations will lead to the creation of checklists and systematic documentation procedures, so staff and/or consultants could make judgements on potential historic resources and districts with confidence. The main goal is to avoid impacts to historical resources under CEQA.

Based on a reconnaissance survey, GPA did not find any new areas of the city with both significance and sufficient integrity to be considered HODs. A large portion of the city’s buildings have been extensively altered, especially in the residential areas, yielding more disjointedness than connectedness. However, GPA did identify a small number of areas that may constitute NCAs due to cohesive neighborhood characteristics.

Municipal Code Revisions GPA recommends the following revisions to Chapters 18.175 and 18.135. If the City decides to proceed with any or all of these revisions, GPA recommends engaging the services of a qualified consultant to draft the final code language and consultation with the City Attorney.

Historic Resources Ordinance (Chapter 18.175) Revisions Section 18.175.120 of the Municipal Code provides the current criteria for adding resources to the Fremont Register of Historic Resources. They are as follows:

(a) A resource may be added to the Fremont register if the City council, after considering the recommendation of the board, finds that:

(1) It is listed or has been determined to be eligible for listing in the California register or the national register; or

(2) It has been determined by the City council to be significant on the national, state or local level under one or more of the following five criteria:

(A) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or to the cultural heritage of California, the United States, or the City; or

(B) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or

(C) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or it is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect; or

(D) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation; or

(E) Its unique location or singular physical characteristic(s) represents an established and familiar visual feature or landmark of a neighborhood, settlement or district, or the City.

An historic resource of local significance need not qualify for listing on the California register to be included on the Fremont register.

Criteria (2)(A) through (2)(D) are modeled after the four California Register of Historical Resources criteria, which are modeled after the four National Register of Historic Places criteria. The approach of basing the City’s registration program on the state and federal programs is appropriate and ideal as it simplifies the evaluation process for both City staff and the public.

The last criterion, (2)(E), is common among many cities in California. It is typically applied to non- parcel resources, such as landmark trees, signs, air raid sirens, water towers, and the like, though it could be applied to buildings, structures, or landscapes with unique, visually important features. It is an appropriate addition to the four California Register criteria for local communities looking to preserve these kinds of resources and visual characteristics.

The last part of the criteria, which explains that local resources do not need to qualify for the California Register, is also common in the state. Though not always written into code, many cities interpret their local registers as a way of recognizing resources that would not qualify for state or federal designation. While this is not mandatory for compliance with CEQA, it is appropriate if it is

the prerogative of the individual city to recognize such resources. The question arises, however, as to what would make a resource eligible for local designation, but not for state or federal designation. Because the current ordinance does not provide any information to answer this question, our first recommendation is as follows:

• Add language to Chapter 18.175 clarifying what would make a resource eligible for designation locally, even if it is not eligible for the California Register. It could be a matter of a lower threshold for significance, less stringent physical integrity expectations, or a combination of both, depending on the City’s preferences.

In addition to clarifying this facet of criteria for designation, we recommend adding language to this chapter regarding a physical integrity requirement. Currently, Chapter 18.175 includes a definition of integrity in its Glossary (Section 18.175.430). The definition states:

“Integrity” means the ability of an historic resource to convey its historical significance through the retention of its original location, setting, design, materials, craftsmanship, feeling and association.

This is an accurate definition of integrity as it applies to historic resources, and the chapter uses the term elsewhere, such as when discussing powers and duties of the Historic Architectural Review Board, determining impacts to historic resources, and in other definitions; however, it is not clear that a resource must retain integrity to be eligible for designation. This requirement is implied, but unless one reads the entire ordinance, the implication can easily be overlooked or misinterpreted.

Adding retention of integrity to Chapter 18.175 is critical as a means of differentiating between resources that are eligible and those that are not. In both National and California Register evaluations, and in the best practices of professional historic preservation, resources are only considered eligible for designation if they possess both significance and integrity. Significance is determined by evaluating a resource against the criteria for designation within its historic context; integrity is evaluated against the seven aspects of integrity provided by the National Park Service as part of the National Register program (location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association). A resource that possesses significance, but does not have the physical integrity required to convey its significance would not be eligible. Likewise, a resource that possesses integrity, but is not significant under any of the established criteria would not be eligible. Requiring that resources possess both significance and integrity prevents two unintended outcomes from designation programs: first, designating properties that have become so heavily altered that they no longer reflect their historical significance; and second, designating every property that happens to be old and unaltered, even if it has no significance. As a result, our second recommendation is as follows:

• Add language to Chapter 18.175 stating that to be eligible for the Fremont Register, resources must retain physical integrity from their period of significance. This language can be excerpted from the California Register language on the topic, or from National Register Bulletin 15, or the City can tailor language to its own preferences; however, the added language should reflect the existing glossary definition of integrity and the recognized seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Historical Overlay District (Chapter 18.135) Revisions Section 18.135.030 of the Fremont Municipal Code provides the findings required for the establishment of Historical Overlay Districts (HODs). Currently, there are only two necessary findings:

(c) In addition to the findings required to be made pursuant to Chapter 18.225, no (HOD) shall be established unless the historical architectural review board (board), planning commission and city council make the following findings:

(1) That the area for which an (HOD) designation is proposed has historical character and identity; and

(2) That the historical character, identity and environment of the area for which an (HOD) designation is proposed would be conserved and enhanced to the benefit of such area and the City as a whole by the application of the regulations and review procedures in this chapter and in Chapter 18.175.

