Los Altos City Council
January 27, 2026

IN SUPPORT OF 81 PEPPER DRIVE, LOS ALTOS
In 1911, Los Altos had only 50 homes according to “Eastman’s History of Los Altos Area.” By 1929, the house at 81 Pepper superbly represents what may be the first house in the first planned development subdivision of orchard land in unincorporated Los Altos.

On Pepper Drive, the Adams House at 55 Pepper Drive (1906) is a designated historic landmark that still stands along with the palm trees planted when the house was built. Its owner Marvin Adams was a sugar broker from the East Coast who retired at 36; his wife Margaret had been a college professor. Their surrounding ranch included 30 acres of apricot, peach and cherry orchards, and they planted the pepper trees that gave their street its name.

Multiple Daily Palo Alto Times ads in summer 1911 explicitly list “M.O. ADAMS, Grower, Los Altos,” promoting “Adams’ Fruit.” As “M.O. Adam’s,” Marvin was also the subdivider of the Adams Subdivision (recorded April 3, 1911). Santa Clara County’s historic survey/tract-map dataset shows the Adams Subdivision, Los Altos surveyed in March 1911 and recorded April 3, 1911, with M. O. Adams listed among the owners and W. H. Myrick as surveyor [Map Book N1,

Per 1929 aerial maps, the house at 81 Pepper is the first house in one of the first subdivisions in Los Altos (incorporated 1952). It is a two-story wood-frame residence constructed 1929 in the

Colonial Revival style blending elements of American colonial architecture with Victorian-era details like its denticulated trim. Key features include a symmetrical façade, central front door, gabled roof with dormers, multi-paned double-hung sash windows with shutters, and a clapboard exterior.

The Colonial Revival style was adapted to early suburban development after the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair which had an architectural theme of Classic Revival. Across the United States, streetcar suburbs in particular soon saw houses that echoed the classicism of the colonial style.

The style is quintessentially North American, a nostalgic return to the Georgian and Federal architecture of New England, and built nationwide.

Some Colonial Revival houses were designed by architects, others put up by builders from pattern books. Its sense of stability and connection to national history made the style popular through to the 1950s, in part as a reaction against rapid industrialization. In the Bay Area suburban context, the popularity of Colonial Revival coincided with the growth of the commuter-era suburbs and a desire for a “traditional” American house form. It is a testament to this trend that 81 Pepper is located in easy walking distance of the commuter railway that connected Los Altos to San Francisco and San Jose.

According to the Los Altos HRI: While in 1910 businesses seemed to be related to farming, Los Altos had some white collar workers including administrative railroad workers, attorneys, physicians, professors, creatives and real-estate professionals related to a growing town. Based on job descriptions, workers were already commuting from Los Altos to San Francisco.

Together with a handful of historic properties on Pepper, Marvin and Lyell, 81 Pepper tells the story of modest housing erected during the Great Depression (1929-1939) that is intentionally not grand architecture, but signifies a faith in the foundational principles of America during a devastating era. Its workmanship is a combination of handiwork and products- like perhaps windows- that stem from a burgeoning housing industry. That 81 Pepper has most of its original exterior detail in excellent condition supports its place as a cherished residence for nearly 100 years.

The very fact that there have been 11 owners of 81 Pepper since 1929 speaks to the “starter home” that defines the American Dream. Its modesty is its significance. Both in style and intention, 81 Pepper actualizes the small town aesthetic before the rise of the suburban tract home industry of cookie-cutter designs that characterize post World War II development in the region.

In Los Altos, 81 Pepper Drive, with its superbly maintained integrity, is representative of the city’s earliest suburban development — the first wave of what would become neighborhood

homes as orchards began to be subdivided. From original 5 and 10 acre lots for “gentlemen farmers,” further subdividing like seen on Pepper Drive introduced smaller lots accommodating close-in single-family living.

As such, 81 Pepper Drive appears to be first house located on an orchard subdivision and the only early century Colonial Revival in the city’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), further affirming its historic significance.

Records:

The Adams Subdivision appears to be the first town-adjacent subdivision:
● Santa Clara County Records: N1,"28,29",Map of the Adams Subdivision,Hawthorne Ave.,Marvin Ave.,San Antonio Ave.,Pepper Dr.,Marvin Ave.,Third St.,Whitney St.,Los Altos,"March, 1911",4/3/1911,"M.O. Adams, Essie Diericx, Nannie K. Field, William",W. H. Myrick
● Marvin Adams (b.1905) Oral History Los Altos History Museum Catalog #1991.087.001 Determination according to Los Altos Municipal Code:

12.44.090 - Termination of designation.

The only legitimate reason for terminating the designation of a historic resource or historic landmark is when clear evidence is presented that shows the resource no longer meets the criteria of Section 12.44.040 due to loss of integrity and/or historic significance.

12.44.040 - Criteria for designation.

A structure, property or object may be eligible for designation as a historic resource or historic landmark, if it/they satisfy each of the three criteria listed below:

A. Age. (YES) A structure or property should be more than fifty (50) years in age. (Exceptions can be made to this rule if the building(s) or site(s) is/are truly remarkable for some reason - such as being associated with an outstanding architect, personage, usage or event).

B.Determination of Integrity. A structure or property should retain sufficient historic integrity in most of the following areas:

1.(YES)Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure and style of a property.

2.(YES)Setting: The physical environment of a historic property.

3.(YES)Materials: 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.

4.(YES)Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

5.(YES)Feeling: A property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

C. Historic Significance. A structure or property should be clearly associated with one or more of the following areas of significance:

1. (YES)Event:Associated with a single significant event or a pattern of events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local or regional history, or cultural heritage of California or the United States;

2. (YES)Person/People: Associated with the lives of persons important to the local, California or national history;

3. (YES) Architecture/Design: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a design-type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or

4. (N/A) Archaeology: Yields important information about prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

From: Anne Roberts
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 8:19 AM
To: Public Comment - HC <[email protected]> Subject: 81 Pepper Drive
Dear Commissioners:

Please retain the Historic Home designation for 81 Pepper Drive. Los Altos has the Historic Homes designation because of our rich history from the early 1900’s. You have been appointed Commissioners to retain this heritage.

Los Altos needs to retain our unique properties and not become just another “bedroom community” on the peninsula. Many of us chose to live here because of our historic homes and heritage. I have lived here for 50 years and been active in the Los Altos History Museum precisely because of our long history.

The owners of this property knew that it had a Historic Home designation when they purchased it. Please don’t let them demolition our past and replace it with just another modern home in Los Altos.

Thank you for preserving our history!
Anne Roberts
Sent from my iPad

Members of the Los Altos Historical Commission:

I am wriƟng you to urge you to deny the removal of 81 Pepper Drive from the Los Altos Historic Resource Inventory for the following reasons:

1. Neither of the historic evaluaƟon reports address the history and impact the Adams subdivision had on the transformaƟon of Los Altos 30-100 acre orchard lands to a residenƟal town. The Page and Turnbull peer review (the “Review”) points out this significant deficiency in the iniƟal report they reviewed on page 8 of the Review: “the history of the property’s more localized neighborhood is not discussed”.

The Adams subdivision of the 30 acre working orchard, approved in 1911 (not 1920 as incorrectly stated in the Review) appears to be the first major subdivision of land into small, buildable lots aŌer the original 100-acre purchase and subdivision of Sarah Winchester’s land by the Los Altos Land Company that led to the creaƟon of Los Altos circa 1907. The variety of different-sized lots in the Adams subdivision allowed a broad socio-economic group to buy the lots and build houses. Some of the earliest homes built in the Adams subdivision remain and numerous are HRI designated, landmarked and/or Mills Act properƟes. These include 41 Pepper (1928), 55 Pepper (1906), 81 Pepper (1929), 121 Pepper (1933), 236 Eleanor (1914), and 90 Marvin (1939). Others early homes include 24 Marvin (1936), 60 Marvin (1924), 184 Hawthorne (1925) and 166 Hawthorne (1930).
81 Pepper is notable as an excellent example of a relaƟvely modest home built for a working-class family. This was a big departure from the other early homes in town, many of which were either summer homes for wealthy San Franciscans or residences for the wealthy or upper middle class. The more modest homes were built for carpenters, teachers and shopkeepers and were important and necessary for the city to be able to grow and prosper. 81 Pepper meets the criteria of “a significant contribuƟon to the broad paƩerns of local or regional history.” In fact, the house is a prime example of the development paƩern of development in both Los Altos and the region.

2. The Review discussed whether 81 Pepper met the criteria for historic significance based on its architecture. The Review included two pictures of “excellent examples of 1 ½-story Colonial Revival homes” on page 16. These two examples are remarkably similar in design, scale, ornamentaƟon and overall look to 81 Pepper. However, the Review then menƟons that in order to determine whether 81 Pepper should be recognized for its architecture, it had to be determined if there were beƩer examples extant in Los Altos.

The Review idenƟfied two homes which it considered beƩer examples: a two-story

Dutch Colonial Revival home on Fowler and an even larger, two-story Colonial Revival home on Kensington. Neither is a 1 ½-story Colonial Revival. Neither is of the same scale.

Neither is similar in design, ornamentaƟon or scale as the two excellent examples shown in the Review. 81 Pepper is.

So, while the two other homes in Los Altos may be excellent examples of Colonial Revival, neither is an example of 1 ½-story Colonial Revival as is 81 Pepper. The Review does not menƟon any other 1 ½-story Colonial Revival homes in Los Altos. The Review states the importance to look for beƩer examples of a 1 ½-story Colonial Revival home.

The review is then silent as to the existence of any beƩer examples of 1 ½-story Colonial Revival home. Instead, it points to two examples: a much larger, two-story Dutch Colonial Revival and very large two-story Colonial Revival homes in Los Altos. The fact remains that 81 Pepper is an excellent example of a 1 ½-story Colonial Revival home. The need to menƟon in the Review the larger homes further underscores the importance of 81 Pepper as there are no other 1 ½-story Colonial Revival homes menƟoned in the Review.

Therefore 81 Pepper meets the criteria for historic significance based upon its architecture.

Thank you for your consideraƟon.

Jon Baer

Staff Report
Meeting Date: October 27, 2025
Prepared By: Sean Gallegos
Subject: 2026 Historical Commission Meeting Dates

RECOMMENDATION
Discussion of the Historical Commission Meeting Dates for 2026

BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

ATTACHMENTS

1. Staff Report

HISTORICAL COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
October 27, 2025 Page 1
Meeting Date: October 27, 2025
Subject: Meeting Schedule
Prepared by: Sean Gallegos, Senior Planner
Attachment: None
Recommendation
Review Historical Commission Meeting Schedule for 2026
Background
The Historical Commission Meeting Schedule outlines the commission's quarterly meeting schedule for 2026. The item provides the commission with the opportunity to finalize the quarterly meeting dates.

Discussion/Analysis
The Historical Commission convenes regularly on a quarterly basis, specifically on the fourth Monday of each month at 6:00 p.m. Meetings are held at the Los Altos Community Center, located at 97 Hillview Avenue, Los Altos, CA.

The following dates are proposed for the Commission's meetings in 2026:
• January 26, 2026
• April 27, 2026
• August 24, 2026
• October 26, 2026
During this meeting, the Commission will discuss and finalize the proposed meeting dates for 2026. Members are encouraged to provide input regarding the suggested schedule to ensure that all commissioners can attend and participate effectively.

October 27, 2025 Page 1

HISTORICAL COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: October 27, 2025
Subject: 2024–2025 Mills Act Quinquennial Audit Update
Prepared by: Sean Gallegos, Senior Planner
Attachments:

1. Mills Act Inspection Summary

2. Mills Act Inspection Documents
Recommendation
Receive the report on the 2024–2025 Mills Act Quinquennial (Five-Year) Audit of 14 designated historic properties and provide comments to staff on the findings and next steps.

Background
Program Purpose
The Mills Act is a statewide economic incentive program established in 1972 under Government Code Sections 50280–50290. It encourages private property owners to preserve and rehabilitate qualified historic properties through contractual agreements with local governments. In exchange for a property tax reduction, owners commit to maintaining and rehabilitating their historic properties consistent with approved work plans.

Program Administration
The City of Los Altos participates in the Mills Act Program as part of its Historic Preservation Program, administered by the Planning Division of the Development Services Department. The City currently has seventeen (17) privately owned residential properties under active Mills Act contracts, all designated as historic properties pursuant to Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 12.44. Once executed, contracts are recorded with the County Assessor’s Office to ensure application of the tax reduction.

Eligibility
Qualified properties include those designated as Historic Resources or Landmarks under Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 12.44.

Subject: Mills Act Quinquennial Audit
Contract Requirements
Mills Act contracts have an initial ten-year term and automatically renew each year unless terminated by either party. Each contract must typically include a ten-year schedule of improvements plan consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Failure to maintain or preserve the property as required may result in cancellation of the contract and penalties as outlined in Government Code Section 50286.

Program Benefits
Participating property owners receive reduced property taxes through a special assessment formula administered by the County Assessor. In return, the City and community benefit from the ongoing preservation of Los Altos’ architectural and cultural heritage, enhanced property maintenance, and the retention of historic character.

Program Oversight and Review
Government Code Sections 50280 through 50281 require that local governments inspect each Mills Act property at least once every five years to verify compliance with contract obligations. Contracts must include provisions for ongoing preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the State Historical Building Code.

The City of Los Altos conducts a quinquennial (five-year) audit of all active Mills Act contracts. The City’s five-year audit process fulfills this requirement and ensures that all Mills Act properties remain eligible for continued participation in the program. The audit involves a review of ownersubmitted documentation, self-inspection documents, and verification of compliance with contractual requirements. This process ensures that the program continues to achieve its purpose of preserving the City’s historic resources.

On September 30, 2025, the City Council adopted the Mills Act Program through Ordinance, codified as Chapter 14.95 of the Los Altos Municipal Code. The ordinance formally establishes local procedures for implementing the Mills Act consistent with California Government Code Sections 50280 through 50290. It outlines eligibility criteria, contract application and review processes, and inspection and enforcement procedures. Adoption of this ordinance provides a clear administrative framework for the ongoing monitoring of participating properties and ensures long-term consistency in program administration and reporting. The program will be effective on October 30, 2025.

Analysis
In September 2024, staff initiated the quinquennial (five-year) audit cycle for all Mills Act properties that had reached at least five years since their last inspection. Fourteen of the seventeen contracts met this threshold and were included in the 2024–2025 audit. Introductory letters were mailed to those property owners requesting documentation of completed work consistent with their respective contracts and restoration plans, including photographs, receipts, and written summaries.

All fourteen property owners submitted audit documentation, demonstrating participation and compliance with the City’s request. The remaining three properties were not included in this audit

Subject: Mills Act Quinquennial Audit
because their contracts were executed within the past five years and will be reviewed during the next audit cycle.

Of the fourteen Mills Act contracts, seven include a ten-year schedule of improvements plan consistent with the City’s current Mills Act contract format. The remaining seven properties, located at 762 Edgewood Lane, 420 Yerba Santa Avenue, 55 Pepper Drive, 500 University Avenue, 439 Rinconada Court, 965 Berry Avenue, and 571 Cherry Avenue, are governed by earlier Historic Preservation Agreements that do not include a ten-year schedule of improvements plan for the restoration and maintenance of the historic property. Although these earlier agreements predate the City’s current contract format, all Mills Act properties remain subject to the same preservation and maintenance obligations established by state law.

Staff’s review confirmed that all fourteen audited Mills Act properties are in sound condition and consistent with program objectives. Documented work includes structural upgrades, roof and foundation repairs, exterior painting, drainage improvements, and landscape maintenance. Properties such as 762 Edgewood Lane, 420 Yerba Santa Avenue, 55 Pepper Drive, 500 and 220 University Avenue, 431 and 452 University Avenue, 439 Rinconada Court, 571 Cherry Avenue, and 965 Berry Avenue show continued investment in preservation. Properties that underwent full restoration at the time of their agreements, including 1365 Grant Road, 10 Yerba Buena Avenue, and 210 Alta Vista Avenue, remain well maintained with ongoing upkeep and landscape care consistent with the intent of the Mills Act program.