These findings essentially act as the criteria for creating an HOD. They are both vague and subjective. It is difficult to understand how they could be interpreted and applied in a systematic manner to identify historic districts. In a city composed mostly of groups of buildings constructed at the same time as part of planned developments, whether they be housing tracts or shopping centers, it is far more logical to evaluate most resources as potential districts, instead of as individual buildings, but the existing criteria in the City’s code makes it very difficult to do so. As a result, we recommend the following:

• Amend the broad, subjective findings for HOD establishment in Chapter 18.135 into specific significance criteria for designating historic districts. In the simplest and most straightforward designation programs, the significance criteria for historic districts are the same as those for individual properties; they are just applied to distinct groupings of resources, rather than one, singular resource. This is how the National and California Registers address districts, and we recommend the same approach for Fremont.

Like Chapter 18.175, Chapter 18.135 does not include integrity as a requirement for creating an HOD. Just like for individual resources, districts should be expected to retain integrity from their historic period of significance. Thus, we recommend the following:

• Add language to Chapter 18.135 stating that HODs must retain physical integrity from their period of significance. This language can be excerpted from the California Register language on the topic, or from National Register Bulletin 15, or the City can tailor language to its own preferences; however, the added language should reflect the existing glossary definition of integrity and the recognized seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

The final recommendation for revising Chapter 18.135 is directly related to adding an integrity requirement. Districts usually contain a mix of contributors and non-contributors. Contributors are the individual resources that enable a district to convey its significance. They can be buildings, structures, objects, street features, or landscape elements. Non-contributors are resources that do not convey the district’s significance, because they are heavily altered or were constructed outside of the district’s period of significance. Establishing lists of contributing and non- contributing resources is an essential part of establishing historic districts. Determining which

resources are contributors and which are not is a key step in analyzing the integrity of a potential district. It is also important for evaluating alteration permits for properties within existing historic districts. Currently, Fremont’s code includes a definition for contributing resources in Section 18.175.430, but it does not include any language regarding listing contributors and non- contributors as part of the district creation process. We make the following recommendations:

• Add language to Chapter 18.135 requiring that HODs contain a higher number of contributors than non-contributors. This will help to ensure that an HOD possesses some degree of integrity from its period of significance.

• Add language to Chapter 18.135 requiring that a list of contributors and non-contributors be included in the guidelines, regulations, and standards adopted by City Council for an HOD. This will provide an extra layer of clarity for reviewing alteration or demolition permits for resources within an HOD in the future.

Reviewing Alterations to Postwar Resources It is our understanding that the ability to streamline the process of reviewing alterations permits for resources greater than 50 years of age has become critical to the City. Because so much of Fremont developed between 1945 and 1970, the majority of its buildings are all reaching the 50- year benchmark rapidly and simultaneously. The situation is creating an undue burden on City staff and applicants. Completing this Historic Context Statement provides a basis for streamlining the review process as it provides a framework for determining significance and evaluating integrity of postwar resources. In addition, Chapter 18.175 already allows City staff to screen properties for potential significance, before requiring a full, detailed evaluation, in Sections 18.175.150 and 18-175-160. The co-existence of the context statement and the screening provision language in Sections 18.175.150 and 18.175.160 can be used in concert to develop policies and procedures for screening resources constructed between 1945 and 1970, without having to revise Chapter 18.175; however, the determination of whether to revise the chapter or not should be made by the City with the counsel of its attorneys.

Single-Family Residences The majority of Fremont’s built resources are single-family residences located in large housing tracts, a common pattern of development for postwar, suburban cities. Over the past decade, as scores of postwar housing tracts have turned 50 years old, it has become widely recognized within the profession of historic preservation that individual tract houses have very little potential for significance on their own. Instead, an individual tract house would only be significant as a contributor to a larger historic district. The only exception would be a tract house directly associated with the productive life of a significant person (National Register Criterion B, California Register Criterion 2, Fremont Criterion B). This recognition has been published in documents, such as the California Department of Transportation’s Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation, and it has been adopted into professional historic preservation practice. Based on the understanding that tract houses have little potential for significance on their own, we recommend the following steps for screening them for historical significance. Please note that wherever the word “staff” is used, it should be understood to mean both in-house City staff and City-approved consultants, so the City retains the ability to subcontract any part of the process to qualified professionals.

Step 1: Staff should research who owned and lived in the residence during the postwar period to determine if it could be associated with any significant persons. Appropriate sources to check

for ownership information include the following: building permit records, county tax assessor records, and city or county directories. Due to the City’s late incorporation date and distance from county resources, using these sources might not be as simple as it would be in many other cities. As a result, it may be necessary to put the onus on the property owner to identify the original owner, either through his/her personal knowledge of the property or through obtaining a title search report. Once the original owner is known, City staff would be able to perform cursory research on the individual through Ancestry.com, newspaper index searches via the local library, and general Google searches.175

• If the residence appears to be associated with a significant person, then a full evaluation should be prepared to determine if the association with the person is direct and important. The evaluation should also include a detailed integrity analysis to determine if it retains sufficient integrity to convey its significant association. Instances of associations with significant persons will likely be rare, so this is not anticipated to be burdensome or costly.

• If the residence does not appear to be associated with a significant person, then staff should proceed to the second recommended step.

Step 2: Staff should evaluate the residence’s integrity as a potential contributor to a potential historic district using the registration requirements provided in this context statement.

• If the residence does not have sufficient integrity to be considered a contributor to a potential historic district, and if it is not associated with any significant persons, the screening process should be considered complete. The residence would not be considered a historic resource.

• If the residence has sufficient integrity to be considered a contributor to a potential historic district, then staff should conduct a windshield survey of the tract within which the residence is located. The purpose of the windshield survey would be to determine if the area has sufficient integrity based on the registration requirements in this context statement to warrant further study.

• If the area lacks integrity and does not appear to warrant further study as a district, the screening process should be considered complete. The residence would not be considered a historic resource.

• If the area retains enough integrity to warrant further study, then staff should proceed with the third recommended step.

Step 3: Staff should evaluate the tract, not the individual residence, to determine if it possesses significance as a historic district. This approach would have two benefits. First, because it would result in a determination of potential eligibility or ineligibility for a larger area than just a single property, it would significantly streamline the process for future reviews of alterations to properties in the same tract. Second, it would serve as a form of incremental survey of the City’s postwar housing tracts on an as-needed basis. Evaluations should be based on the contents of this historic context statement to the extent applicable.

175 Ancestry.com is a subscription service with an annual fee. It is used very often by preservation professionals to determine a person’s address, occupation, and relatives, among other data.

• If the area does qualify as a historic district, then the residence would be considered a contributor, and thus a historical resource.

• If the area does not qualify as a historic district, then the residence would not be considered a contributor, and it would not be considered a historical resource.

Presumably, the City would subcontract a district evaluation to a consultant. The City should establish expectations for what the evaluations would include and the reasonable level of effort necessary to accomplish them, and come to an agreement with the consultant accordingly. Documentation would likely include preparation of a DPR Primary Record and District Record. Research and analysis would center on the tract as whole. It would include identifying a boundary of study, an evaluation of the potential district based on the established criteria, and an analysis of the potential district’s integrity. The integrity analysis would provide information on the estimated ratio of contributing resources to non-contributing resources. To keep costs down, adequate documentation would not require DPR 523 Primary Records for all contributors or any property-specific research or analysis. Based on our fieldwork and research, tracts possessing integrity will be far less common than those that are heavily altered, so district evaluations are not anticipated to be necessary very often.

Although we did not observe many in our fieldwork, previously unidentified custom-built single- family residences may exist within the city. In the event that the City receives an alterations permit for a single-family residence constructed on its own, as a custom development project and not part of a tract, we recommend that the City employs an integrity-based approach, similar to how we understand its existing process for screening properties functions:

Step 1: Staff should review the property for integrity.

• If a property has been clearly and substantially altered from its original appearance, it would not require full evaluation. The screening process should be considered complete. The residence would not be considered a historic resource.

• If a property retains integrity, it would require full evaluation to determine if it is significant under any of the established criteria. Instances of custom single-family residences will likely be rare, so this is not anticipated to be burdensome or costly.

All Other Property Types Based on our fieldwork and research, non-residential buildings in Fremont appear to be more likely to possess integrity and/or significance than residential buildings. We recommend that the City consult the list of properties suggested for further study (Research List) prepared in conjunction with this historic context statement when considering whether to fully evaluate non- residential properties. In addition, we recommend that the City employs the same integrity- based approach outlined above for custom single-family residences as part of the screening process:

Step 1: Staff should review the property for integrity.

• If a property has been clearly and substantially altered from its original appearance, it would not require full evaluation. The screening process should be considered complete. The property would not be considered a historic resource.

• If a property retains integrity, it would require full evaluation to determine if it is significant under any of the established criteria. Evaluations should be based on the contents of this historic context statement to the extent applicable.

If funding allows, the City could choose to prepare evaluations of the properties identified on Research List pre-emptively, instead of waiting for alterations permits to be filed.

Recommended Staff Training Related to Screening Properties In order for City staff to become both knowledgeable of professional historic preservation planning and comfortable with screening properties for evaluation, we recommend that the City consider offering training opportunities in the areas of evaluating properties for significance, analyzing physical integrity, and understanding how CEQA applies to historic resources. The California Preservation Foundation (CPF) offers a variety of in-person and online training opportunities throughout the year. For information on CPF and lists of past and upcoming sessions and webinars, use the following link:

http://www.californiapreservation.org/workshops.html

In addition, both the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and the National Park Service (NPS) offer numerous free publications on their websites. A list of relevant sources in included in the report as Appendix F. If the City requires more immediate or intensive training than what is available from CPF, OHP, and NPS, a consultant could be retained to provide in- house, personalized training sessions.