To ensure consistency and strengthen program administration, staff recommends that the Historical Commission support staff’s efforts to request updated ten-year schedule of improvements plan for continued restoration and maintenance from all properties with expired or missing plans.

Environmental Review
This activity is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (Common Sense Exemption). The audit involves only administrative review and documentation of existing conditions and will not result in any physical changes to the environment.

Public Notification
A public meeting notice was mailed to property owners of Mills Act properties, and published in the newspaper.

At the time of preparation of the agenda report for the project, no comments were received by staff.

Cap Cod Cottages Plan Book - Rowland Lumber Co., 1940
Houses for Homemakers,Royal Berry Willis,
1945
Cape Cod Revival
1925 - 1955
The simple Cape Cod Revival style
was one of the last house types of
the American colonial era to be
revived as a building form.

Utilized exclusively for dwellings,
the model for the style came from
dwellings in Massachusetts and
New York fishing villages. Built
from 1700 to about 1850, many of
the original Cape Cod dwellings
were devoid of any architectural
embellishments while others were
often embellished with classical
details.

The revival of the style began in
late 1920s when it began to
appear in a variety of shelter
magazines and home builder
catalogs. By the late 1930s it was
among the most popular of the Colonial Revival styles. The design was featured advertisements for a variety of home products and was often constructed as a model home for new developments and home shows. Among the better examples was the Portland, Oregon based Western Pine Association’s model home at the 1939 San Francisco Exposition. In the Pacific Northwest, the best examples date to the late 1930s. While the design was still being published after WWII, by the mid 1950’s its use had nearly disappeared being replaced by the Ranch and other more modern house forms.

The revival
of Cape Cod
took a liberal

interpretation of the original style and quickly became popular with many early suburban developers and first time home buyers. The basic form of the house is a simple rectangular footprint, 1 to 1 ½ story in height with a steep pitched roof. Devoid of dormers on the main façade, architectural detailing is limited to multi-pane windows with decorative shutters, brick chimneys and highly detailed entries. Exterior are commonly of wood clapboard, but examples of shingle and brick can be found. Roofs are clad in wood shingle and asphalt and have little to no overhang. Some examples have attached subservient wings which serve as extra living spaces or garages.

Washington State Examples
House,
Spokane - c. 1937
House,
Olympia - c.1938
House,
Walla Walla - c.1935

House,
Seattle - c.1947
House,
Kennewick - c.1948
House,
Wenatchee - c.1930
House,
Vancouver - c.1935
House
Spokane - c.1950
House,
Longview - c.1932
For More Information:
"Defining Cape Cod " Old House Journal. March/April 1995.

Wills, Royal Berry, Houses for Homemakers, Franklin Watts, Inc, New York, NY. 1945.

Cape Cod Cottages; Rowland Lumber Co. National Plan Service, c. 1938 (/sites/default/files/CapCodCottages_1940.pdf)
44 Up to Date House Designs . Authentic Publications Inc. New York, NY, 1950. (/sites/default/files/44UptoDateHouseDesigns_1950.pdf) "The Cape Cod Revival" Old House Journal. March /April 2003.

National Economy Homes: Engineered for Substainial Savings - 1949 (/sites/default/files/NationalEconomyHomes.pdf)

Modern Homes - Sears, Roebuck & Co. - 1936
(/sites/default/files/ModernHomessears1936.small_.pdf)
"A Cape Cod Cottage in Bronville, NY" The Small Home, September 1930.

Helping Today's Home Builders Get their Money's Worth - Weyerhaeuser 4-Square - 1947
(/sites/default/files/HelpingTodaysHomeBuildersGetThierMoneysWorth_1947.pdf) The Blue Book of Home Plans for Home in the Pacific Northwest, Pacific First Federal Savings & Loan Association, Tacoma, 1937 (http://wwwstage.dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/TheBlueBookofHomePlans_1937.pdf) "Cape Cod Designs Always Popular " The Columbian January 8, 1957. "Cape Cod Charm - Ranch House Living" Better Homes & Gardens April 1950.

Western Pine Home Brochure, Golden Gate Exposition, 1939 Editors of the Architectural Forum, The 1938 Book of Small Houses. Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York, NY, 1937.

Schweitzer, Robert & Michael Davis, America's Favorite Homes Wayne State Unversity Press, Detroit, MI, 1990.

Walker, Lester, American Homes: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Domestic Architecture, the Overlook Press., New York, NY 1981.

Economy Built Homes: National Plan Service - 1937
(/sites/default/files/Economy-BuiltHomes_NationalPlanService_c1937.pdf) Expansible Homes Designed To Grow: National Plan Service - 1952 (/sites/default/files/ExpansibleHomesDesignedToGrow_NationalPlanService_1952.pdf) Modern Living Homes: National Plan Service - 1948
(/sites/default/files/ModernLivingHomes_NationalPlanService_1948.pdf) Homes of Moderate Cost: National Plan Service - 1952
(/sites/default/files/HomesOfModerateCost_NationalPlanService_1952.pdf)

COMMISSION HANDBOOK
June 2025
City of Los Altos

INTRODUCTION
This manual functions as an introduction to service as a Commission or Committee member in Los Altos. For the purposes of this manual, the terms Commission member and Committee member are interchangeable. For those instances not covered in this manual, refer to the City Council Norms and Procedures and the Los Altos Municipal Code for additional guidance.

If there is any conflict between the rules set forth in this handbook and the Los Altos Municipal Code or the City Council Norms and Procedures, the Code and then the Norms and Procedures shall govern.

THE BASICS

GOVERNMENT IN THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
The City of Los Altos operates under the Council-Manager form of government. The City Council sets policy for the City which is then carried out by the City Manager and staff.

Commissions are integral to the City’s commitment to developing policies which reflect the needs and values of the community. Commissions work closely with staff and the Council to carry out the duties and responsibilities assigned by the Council.

CITY COUNCIL
The City Council is elected by registered voters of the City of Los Altos and serves as the ‘Board of Directors’ for the City. The Council is the legislative body of the City. It sets policy and establishes the City’s overall priorities, direction and financial plan. The Council appoints the City Manager, who is responsible for the administration of City business, and the City Attorney.

COUNCIL LIAISON
The City Council relies upon the expertise and recommendations of the Commissions and Committees in advising the Council as it sets City policy. The Council liaison function serves to facilitate and enhance this work. Their principal function is to provide a wide range of information to the advisory body, such as information about Council discussions, policies and actions. This helps provide an historical perspective and thereby place their work in context. However, the Commissions and Committees should act independently in formulating recommendations for the City Council to consider. Therefore, it is inconsistent for Council liaisons to direct, guide or unduly influence the policy making work of the City's advisory bodies. Council liaisons are not required to attend their Commission or Committee meetings. Council liaisons will meet, at a minimum, with the Commission Chair and Staff

liaison once per year individually and once per year at the joint meetings of the City Council and the Commission. These meetings can be more frequent and will be based on the specific Commission.

COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES
Members are appointed by a majority vote of the City Council to serve on Commissions and Committees to advise and make recommendations to the Council and staff. Commissions focus on specific policy issues and provide additional opportunity for community participation in decision making.

From time to time, there may be instances when staff’s recommendations on an issue may differ from those of the Commission. If this occurs, staff will inform the Commission of this in advance of the Council meeting and both recommendations will be presented to the Council for consideration.

As appointees of the City Council, members of Commissions are public officials and are appointed to represent all residents of the City, not individual organizations or special interest groups. Care should be taken to ensure that viewpoints expressed as public officials are consistent with City Council policy and the position of the majority of the Commission.

Minority opinions are allowed but Commissioners acting in the role of a commissioner should support actions taken by a majority of the Commission.