Lastly, in lieu of or in addition to training existing staff, the City could prioritize historic preservation planning experience when recruiting for any existing or upcoming vacancies within the planning division.

Potential Neighborhood Conservation Areas Although not technically related to historic preservation, the City asked us to identify potential NCAs during our fieldwork. The following appear to have potential to constitute NCAs based on their cohesive neighborhood characteristics, such as consistent setbacks, sidewalk configurations, street trees, landscaping and fixtures within medians and the public right-of-way, and/or distinctive architectural characteristics. (see Appendix D for maps of each):

• Mission Valley Elementary School neighborhood

• Adobe Acres subdivision in the Niles Riviera development

• Rancho Arroyo subdivision in the Niles Riviera development

• Orchard Homes Tract in Niles

Selected Bibliography

Books

Bendel, Winifred Handley. History of Washington Township. Fremont: Country Club of Washington Township, 1965.

Chapin, William, Alvin D. Hyman, Jon Carroll. The Suburbs of San Francisco. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1969.

Holmes, Philip and Jill M. Singleton. Centerville, Fremont. Mount Pleasant, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2011.

Holmes, Philip and Jill M. Singleton. Irvington, Fremont. Mount Pleasant, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2005.

Holmes, Philip and Jill M. Singleton. Niles, Fremont. Mount Pleasant, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2004.

Holmes, Philip and Patricia Wipfli Schaffarczyk. Warm Springs, Fremont. Mount Pleasant, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2013.

Historic Context Statements & Environmental Planning Documents

Brown, Mary and San Francisco City and County Planning Department. “San Francisco, Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970, Historic Context Statement.” 2010.

Centerville Area Plan Study Committee. “Centerville Area Plan: Final Study Committee Report and Environmental Impact Report.” March 1976.

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates. “City of Riverside, Modernism Context Statement.” 2009.

City of San Diego. “San Diego Modernism, Historic Context Statement.” 2007.

Corbett, Michael R. George’s Fruit Stand. A Cultural Landscape Evaluation. March 2009.

Cultural Studies Office, California Department of Transportation. “Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation.” Sacramento: of Caltrans’ Division of Environmental Analysis, 2007.

Galvin Preservation Associates. “Multiple Property Documentation Form: Late 19th and Early 20th Century Development and Architecture in Pasadena.” 2010.

Hardy, Thomas Rex, Robert Bruce Anderson, and Woodruff Minor. “Design Guidelines and Standards for Alteration and Construction of Single-Family Homes in Glenmoor Gardens.” 2009.

Hardy, Thomas Rex, Robert Bruce Anderson, and Woodruff Minor. “Design Guidelines and Standards for Alteration and Construction of Single-Family Homes in Mission Ranch.” 2009.

Harold F. Wise Associates. “A plan for a renewed shopping district and restoration of a historic area, Mission San Jose, City of Fremont.” 1958.

Harold F. Wise Associates. “A Study Illustrating alternative plans for the future development of the Niles Commercial Center, Niles, Fremont.” 1958.

Harold F. Wise Associates. “Area Plan: Centerville, City of Fremont.” 1957.

Harold F. Wise Associates. “Industrial District Plan for Fremont, CA.” 1958.

Harold F. Wise Associates. “Preliminary General Plan for Fremont, California 1980.” Prepared August 1956.

Harold F. Wise Associates. “Sketch Plans for City of Fremont Civic Center, Yacht Harbor, Airport, Alameda Creek.” 1958.

Historic Resources Group and Pasadena Heritage. “Cultural Resources of the Recent Past, Historic Context Report, City of Pasadena.” 2007.

Minor, Woodruff. Historic Context of Glenmoor Gardens and Mission Ranch Subdivisions and Ranch House Architecture. May 2009.

National Park Service. “Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places.” 2002.

Planning Resource Associates, Inc. “City of Fresno Mid-Century Modernism Historic Context.” Fresno, City of Fresno Planning & Development Department, 2008.

Reimer, Thomas of Coro Foundation. Washington Township Incorporation Survey. San Francisco. April 25, 1953.

Transportation Research Board. “A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing.” 2012.

Periodicals

Robbins, Jacob. “The Public Practice of Urban Design in a California Community.” American Institute of Architects Journal 62, no. 5 (1974): 24-27.

Mittelstadt, Robert. “Noncity Hall.” Architectural Forum 130, no. 1 (1969): 65.

Milnes, L.W. “A Ten-year Old California City: Formed from Five Small Communities, Creates for Itself a New Downtown.” American City 81 (1966): 86-87, 142.

Newspaper articles in the Oakland Tribune, The Argus, The News Register, and The Township Register.176

Local Publications and Pamphlets

Bartels, Ronald Earl. “The Incorporation of the City of Fremont, California: An Experiment in Municipal Government.” (master’s thesis)

Berge, Wilhelmine Perry and Carmelita Berge Freitas. Washington Township Historical Society presents personal sketches of the five areas of Fremont. Fremont: Washington Township Historical Society, 1976.

176 Microfilm located at main library, Fremont.

Gardiner, Allen. Fremont: A Modern History of an All-American City. Dallas: Heritage Media Corporation, 2002.