Unless speaking as the official spokesperson for the commission at a City Council or other public forum, commissioners should begin all written or verbal comments with “I am a commissioner for the [insert commission name here], but I am speaking on behalf of myself and my own personal beliefs.”
Each Commission is established by Chapter 2.08 of the Los Altos Municipal Code, which includes the powers and duties of each Commission. Committees, both standing and ad hoc, are created by Council action and typically are assigned to focus on a specific topic for a short duration. Ad hoc Committees (sometimes referred to as Task Forces) may include Commissioners.

STAFF
The City Manager serves as the ‘Chief Executive Officer’ for the City and implements policy set by the City Council, manages the day-to-day affairs of the City, appoints and removes employees, prepares the budget, enforces laws and ordinances, and makes recommendations to the Council on the general welfare of the City. He/she hires professionally trained staff to assist in carrying out his/her responsibilities.

The City Manager assigns staff members to assist the various Commissions in carrying out their responsibilities. These staff liaisons, by virtue of their technical training and experience, are competent to provide such assistance.

Commissions shall work closely with the staff liaisons; however, they do not have the authority to supervise or direct the work of staff.

Requests by a commission or commissioner for assistance in completing research or analysis for the benefit of a commission may be directed towards the Department Head, which oversees the assigned Staff Liaison.

ROLE OF STAFF LIAISON
• Attend all meetings of the Commission
• Prepare agendas in collaboration with the Chair
• Work with the Commission in the development of a work plan for the coming year and a summary of accomplishments for the previous year
• Research and prepare reports for the Commission, as is consistent with the work plan and/or Council direction
• Ensure agendas and reports are posted in compliance with State law and City protocols
• Prepare action minutes for approval by the Commission • Prepare reports from the Commission to the Council, ensuring that reports represent the majority view and recommendation of the Commission
• Serve as the liaison between the Commission and City staff • Submit all budget requests from Commissions to cover costs associated with accomplishing their mission as well as to attend training sessions related to accomplishing the work of the Commission
• Communicate directions from the City Council to the Commission • Stay apprised of new laws and City protocols related to their assigned Commission or Commissions generally

MEETING DAYS AND TIMES
Regularly scheduled commission meeting days and times are established by the City Council. To facilitate and encourage public participation, no commission meeting can be held during the same meeting time as a City Council meeting and commissions should strive to not have any overlapping commission meeting with another commission’s regular meeting. Additionally, commission meeting times are typically scheduled for later in the day

to not impede normal city business hours effectively ensuring services are available until the close of business each day.

Commission special meetings shall be held in accordance with the provisions of regularly scheduled meetings to not impede city services and operations.

With majority support of the commission members, any commission can request a change in the approved day and time for a commission regularly occurring meeting for approval by the City Council. A request for a change in meeting day and time shall be respective of city business hours to ensure that staff and services are provided throughout the day. Such a request shall be included in an agenda report prepared by the staff liaison and placed on the Commission’s agenda as a Discussion Item before being brought to the City Council as an item on the consent calendar.

A complete calendar of all regular commission meetings can be found on the City website.

COMMISSION WORKPLANS
When a commission workplan is necessary each commission shall discuss and prepare its annual work plan based upon the City Council annual priorities and budget, which shall be submitted and approved by the City Council. The work plan is a list of the anticipated topics, assignments and goals that the Commission will focus on over a 12-month period. From time to time the City Council may amend the approved commission work plan in order to achieve the goals of the city. Any requested modifications should be in line with the goals and objectives of the commission and the city.

Each commission/committee is expected to develop each of their workplans at the end of each Calendar Year. A final workplan will be presented to the City Council at a Study Session at the beginning of each Calendar Year with specific dates determined by the Mayor.

MEMBERSHIP ON CITY COMMISSIONS
Unless otherwise directed, Commission members must be residents of the City of Los Altos.

If, at any time during their term, a member moves to a principal residence outside the City, they shall become ineligible to continue as a member of that body and shall notify the Commission’s assigned staff liaison as soon as possible. It is expected that when a commissioner moves to a principal residence outside the City, they will submit a letter of resignation to the assigned staff liaison and the City Clerk.

Members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Except for Senior and Youth Commissioners, members serve for a term of four years and may serve a total of two, four- year terms, plus any portion of an unexpired term for which they have been

appointed. Senior Commissioners may serve four, two-year terms. Youth Commissioner may serve two-year terms through the conclusion of their final year in high school.

No Commissioner shall serve simultaneously on two separate Commissions. When a Commissioner ends their service on one Commission, the individual can then be appointed to a different Commission.

Ad hoc Committee members are appointed and shall serve until the task of the ad hoc committee has been completed at which time the Committee shall be disbanded. Council members and Commissioners may serve on ad hoc committees.

Two members of an immediate family, or people residing in the same household, are not allowed to serve simultaneously on the same Commission or Committee, including ad hoc Committees. Immediate family members of City Council members are not eligible for appointments to any Commission or Committee during the term of the elected Councilmember.

APPOINTMENT
The City Council accepts applications for Commission positions during the formal recruitment period. Once per year in September, formal recruitment is conducted for those positions which are or will become vacant (including those for which an incumbent is eligible for reappointment). The City may conduct recruitment for specific vacancies between formal recruitments if there is a vacancy that causes a commission to fall below quorum or at the direction of City Council after a request from a commission chair or commission liaison.

Except for the Youth Commission, all other commission recruitments will follow the same process. Youth Commission applicants are interviewed by the City Council Youth Commission Interview Committee which then makes appointment recommendations to the full City Council at a regular Council meeting.

The City Clerk announces that formal recruitment for commissioners is currently open so interested individuals should submit their application to the City for review. The City Clerk works with other City staff, City Council, and community groups to conduct as much public outreach as possible. This public outreach will include but is not limited to posting on the City website, City social media, local newspapers, and email notifications to previous commissioners or applicants.

City Council may only review applications for appointments once the application period ends.

Interested applicants submit their complete application to City staff, where they will indicate their desired commission(s). City staff verify that the individual lives within the City of Los Altos and may serve on the desired commission(s).

City Council holds at least one (1) meeting that will include interviews and voting on commissioners. All applicants are allotted the same amount of time to ensure that all candidates are given equal treatment.

After all interviews are completed, the City Council submits a ballot with their appointees.

Incumbent applicants will have their attendance record included as part of their application packet for review by the City Council.

REAPPOINTMENT
Upon completion of the first four-year term, or an unexpired term, Commissioners shall notify the City Clerk that they have an interest in continuing on the commission and complete a new application for reappointment to the Commission for another four-year term. To qualify for reappointment a Commissioner shall have met the minimum attendance requirements during the duration of their previous term. Commissioners requesting reappointment will be interviewed by the City Council. Reappointments will occur at the same time as new appointments to the Commission.

Upon completion of their service, Commissioners are encouraged to meet, either in person or via telephone, with the Council Liaison assigned to their respective Commission or another Councilmember. The purpose of this meeting is to provide Commissioners with a chance to offer feedback to the Council regarding their time on the Commission.

RESIGNATION/REMOVAL
In the event a member is unable to continue serving because of change of residence, health, business requirements or other personal reasons, a letter of resignation must be submitted to the City Clerk.

Members of Commissions serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The City Council shall review members’ performance and fulfillment of Commission member obligations and may remove a member from a Commission based upon that review. The City Council may discipline or remove a commissioner at any time solely at the discretion of the Council. Any proposed removal can be with or without cause. A Councilmember who wishes to discipline or remove a Commissioner shall indicate their desire to place the discipline or removal on a future agenda at the end of a regular Council meeting. If three or more Councilmembers wish to agendize the discipline or removal of a certain Commissioner, the item will be placed on a future Council agenda.

ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION
A majority of members are necessary to conduct business. As such, Commission members are expected to attend no less than 75% of the regularly scheduled meetings annually during their term of office. At the end of each year, the City Council reviews an annual attendance report for each Commission. A Commissioner may be removed for failing to attend the required minimum number of meetings or after a third consecutive absence. If a Commissioner must miss a meeting, they shall inform the staff liaison a minimum of two weeks’ notice prior to the regularly-scheduled commission meeting whenever possible. If a Commission meeting is cancelled due to a lack of quorum, that meeting will still be considered a regularly scheduled meeting for purposes of calculating attendance, and those members whose absence caused the cancellation shall be charged with an absence for that meeting.