Holmes, Philip and Dolores Rose. Reflections: The Educational Heritage of Fremont.

Mission Peak Heritage Foundation. The First Thirty Years: History of Growth. Fremont, CA: Mission Peak Heritage Foundation, 1989.

Museum of Local History. Our City Fremont: A Photo Tour.

Sandoval, John S. A Century of Fremont in the East Bay. Fremont: Washington Township Historical Society, 1975.

Sandoval, John S. History of Washington Township.

Tinney, Douglas A. Life and Liberty at Lake Liz. Fremont, CA: Tinney, 2009.

Archives & Primary Sources

Expert Interviews • Bruce Anderson, July 15, 2015 • Woodruff Minor, July 17, 2015

Museum of Local History • Photograph collections • Series of oral histories conducted in the early 1970s • DVDS and multimedia files

“American Architects Directory First Edition, 1956.” The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects: 1956 American Architects Directory. 1955. Accessed October 13, 2015. http://public.aia.org/sites/hdoaa/wiki/Wiki%20Pages/1956%20American%20Architects%2 0Directory.aspx.

“American Architects Directory Second Edition, 1962.” The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects: 1962 American Architects Directory. 1962. Accessed October 13, 2015. http://public.aia.org/sites/hdoaa/wiki/Wiki Pages/1962 American Architects Directory.aspx.

“American Architects Directory Third Edition, 1970.” The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects: 1970 American Architects Directory. 1970. Accessed October 13, 2015. http://public.aia.org/sites/hdoaa/wiki/Wiki%20Pages/1970%20American%20Architects%2 0Directory.aspx.

Appendix A

City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Recommendations for Further Studies Based on the reconnaissance survey and research conducted for this report, GPA recommends that the City consider the following topics for further evaluation when schedule and funding allow:

• 1970s Architecture – During our fieldwork for this project, we noticed that much of the City’s more interesting architecture dates from the 1970s. Presumably, this is due to the fact that most of the repetitive residential tracts had been completed by this era, so new development was more likely to be custom-designed infill. We included examples of 1970s architecture that caught our attention during our fieldwork in the Research List, even though they are outside of the scope and period of study for this project, so the City would be aware of these properties and could consider how to study them in the future.

• Neighborhood Parks – The development of neighborhood parks in association with residential tracts was an important part of early planning efforts in Fremont. As a result, the City has numerous small parks tucked within its neighborhoods. A thematic study of park planning in Fremont and the extant associated parks would further the City’s understanding of these resources and inform proposed changes to them in the future.

• City Resources – The City’s once iconic city hall no longer stands, but a number of other city resources from the postwar period remain. They include libraries, community centers, fire stations, and city park features. These resources have the potential to represent one of the most significant events in Fremont history: incorporation. The city resources we encountered during our fieldwork are included in the Research List accordingly. A proactive study of these resources would provide a better understanding of their significance and integrity and could be used to analyze proposed changes to them in the future.

Appendix A, 1 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Research List of Properties for Further Study Listed Alphabetically by Historic Name, then by Common Name

Historic Name Common Name Address Year Built APN Notes (Unknown) Allstate Insurance 4510 Peralta 1966 501-0551-040- Building Blvd 02

(Unknown) (None) 37203 Niles 1955 507-0285-009- Blvd 01

Brookvale (None) 35880 Nicolet 1970 501-1796-001- commercial Ave 13 building Cabrillo Kabul Market 4673 Thornton 1959 501-0080-080- Shopping Center shopping Center Ave 09

Centerville (None) 4330 Central 1960 501-0704-003- No year built data in Presbyterian Ave 00 ParcelQuest Church Cloverdale (None) 37085 1938 501-0499-059- Creamery Fremont Blvd 00

Cloverleaf Bowl (None) 40645 1960 525-1052-011- Expanded in 1963 and Fremont Blvd 00 1974

Community (None) 40204 Paseo 1962 525-0883-001- Center Padre 00 Parkway Connolly Center (None) 40744 1955 525-0701-018- Fremont Blvd 07

Fire Station 1 (None) 4200 Mowry 1964 501-0957-001- Ave 01

Fire Station 4 (None) 1000 Pine St 1954 513-0612-017- 00 Fire Station 5 (None) 55 1946 519-1652-002- Hackamore 06 Ln Fire Station 7 (None) 43600 1964 525-1327-004- Grimmer Blvd 00 Five Corners Rick-Mark 40931 1956 525-0670-004- Shopping Center Shopping center Fremont Blvd 02

Fremont Fashion Gateway Plaza 39010 Paseo 1970 507-0465-013- Center Padre 01 Parkway Gateway Plaza (None) 39160 Paseo 1970 507-0465-013- Padre Pkwy 01

General Motors Tesla Motors, Inc 45500 1962 519-1747-011- Not visible from the Plant Fremont Blvd 00 street

Geodesic Fremont 38700 Paseo 1972 501-1581-024- Built after period of Domes KinderCare Padre Pkwy 15 significance, but obviously distinctive

Appendix A, 2 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Historic Name Common Name Address Year Built APN Notes Glenmoor Closed 4551 Eggers No Date 501-0667-087- Shopping Center Drive 00