Commissions benefit from the informed input of each member of the body. Each Commission member is expected to exercise judgment by formulating recommendations for the City Council. Members are expected to be prepared for meetings and to participate and vote on every issue before the Commission, unless they are legally prohibited from participating. Lack of preparation and participation can be grounds for removal from a Commission. Each commission is to keep a rotation schedule for representation at City Council meetings by one of its members. Attendance is required when a commission has an item of interest on the Council agenda, to be available to answer Council questions.

COMMISSION MEMBER RESPONSIBULITIES
• Prepare for and participate in Commission meetings
• Attend at least 75% of scheduled meetings annually
• File Form 700 on time, if required
• Complete Brown Act Training within sixty (60) days of beginning service • Complete two hours of Ethics Training within thirty (30) days of assuming office and every two years thereafter
• Attend Annual Commission Training upon appointment and every two years while seated as a Commissioner

STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST
The Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) is a form on which designated employees and officials disclose certain financial interests. State law dictates that members of the Planning Commission must file Form 700s. In addition, the City identifies those positions which are subject to the City’s Biennial Conflict of Interest Code. Those individuals appointed to positions identified in the Conflict-of-Interest Code are required to file Form

700s. Commission members not identified in the Conflict-of-Interest Code are not subject to these regulations.

Commissioners are responsible for ensuring that statements are filed properly and on time.

For assistance in completing the forms, contact the City Clerk’s Office or the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Non-compliant Commissioners shall receive a letter from the City Clerk notifying them of their non-compliance and are subject to monetary fines.

Continued non-compliance shall be grounds for removal from the Commission.

All statements filed are maintained in the City Clerk’s Office and are available for public review. The following Table depicts Deadlines for filing Form 700:

TYPE OF FILING OCCURRENCE
Assuming Office Within (3) days of assuming office
Annual Each year on or before April 1st
Leaving Office Within (30) days of leaving office

ETHICS TRAINING
All those appointed by the Los Altos City Council to serve on Commissions shall complete at least two hours of public service ethics training every two years. New members must receive this training within 30 days of assuming office. Ethics training courses must have been reviewed and approved by the FPPC and the California Secretary of State. Members shall attend training sessions that are offered locally or by completing online training. Noncompliance shall be grounds for removal from the Commission.

It is the responsibility of a commissioner to provide proof of completion of the ethics training program to the City Clerk. These documents are public records and are subject to public review.

The City Clerk provides periodic reports of Form 700 and Ethics Training compliance to the City Council. The Council may remove any non-compliant Commissioner.

THE BROWN ACT
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) is the State of California’s open government law. Its purpose is to ensure that deliberations and actions of local agency bodies are open to the public and that there is meaningful public access to a local agency’s decision-making process. All City Commissions are subject to the Brown Act. Staff liaisons to Commissions are versed in the elements of the Brown Act and will help Commissioners understand their obligations related to the Brown Act. In addition, certain Ad Hoc subcommittees may be subject to the provisions of the Brown Act. Commissioners should consult with their staff

liaison regarding questions about the Brown Act. Ultimately, it is up to the individual Commissioner to ensure that they are complying with the Brown Act.

A major element of the Brown Act relates to meetings of legislative bodies. A meeting is defined as the coming together of a majority or more of a particular body (also known as a quorum) where the business of that body is discussed. Meetings must be properly noticed and held in facilities that are open and accessible to all. All meetings must be held within the City of Los Altos. A discussion which occurs outside of a properly noticed meeting, and which involves a majority or more of a body, is a violation of the Brown Act. This includes serial discussions which involve only a portion of the Commission but eventually involve a majority. The two most common serial discussions are daisy chain and hub and spoke.

DAISY CHAIN
A daisy chain is when Member A contacts Member B who then contacts Member C who then contacts Member D and so forth, until a majority of members have discussed an item within the Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction.

HUB AND SPOKE
A hub and spoke meeting are when one individual (the hub) contacts members individually (the spokes) until a majority has been achieved. The hub could be a commissioner, staff member or member of the public.

To attempt to avoid serial meetings, emails from Commissioners that are intended for fellow Commissioners should be sent through the staff liaison. Commissioners should take care to not ‘reply all’ on emails.

VIOLATIONS
Penalties for Brown Act violations can range from invalidation of an action taken to prosecution as a misdemeanor offense. In addition, there may be fines and/or attorney’s fees associated with a violation of the Brown Act. Commissioners who violate the Brown Act may be subject to removal.

Whenever a questionable area arises, it should be brought to the attention of the City Attorney or City Clerk so that corrective actions or “cures” may be taken. Advice from the City Attorney or City Clerk should be followed completely to ensure all actions of the City comply with the Brown Act.

TYPE OF MEETINGS
There are two types of meetings which Commissions hold. The first, and most common, are regular meetings. These meetings are where a Commission accomplishes the vast majority

of its work. Regular meeting days, times and locations are established by formal action of the Commission.

The second type is special meetings. A special meeting is any meeting held outside of the normal meeting day, time or location. Action may be taken at special meetings and agendas for those meetings should indicate the action recommended to be taken.

Special meetings may include study sessions. Study sessions are held to provide Commission members with the opportunity to discuss and better understand a particular subject/item. Generally, no action is taken at study sessions.

AGENDAS
The staff liaison, in collaboration with the Chair, is responsible for preparing all agendas of a Commission. All items of business that will be considered or discussed at a meeting shall be briefly described on the agenda. The description should define the proposed action to be considered so that members of the public will know the nature of the action under review and consideration. No discussion or action may be taken by a Commission on any item not on the agenda.

The Chair, or a majority of the Commission, may decide to take matters listed on the agenda out of the prescribed order.

All agendas and meeting materials are posted to the City’s website as set forth in the Brown Act and the City’s Open Government Policy. All Commissioners should sign up to receive meeting notices and associated agenda materials for their specific Commission through the City’s website.

MEETING MINUTES
Written minutes of all regular and special meetings are kept as the official record of business transacted and are taken by the staff liaison. Minutes are modeled after the City Council form of minutes known as “action minutes” and include a record of the legislative actions from the meeting. They do not include summaries of comments or discussion made by Commissioners or members of the public. The staff liaison will endeavor to distribute draft minutes within 10 days of the meeting. Action minutes will state the text of a motion voted on by the Commission, the result of the vote, identify which Commissioners voted “aye”, “no”, abstained, recused, or were absent. Action minutes will also identify whether motion passed or failed.

Any document submitted at a meeting, whether by a member of the public or a commissioner, becomes part of the public record. The staff liaison should make a notation on the document of the date it was submitted and file it with the meeting packet. The staff

liaison is responsible for posting the materials received within 48 hours of the meeting to the City’s website and forwarding the material to the members of the commission.

ADDING ITEMS TO FUTURE AGENDA
Commissioners may request that items be placed on a future agenda. This is done by requesting an item during the “Potential Future Agenda Items” portion of the meeting.

Requests must be for items that are under purview of the Commission. One less than a majority of members is required to place an item on an agenda. The staff liaison will work with the Chair to determine the best meeting to place an item on an agenda. Any background materials or information should be provided to the staff liaison for inclusion in the agenda packet. Future agenda items must be consistent with the Commission’s Approved Work Plan.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Commission members are subject to all aspects of the Political Reform Act. Commission members must not make, participate in making, or attempt to influence in any manner a governmental decision which he/she knows, or should know, may have a material effect on financial interest.

It is ultimately the responsibility of the Commission member to identify whether they may be engaging in incompatible activities or have a perceived conflict of interest. The City Attorney should be consulted as early as possible on any matters regarding incompatible activities or perceived conflicts of interest.

A Commission member should disclose any perceived conflicts of interest prior to any discussion of the Commission. A Commission member should recuse themselves for a conflict of interest.

INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITIES
Per state law, a public official, including commissioners, may not engage in any activity for compensation that is inconsistent, incompatible, or in conflict with their official duties with the City.

PERCEIVED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A perceived conflict of interest for a commissioner may arise from personal relationships, financial interests, serving on bodies or boards that have shared or overlapping subject matter jurisdiction as those under the jurisdiction of the Commission, or when it appears that the Commissioner’s private interests impact on the official duties of the Commissioner, or influence his/her decision-making.

If a Commission member is appointed to an agency or body that has shared or overlapping subject matter, after their service on a City Commission has started, the Commission member will notify the Council liaison and staff liaison.

A Commission member who has a conflict of interest shall, immediately prior to the consideration of the matter, do all of the following: 1) publicly identify the financial interest that gives rise to the conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest in detail sufficient to be understood by the public, except that disclosure of the exact street address is not required; 2) recuse himself or herself from discussing and voting on the matter; and 3) leave the room until after the discussion, vote, and any other disposition of the matter is concluded. Notwithstanding this, a Commission member, not in the member’s capacity as a commissioner, may speak on the issue during the time that the public speaks on the issue.

If a Commission member has obtained a letter or other documentation from the FPPC to discuss and vote on an item, then the member shall provide the letter to the staff liaison and the City Clerk upon receipt of the letter and disclose at the next Commission meeting the existence of the letter or other authorization, briefly describe the circumstances of why the member sought clarification, the basis for the FPPC’s conclusion, and the file number or other unique identifier so that members of the public can request a copy from the FPPC. In addition, the member shall provide the staff liaison with a copy of the letter or other authorization no later than 24 hours after the meeting at which the letter or other authorization is disclosed, so that a copy may be forwarded to any member of the public who requests a copy.

COMMISSION ORGANIZATION
Each Commission consists of between five and seven members, except the Youth Commission which consists of eleven members. Each member has an equal voice and votes on the Commission.

CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
To facilitate meetings and the work of the Commission, each Commission appoints a Chair and Vice Chair from the members of the Commission. The positions of Chair and Vice Chair shall rotate annually. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair occurs at the first meeting in October.

In the event of either resignation or removal, the Commission shall elect another member to fill the remainder of the year. No member of a commission may serve consecutive terms as the chair, meaning that the chair must change annually.

The role of the Chair is to preside at Commission meetings and to run a timely and orderly meeting. The Vice Chair is to preside in the absence of the Chair. If both the Chair and Vice Chair are absent, the Commission may elect a Chair Pro-Tem to conduct the meeting. It is

incumbent upon the Chair to limit discussion and recommendations on those items on the agenda.

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
A Commission may appoint Ad Hoc subcommittees, consisting of less than a majority of the body, but never 50% or greater of Commissioners seated to work on specific tasks. Each Ad Hoc subcommittees should be focused on one (1) specific topic and shall not last more than one (1) year. These Ad Hoc subcommittees are working bodies and may be responsible for the generation of reports and analyses, which are reviewed by staff prior to distribution to the full Commission. Commissions shall not create standing committees.

To establish an Ad Hoc Subcommittee, the topic of the formation of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee must be posted and noticed on the regular agenda.

Commission members currently serving on an Ad Hoc Subcommittee are not eligible to serve on another Ad Hoc Subcommittee simultaneously.

The motion of establishment must include that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee:
• It is comprised solely of members of the Commission establishing the Ad Hoc Subcommittee,
• Consists of less than a quorum of the Commission,
• Includes a defined purpose and the timeframe to accomplish that purpose and is less than one year in duration,
• Will automatically terminate when a final report is given to the Commission, or when the timeframe established by the Commission is met, unless extended by the Commission at a public meeting,
• Will not be re-established or renewed in multiple years, and • It is advisory in nature and is not established to work on an item where continuing jurisdiction exists.

In accordance with the Brown Act, Ad Hoc Subcommittees do not need to post notice of their meetings or hold meetings in public, unless directed to do so by the City Council.

COMMISSION LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS
Commissions may assign individual Commissioners to act, by a majority vote, as a liaison to other boards, commissions, or agencies, without establishing an Ad Hoc Subcommittee.

The work, findings, conclusions, and any updates of the liaison should be brought back to the Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting for a report or discussion and, if applicable, action. The positions supported by the liaison are to be in alignment with the

positions that the Commission or the City Council have taken if they have considered the topic.

If a Commission is not able to select a Commission member as a liaison to another board, commission, or agency and a staff member cannot serve in that capacity, the Commission may recommend an individual resident to represent the Commission upon approval by the Commission and City Council.

MEETING PROCEDURES
All Commission meetings are open to the public and should be approached in a dignified, respectful manner. It is the responsibility of all Commissioners to take their duties and obligations seriously and to ensure that all meetings are productive and further the mission of the City.

RULES OF ORDER
Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, with addendums adopted by the City Council, govern the conduct of Commission meetings. Information regarding the Rules of Order can be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office.

CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEMS
The standard procedure for considering individual agenda items shall be as outlined in Figure 5. From time to time, the prescribed order may be changed.

Official action requires a majority vote of the Commission/Committee of current members seated, not just those present. In the event that a Commission/Committee has a vacancy a majority vote shall be determined by the number of actively appointed members of the body.

Example: the Planning Commission is a body of seven (7) commissioners, but has two (2) vacancies, with five (5) actively appointed Planning Commissioners. A majority vote of at least three (3) commissioners is required to take action on an item.

PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERING AGENDA ITEMS

1. Presentation by Staff, Commissioner or Ad Hoc subcommittee; then

2. Commissioners ask clarifying questions; then

3. Members of the public are given an opportunity to speak on the item; then

4. Commissioners discuss the item; then

5. If needed, a motion is made upon which the Commission votes on.

PUBLIC COMMENT
People present at Commission meetings may comment on any item on the agenda. To facilitate an orderly meeting, each speaker is requested, but not required, to complete a Request to Speak card for each item they wish to speak on before discussion on that item begins. To ensure that all are heard, speakers are typically given three minutes to speak on each item. If there are more than 10 requests to speak on an agenda item, the Chair may limit each speaker’s time to two minutes.

The Chair has the right to ask a member of the public to stop from speaking if over the allotted time or if comments are not related to the topic at hand.

During regular meetings, comments may be offered on items not on the agenda under that portion of the agenda identified for Public Comment. For special meetings, comments may be offered on items only for topics listed on the agenda. The Commission may not discuss or act on any item raised during the Public Comments on Items not on the agenda portion of the meeting.

TELECONFERENCING
Commission members may participate in meetings via teleconference in accordance with State law (Gov. Code sec. 54953 and AB 2449). Members participating via teleconferencing under AB 2449 (Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances) must participate via audio and visual methods. In all other circumstances, members participating via teleconferencing shall participate via audio and visual methods, when practical. Members may participate via teleconference in no more than 20% of meetings in a calendar year (January to December), whether utilizing provisions of the traditional Brown Act or Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances. All meetings of the Commission must have a majority of members present in the physical meeting location within the City.

At the beginning of a meeting in which a member is participating via teleconference, the Chair, or the Vice Chair if the Chair is participating remotely, will ask the member(s) participating via teleconference to confirm the teleconference location was properly noticed according to State Law, the teleconference location is accessible to members of the public and whether anyone is present in the teleconference location besides the member.

DECORUM
Commissioners shall render the utmost courtesy to each other, the City Council, staff and members of the public. Commissioners may be subject to dismissal for failure to observe these standards.

Members of the public attending Commission meetings shall observe the same rules of order and decorum applicable to Commission members. Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter

2.05 – Public Meetings Rules for Conduct shall apply to all meetings. To provide an environment in which all viewpoints may be expressed, noise emanating from the audience, whether in opposition or support, shall not be permitted. Continual disruption of meetings by members of the public may be grounds for the removal from the meeting.