Grau Office (None) 37250 Niles 1941 507-0285-012- Designed by William Building Blvd 00 Wurster as medical offices for Dr. Eugene Grau. Recent alterations by Paul Welschmeyer

Irvington (None) 41020 Chapel 1963 525-0680-010- Presbyterian Way 00 Church Irvington Savings (None) 40587 1963 525-1052-003- Fremont Blvd 02

Kimber Poultry Kimber Hills 39700 Mission (Unknown) 525-0313-085- No year built data in company office Academy Boulevard 00 ParcelQuest

Martha Avenue (None) 38080 Martha 1969 501-1531-035- business center Avenue 00

Niles Veterans (None) 37154 2nd St 1930; 1958 507-0250-020- Original portion 1930; Hall 00 addition 1958

Oakland (None) 5125 Central 1956 501-0350-002- Aviation Center Ave 26 for Federal Aviation Administration Olive Hyde Art (None) 123 c. 1940s- 513-0505-012- Olive Hyde donated Gallery Washington 1960s 00 the land and two Blvd buildings to the City of Fremont in 1962 to help the city build up an inventory of public facilities Orchard Homes (None) Orchard 1950 (N/A) May lack integrity: Tract Drive, Jones early tract of Way, and speculative homes Goodrich designed by Herbert T. Way Johnson in 1950, an extension of Ellsworth's 1941 tract Peralta Plaza (None) 4133 Peralta 1963 501-0536-002- Blvd 02

Satori (None) (Unknown) 1970 (Unknown) Environmental design Sekigahama award winner in 1970; Residence unknown if it is still extant Southern New Horizons 2550 Peralta 1948 501-1520-008- Alameda School Blvd 02 County Office Sundale (None) Stevenson c.1953 531-0026-040- Shopping Center Boulevard at 11

Appendix A, 3 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Historic Name Common Name Address Year Built APN Notes Blacow Road

The Original (None) 39222 1971 501-1130-044- Outside period of Pancake House Fremont Blvd 00 significance, but obviously distinctive

United Tesla Motors, Inc 45201 1961 519-0850-022- Not visible from the Automobile Fremont Blvd 37 street Workers Headquarters Walters & Wolf (None) 41777 Boyce 1969 531-0165-009- Precast Rd 04

Washington (None) 2000 Mowry 1961 507-0465-002- Hospital Ave 07

Appendix A, 4

Appendix B

City of Fremont Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Biographical Data on Postwar Architects in Fremont Listed Alphabetically

Dailey, Gardner A. (1895-1967) Education • University of California, Berkeley • Stanford University Associated Firms • Gardner A. Dailey & Associates, 442 Post St, San Francisco (1927-?) Selected buildings in Fremont • No specific buildings have been identified in Fremont. However, between the late 1920s and 1967, Dailey designed about 200 residences, primarily on the Peninsula and in San Francisco and Marin. He also designed schools, colleges, commercial, and office projects.

Hale, Norman Delano (1922-1998) Education • University of California, Berkeley Associated firms • Hale & Jacobsohn (1956-1966), 43291 Mission Blvd, Mission San Jose • Norman Delano Hale & Associates (1966-), 43363 Mission Blvd, Mission San Jose Selected buildings in Fremont • Weibel Winery tasting room (demolished) • Alameda County Water Building and Corporation Yard (1956) • Chadbourne Elementary School (1959) • Cabrillo Shopping Center (1960) • Tom Maloney School (1961)

Kump, Ernest J. Jr. (1911-1999) Education • University of California, Berkeley • Harvard University Associated firms • E.J. Kump Company • Franklin and Kump and Associates (1935-1942) • Franklin, Kump and Falk, Architects (1945-c.1950) • Kump and Falk, Architect and Engineer (1950-?) • Kump Associates, Architects (1960-?), 251 Kearny St, San Francisco and 325 Lytton St, Palo Alto Selected buildings in Fremont • Ohlone College, academic village design, 1968-1970 (attributed) • John F. Kennedy High School on Blacow, 1964-1966

Jacobsohn, Peter Mortan Ralph (1923-2012) Education • University of California, Berkeley Associated firms: • Hale & Jacobsohn (1956-1966), 43291 Mission Blvd, Fremont • Peter Jacobsohn (1966-?), 2188 Peralta Blvd, Fremont Selected buildings in Fremont

Appendix B, 1 City of Fremont Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

• Weibel Winery tasting room (demolished) • Alameda County Water Building and Corporation Yard (1956) • Chadbourne Elementary School (1959) • Cabrillo Shopping Center (1960) • Tom Maloney School (1961)

Johnson, Herbert Thomas (c.1895-c.1962) Selected buildings in Fremont • Orchard Homes Residential Community for Bodily Company

Mittelstadt, Robert Education • Yale University Associated firms • Robert Mittelstadt Architect, San Francisco (1968-present) Selected buildings in Fremont • Fremont City Hall (demolished)

Reimers, Frederick (1889-1961) Education • University of California, Berkeley “Special Student” Associated firms • Frederick Reimers, 525 Commercial St, San Francisco Selected buildings in Fremont (most work pre-dates period of significance: • Adobe Acres development in Niles • Garden store at the California Nursery (early Modern Ranch style)

Stack, Morris Selected buildings in Fremont • City Hall: original plans designed by Morris Stack and Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons as consultants. The design was rejected and never built.