TRAINING
Commissioners are expected to stay current on issues related to their service as public officials. Members are provided with brief training following their appointment regarding their duties as a Commissioner and the Brown Act. Annual training courses are organized by the City Clerk and conducted by City staff to review roles and responsibilities and to provide information on any changes in laws or policies that may be relevant to conducting the work of the Commissions. Attendance at this training course is required for all Commission members and staff liaisons. Individuals who are unable to attend the training session will be required to watch the video of the training and certify that they have completed the training.

Members of Commissions are encouraged, within budget limitations, to attend training related to their area of responsibility. It is intended that such attendance will broaden a member’s knowledge and increase awareness of current developments relating to relevant areas of responsibility. The City may cover costs of registration and certain travel expenses in accordance with the City’s Legislative Body Travel Policy. Requests for use of City funds must be approved in accordance with the aforementioned Policy.

CONCLUSION
The City Council and staff appreciate your service as a Los Altos Commission member. The time and energy you expend help to make Los Altos the wonderful community it is. If at any time during your service, you have questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact your staff liaison who can help to address any issue which may arise.

TIPS FOR CHAIR (AND VICE CHAIR)
(and anyone who may have to run a meeting)
The role of the Chair of the Commission is to preside at meetings and to help move the work of the Commission forward. The Chair (and Vice Chair) does not have any extra authority or power beyond that of his/her fellow Commissioners.

As Chair, you are responsible for conducting meetings of the Commission. It is important to limit discussion of those items on the agenda. For each agenda item, it is suggested that you follow this procedure:

1. Announce what the item being considered is

2. Ask if there is a report for the item – generally, this is provided by the staff liaison but occasionally may be provided by another Commissioner

3. Ask Commissioners if there are any clarifying questions

4. Take public comment – instructions for how to take public comment are included in the “Meeting Procedures” section of the Commission Handbook

5. Facilitate discussion among the Commission – it is important that each Commissioner is given equal chance to speak and express his/her opinion

6. After discussion of the item, ensure that a conclusion is reached – this can be in the form of a motion, direction provided to staff or an Ad Hoc subcommittee, decision to continue the item to a date certain or not certain, or to take no further action.

APPLICATIONS
On occasion, a Commission may receive an application from a resident or community group which the Commission is to consider. In these instances, applicants are given a total of up to ten minutes to present their position/input prior to hearing other public comments. This is done after the staff has presented its report. After the applicant(s) has been presented, public comment is taken from the audience. Following public comment, the applicant is given five minutes to provide a rebuttal to any issue raised during public comments.

ANNOUCING VOTES
The Brown Act requires that all votes be clearly noted, both at the meeting and in the record.

It is the Chair’s responsibility to ensure that the vote is noted during the meeting. This is done by announcing how each member voted on a particular issue. If the voting is unanimous, it is sufficient to state “passes unanimously.” The staff liaison will ensure that the minutes accurately reflect how each member voted on each issue.

RECESS
It is customary to have a short recess two hours after the beginning of a meeting. The established hour after which no new items will be started is four hours after the beginning of the meeting. Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the Commission/Committee.

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Melissa Thurman
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 12:14 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: Stephanie Williams; Taylor Soleno
Subject: 81 Pepper Drive Appeal - City Council Meeting Date Attachments: 81 Pepper Appeal.pdf
Hello,
The appeal for 81 Pepper Drive has been scheduled as a Public Hearing before the City Council during their regular meeting on Tuesday, January 27, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will be heard in the City Council Chambers, 1 N. San Antonio Road, Los Altos.

This email serves as written notice of the Appeal Hearing.

Thank you.

Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
City of Los Altos
www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and protected information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

The City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory
October 2012 i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City Council
Ronald D. Packard Mayor
Valorie Cook Carpenter Mayor Pro Tem
David C. Casas
Jarrett Fishpaw
Megan Satterlee
Historical Commission
Gregory Loney Chair
Lance Kreisman Vice-Chair
Kristin Baker
Frank Bishop
Justin Drewes
Sapna Marfatia
Denise Welsh
City Staff
Douglas J. Schmitz City Manager
James Walgren, AICP Assistant City Manager
Zachary Dahl, AICP Senior Planner
Los Altos History Museum
Laura Bajuk Executive Director
Lisa Robinson Collections Manager
Consultant
Sheila McElroy CIRCA: Historic Property Development
San Francisco, CA
Cover: Going clockwise – The J. Gilbert Smith House (The Los Altos History House) (circa 1906); the newly constructed Southern Pacific Railroad Passenger Depot in Los Altos (1913); four of the original houses in Los Altos along Orange Avenue (circa 1913); the Tankhouse at 10 Yerba Buena Avenue (date unknown). Background – Tract map from 1906 showing the Sarah Winchester property, the original tract of land used to develop Los Altos.

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory
ii October 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I
Overview of the Historic Evaluation Process I-1
Introduction I-2
Definitions I-3
Historic Evaluation Framework I-6
The National Historic Preservation Act I-6
The National Register Criteria I-6
The California Environmental Quality Act I-8
The California Register Criteria I-8
Historical Resource Status Codes I-9
Evaluating Historic Resources in Los Altos I-11
Step 1: Age I-11
Step 2: Determination of Integrity I-11
Step 3: Significance I-12
Historic Designation I-14

SECTION II
Los Altos: The Historic Contexts
Context 1: Prehistory II-1
Context 2: Agriculture 1850 to 1940 II-4
Context 3: Residential Architecture 1907 to 1940 II-6
Context 4: Institutional Development 1907 to1940 II-9
Context 5: Commercial Development 1907 to 1940 II-10
Los Altos: The Influence of Transportation on Growth and Development Early History II-11
Early American Settlers: The Cattle and Wheat Ranches II-12 The Age of Subdivision and Mass Transit II-13
Growth and the Importance of Transportation II-15
Transportation after the 1920s: The Automobile II-16
The Commuter and Los Altos II-18
Profile of Los Altos: 1907 to 1930
Occupations II-19
Demographics II-20

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory
October 2012 iii

SECTION III
Historic Landmarks Properties III-1

SECTION IV
Historic Resource Properties IV-1

SECTION V
Designated Heritage Trees V-1

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-1

OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORIC EVALUATION PROCESS
The Los Altos historic evaluation process has been developed using the criteria outlined in the State and National evaluation practices and is intended to coordinate the areas of integrity, significance, and association between the California Register and the City of Los Altos, in order to avoid conflicting information or interpretations. The evaluation process consists of three steps which are summarized below.

The first step is to determine whether or not the property is over fifty years of age – buildings must, in most cases, be fifty years old or older to be considered historic resources. Certain properties that were constructed less than fifty years ago may be important as examples of mid-century modernist design or suburban development patterns. These properties may be eligible as historic resources if they are demonstrated to meet certain specialized criteria, sometimes referred to as demonstrating exceptional significance.

The next step is to determine whether the property retains enough original materials and features to convey its value as a historic resource. For example, a residence potentially important as a notable example of the Tudor Revival Style of architecture in Los Altos should retain the majority of its original cladding materials, as well as decorative details such as leaded glass windows, half-timbering and/or overhanging gables. These elements would be considered to be the structure’s Character Defining Features. This integrity assessment is commonly done in the field, usually as part of a survey or individual site visit. Most aspects of physical integrity can be easily assessed by a preservation professional in the field without knowing the full historic background on a property beforehand.

If a resource meets the age requirement (or demonstrates the potential for exceptional significance) and retains physical integrity, the next step is to determine if the resource has historic significance (i.e. has it been relocated, is it associated with a person or event of importance, is it associated with an event, person/people, architecture/design, and/or yields important information based on national, state or local definition). Significance is based on a property’s relationship or association with an important historic context. This context could be an association with a person, event or pattern of events significant in local, state or national history or themes within these associative values. It could be an association with a notable architect or an important architectural style or method of construction. A building, structure or object could also be important for its ability to provide information about prehistory. If a property is found to have a clear association with an important historic context, then it is determined to have significance as a historic resource on a national, state or local level.

City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-2 April 2011

INTRODUCTION
Los Altos is a community that celebrates its history. This rich past has been incorporated into the fabric of the City and provides a link to the community’s heritage and history. The remaining sites and structures of architectural and/or historic significance enhance the community’s unique character and contribute to a sense of place.