Wurster, William Wilson (1895-1973) Education • University of California, Berkeley Associated firms • William W. Wurster (1926-1943) • Wurster & Bernardi (1943-1944) • Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons, 1620 Montgomery St, San Francisco (1944-?) Academic appointments • Dean of School of Architect at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1944-1949) • Dean of School of Architect, University of California, Berkeley (1949-1959) • Dean of College of Environmental Design, University of California, Berkeley (1959- ?) Selected buildings in Fremont • Grau Medical Offices (1941) • Shuckl cannery near intersection of First Street and Niles Canyon Road (1946, demolished)

Appendix B, 2

Appendix C

City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Pictorial Glossary Images and Definitions of Select Architectural Terms Used in this Context Statement Incised stucco or concrete: Incised patterns are scored into the stucco or concrete. Often used to create horizontal or vertical emphasis on a façade. Commonly associated with the Late Moderne style.

Bezeled Windows: Windows set in frames that extend forward, beyond the wall plane. Commonly associated with the Late Moderne and International styles.

Pronounced canopies over entrances: Overhangs over doors. Sometimes they extend around the entrance, rather than just over the header. Often flat. Sometimes geometrically shaped, especially on Mid-Century Modern and Googie buildings. Commonly associated with the Late Moderne, International, Mid-Century Modern, and Googie styles.

Horizontal bands of windows: Windows laid side- by-side in a continuous row. Sometimes within a projecting frame; sometimes no frame at all. Commonly associated with the Late Moderne, International, and Mid-Century Modern styles.

Appendix C, 2 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Placement or cantilevering of buildings on tall piers: Elevation of the primary mass of the building on light, thin columns; or cantilevering portions of the building’s upper stories. Commonly associated with the International Style.

Glass curtain wall: Wall system in which glass panels are hung from the building frame, creating a glass-skinned wall surface. Commonly associated with the International Style.

Post-and-beam construction: Building with a visible structure composed of simple wood posts (columns) and beams. Commonly associated with the Mid-Century Modern style.

Folded plate roof: Accordion-shaped roof consisting of angled planes. Commonly associated with the Mid-Century Modern and Googie styles.

Appendix C, 3 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

A-frame: Gabled structure in which the gable ends continue from the ridge to the floor, or nearly to the floor, forming the shape of the capital letter “A.” Commonly associated with the Mid-Century Modern and Googie styles.

Brick or stone veneer: Brick or stone applied as a surface treatment, rather than used as structural, load-bearing, masonry walls. Commonly associated with the Mid-Century Modern, Minimal Traditional, and Ranch styles.

Sample section of brick applied as veneer Canted walls: Walls erected at angles other than 90 degrees. Often used on commercial storefronts. Commonly associated with the Mid-Century Modern style.

Appendix C, 4 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Clerestory: Windows placed high on a wall, usually just below the roof line. Commonly associated with the Mid-Century Modern and International styles.

High-bay: A condition in which the floor-to-floor height is significantly taller than what would be typical. Often a single-story building in which the story is very tall to accommodate trucks or other large vehicles and equipment. Not associated with a particular style, but commonly found on industrial buildings.

Projecting three-sided oriels: Bay windows; three- sided projecting bays with windows on all three sides. Usually, two of the walls are canted, so sometimes called a canted bay. Commonly associated with the Minimal Traditional and Ranch styles.

Lava rock: Rough stone of varied sizes and colors typically applied as a veneer, rather than used as a construction material. Commonly associated with the Mid-Century Modern and Googie styles, as well Exotic Revival styles, like Tiki and Polynesian.

Appendix C, 5 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Classical diagram Entablature : Part of a building’s superstructure Modern interpretation that rests above columns. The term comes from the classical order applied to Greek and Roman architecture. It traditionally has three parts: an architrave, frieze, and cornice. It was adapted, simplified, and incorporated into modern styles in the 20th century. Commonly associated with New Formalism and International Style architecture in the postwar period, as well as numerous older styles (Classical Revival, Beaux Arts, Georgian, etc.) Full-height colonnade: A row of columns that extends the full height of a building. Commonly associated with New Formalism.

Elevated podium: Building organization in which the main entrance is located above ground level. Often includes an open-air plaza at the entry level. Levels below the entry level usually consist of parking garages, service spaces, or retail. Commonly associated with the International Style and New Formalism.

Perforated cast stone/concrete screens: Stone or concrete walls with punched openings, usually in decorative patterns. Commonly associated with New Formalism and Mid-Century Modern.

Appendix C, 6 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Overhanging eaves: Eaves that extend beyond the wall plane. Commonly associated with the Mid-Century Modern, Ranch, and Minimal Traditional styles, as well as older styles like Craftsman.

Fascia: A wooden board or other flat piece of material such as that covering the ends of rafters. Often plain and non-decorative but sometimes carved into decorative shapes. Commonly associated with Ranch and Mid- Century Modern, as well as older styles like Craftsman.

Board-and-batten siding: Wall siding composed of vertical boards joined with vertical battens.

Clapboard siding: Wall siding composed of thin, overlapping wood planks, laid horizontally.

Appendix C, 7 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Half-timbering: Faux structural elements, such as rafters, beams, and braces, applied to a gable end to give a rustic appearance. Commonly associated with the Ranch style, as well as older styles like Craftsman and Tudor.

Dovecote: A small bird house, usually attached to a gable end but sometimes attached to a ridge line as a pop-up. Commonly associated with the Ranch style.

Exposed rafter tails: Rafter tail ends that are exposed beneath the edge of the roof eave, rather than boxed or soffited. Commonly associated with the Ranch and Minimal Traditional styles, as well as older styles like Craftsman.

Appendix C, 8

Appendix D

City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Boundary Estimate for Potential Adobe Acres Neighborhood Conservation Area:

Appendix D, 1 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Boundary Estimate for Potential Rancho Arroyo Neighborhood Conservation Area:

Appendix D, 2 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Boundary Estimate for Potential Mission Valley Neighborhood Conservation Area:

Appendix D, 3 City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Boundary Estimate for Potential Orchard Homes Neighborhood Conservation Area:

Appendix D, 4 Appendix E

Appendix F

City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Historic Preservation Reference Material The following references have been compiled at the City’s request. They are intended to assist City staff with developing a deeper knowledge and understanding of professional historic preservation planning.

National Park Service Bulletins The National Park Service provides a number of bulletins with information on how to evaluate the significance and integrity of potential historic properties. The list below contains links to bulletins that may be of particular interest to the City of Fremont. A complete list of NPS bulletins can be found here: https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/index.htm.

National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation Link: https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/ Source: National Park Service Description: Explains how to evaluate the significance of a historic Uses: Evaluations, property and how to analyze its integrity. significance, integrity National Register Bulletin 39: Researching a Historic Property Link: https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb39/ Source: National Park Service Description: Provides research tips and tools, as well as common Uses: Research, evaluations sources of information. Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places Link: https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/suburbs/i Source: National Park Service ndex.htm Description: Explains how to evaluate suburbs; includes a section on Uses: Evaluations, post-WWII developments from 1945-1960. significance, integrity National Register Bulletin 18: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes Link: https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb18/ Source: National Park Service Description: Explains how to evaluate designed landscapes, such Uses: Evaluations, as parks, of which Fremont has many. significance, integrity National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years Link: https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb22/ Source: National Park Service Description: Explains how to evaluate properties under Criteria Uses: Evaluations, Consideration G, properties less than 50 years of age. significance, integrity National Register Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons Link: https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb32/ Source: National Park Service Description: Explains how to evaluate the significance and integrity Uses: Evaluations, of property associated with significant persons, i.e. significance, integrity under Criterion B. National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning Link: https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb24/ Source: National Park Service Description: Provides information on how and why to complete Uses: Evaluations, surveys, including citywide or by theme or location. significance, integrity

Appendix F, 1

City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

Caltrans Publications The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has published a historic context statement specifically for tract houses in the state. As Fremont is made up largely of residential postwar tracts, this document may be relevant to future evaluation efforts:

Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation Link: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/cultural/tract_ Source: Caltrans housing_in_ca_1945-1973.pdf Description: Provides contextual information on tract housing in Uses: Tract houses, California. evaluations, significance, integrity

Office of Historic Preservation Bulletins The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) provides a series of Technical Assistance Bulletins on the California Register, local ordinances, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The list below contains links to bulletins that may be of particular interest to the City of Fremont. A complete list of OHP bulletins can be found here: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1069.

Technical Assistance Series #6: California & National Register Programs Comparison Link: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%2 Source: OHP 0assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%20update.pdf Description: Explains the differences between the National and Uses: California Register California Registers for the purposes of determining evaluations, California Register eligibility. significance, integrity Technical Assistance Series #10: California State Law and Historic Preservation Link: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/10%20comb. Source: OHP pdf Description: Explains how California law addresses the preservation Uses: CEQA, evaluations, and protection of historical and cultural resources; project impacts, includes a wide variety of legal topics. mitigation, Mills Act, Archaeology Technical Assistance Series #14: Drafting Effective Historic Preservation Ordinances Link: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/14_hp_ordin Source: OHP ances.pdf Description: Provides guidance and best practices for creating Uses: CEQA, evaluations, good local preservation ordinances. local regulations

Appendix F, 2

City of Fremont Postwar Development and Architecture, 1945-1970

National Park Service Technical Preservation Briefs and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Guidance The National Park Service also offers a variety of Technical Preservation Briefs. These are typically most useful when considering alterations to a historic property and assuring that rehabilitation projects comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards), because most of the briefs discuss appropriate treatments for protecting, preserving, and restoring particular architectural features and materials. Detailed information on the Standards, as well as illustrated guidelines for following the Standards, is located here: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/standguide/index.htm. A complete list of the Technical Preservation Briefs, along with links to each brief, can be found here: https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs.htm. Should the City encounter a project with the potential to impact a historic resource, these sources will prove very valuable.

Appendix F, 3