As outlined in the Los Altos General Plan, it is a goal of the City to preserve and enhance historic and cultural structures and resources within the community. To support that goal, the General Plan identified specific historic preservation policies:
 Ensure that the integrity of historic structures and the parcels on which they are located are preserved through the implementation of applicable design, building and fire codes.  The City shall regard demolition of landmark and historic resources listed in the Historic Resources Inventory as a last resort. Demolition would be permitted only after the City determines that the resource has lost its physical integrity, retains no reasonable economic use, that demolition is necessary to protect health, safety and welfare, or that demolition is necessary to proceed with a new project where the benefits of the new project outweigh the loss of the historic resource.
 Work with property owners to preserve historic resources within the community.

These goals and policies are implemented through the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance.

The primary purpose of the Ordinance is to ensure the protection of irreplaceable historic resources, enhance visual character through architectural compatibility, and encourage appreciation and recognition of the City’s past.

In order to properly identify historic resources within the City of Los Altos, the City Council authorized the Historical Commission to conduct a historic property survey in the spring of 1990.

In 1997, the Historical Commission completed a Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). The HRI was developed to catalogue all of the historic resources that were subject to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and rank each resource based on their significance. To rank the historic resources, a numerical evaluation system derived from The Evaluation of Historic Buildings by Harold Kalman (1979) was used. The “Kalman Scale” used a numeric scale to rate the resources in five categories:

Architecture, History, Environment, Age and Integrity.

Over the years, the methods and techniques for evaluating historic resources have evolved. As outlined in the criteria for the National Historic Register and the California Historic Register, current historic resource evaluation is based on using four areas of eligibility criteria: events, persons, design and the ability to yield important information, with age and integrity as separate entities. The Kalman Scale generally covers the same criteria, but is not totally consistent with the National Register and California Register evaluation methods in that it uses a ranking system and is quantitative rather than qualitative. In order to maintain the City’s HRI and evaluate historic resources in a way that is consistent with current historic preservation practices, a new historic rating methodology has been developed for the City.

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-3

DEFINITIONS
In order to better understand the terminology used within this document, the following is a glossary of terms as they relate to historic preservation in the City of Los Altos.

Alteration. Any act or process that changes any portion of the exterior architectural appearance of a structure or object, including, but not limited to, the erection, construction, reconstruction, removal of exterior architectural features or details, or the addition of new structures, but does not include painting, ordinary maintenance and landscaping.

California Historical Building Code (CHBC). The California Historical Building Code is Part 8 of Title 24 (State Building Standards Code) and applies to all qualified historic structures, districts and sites, designated under federal, state and local authority. It provides alternative building regulations for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration or relocation of structures designated as qualified historic buildings.

California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) is a statewide system for managing information on the full range of historic resources identified in California. Specifically, those resources evaluated in historic resource surveys conducted in accordance with criteria established by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), formally determined eligible for, or listed in the National Register of Historic Places or designated as California Registered Historical Landmarks or California Points of Historical Interest. CHRIS is a cooperative partnership between the citizens of California, historic preservation professionals, twelve Information Centers, the CHRIS Hub and various agencies.

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The governmental agency primarily responsible for the statewide administration of the historic preservation program in California.

California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register of Historical Resources is a comprehensive listing of California’s historic resources, including those of local, state and national significance. The “significance” criteria for the California Register are similar to those used by National Register of Historic Places, which includes resources formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places.

Certified Local Government (CLG). The CLG program is a model and cost-effective local, state and federal partnership that promotes historic preservation at the grassroots level. Through an agreement between the City and the California OHP, the City carries out some of the functions of the National Historic Preservation Act. The OHP also provides the City with technical assistance and the ability to apply for grants to aid in the preservation of local historic resources.

Character Defining Features. The defining elements, such as prominent architectural features, materials, craftsmanship or other elements, that, individually or in combination, identify a historic property, building or landscape.

Commission Staff. The staff liaison assigned to the Historical Commission.

City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-4 April 2011

Contributing Resource. A public or private property that is not a Historic Resource individually, but contributes to the historic character of a Historic District.

DPR 523. The California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resource Inventory Forms used for historic evaluations. The DPR 523A form provides descriptive information about a resource. The DPR 523B form provides an evaluation of the resources and includes a determination as to whether the resource is eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places or listing on the Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory. The 523D form is used to identify districts or clusters of buildings that consist of a concentration or continuity of associated historic resources.

The District Record is used for documenting the linkages among individual resources within the framework of an historic context.

Exterior Architectural Feature. The architectural elements embodying style, design, general arrangement and components of all the outer surfaces of an improvement, including but not limited to, the kind, size, shape and texture of building materials, and the type and style of windows, doors, lights, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to such improvement.

Historic District. A distinct section of the City, specifically defined in terms of geographical boundaries that has cultural, historic, architectural and/or archaeological significance and is designated as a historic district by the City Council.

Historic Landmark. A building, improvement, structure, natural feature, site or area of land, under single or common ownership that has significant historical, architectural, cultural, and/or aesthetic interest or value, and is designated as a historic landmark by the City Council.

Historic Resource. A property or structure that has been determined to be over 50 years old, retains its physical integrity, has historical, architectural, cultural, and/or aesthetic value, and is listed on the Historic Resources Inventory.

Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). The City's official inventory of the historic resources, as adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the Historical Commission and/or the City Council. A property or structure must be designated as a Historic Landmark, a Historic Resource or located within a Historic District in order to be listed in the HRI.

Historical Commission. A seven-member advisory commission appointed by the City Council that is tasked with maintaining the Historic Resources Inventory, making recommendations on historic landmarks and historic districts, working with property owners on preservation, maintenance and other development activities related to historic resources, and other activities as identified in the Municipal Code.

Improvement. Any building, structure, parking facility, wall, work of art or other appurtenance or addition thereto constituting a physical betterment of real property or any part of such betterment.

Integrity. Integrity is the authenticity of the characteristics, also referred to as Character Defining Features, from which resources derive their significance. Integrity is the composite of seven qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. When properties

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-5

retain integrity, they are able to convey their association with events, people, and designs from the past.

Kalman Scale. A quantitative rating system that was derived from The Evaluation of Historic Buildings by Harold Kalman (1979) for evaluation of potential historic resources at the local level in five categories: Architecture, History, Environment, Age and Integrity. This rating system was used by the City through 2010 to identify and evaluate historic resources.

National Register of Historic Places. The official inventory of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American history, architectural, archeology and culture, maintained by the Secretary of Interior under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

Mills Act. The Mills Act is the single most important economic incentive program in California for the restoration and preservation of qualified historic structures. Enacted in 1972, the Mills Act grants participating local governments the authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties to reduce the property tax assessment in exchange for the restoration and maintenance of the historic resource.

Preservation. The act of identification, study, protection, reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation or enhancement of historic and/or cultural resources.

Reconstruction. The act or process of reproducing by new construction, the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure or any part thereof, as it appeared at a specific period of time.

Rehabilitation. The act or process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration that makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historical, architectural and cultural value.

Restoration. The act or process of accurately recovering the form and details of a property and its setting as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of later work or by the replacement of missing earlier work.

Secretary of Interior’s Standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards), with accompanying interpretive guidelines, are utilized by federal agencies in the preservation of historic properties that are listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; by State Historic Preservation Offices in evaluation projects proposed for historic properties in accordance with federal regulations; and by local governments, organizations and individuals in making decisions about the identification, evaluation, registration and treatment of historic properties. The list of ten Rehabilitation Standards, published as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, is aimed at retaining and preserving those features and materials that are important in defining the historic character of a resource. Technical advice about archaeological and historic preservation activities and methods is included in the Standards along with guidelines for archaeology and historic preservation.

City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-6 April 2011

HISTORIC EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
Historic resources can be defined as buildings, sites, structures or objects which demonstrate historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural importance. Various regulations - at local, state and federal levels - seek to protect and encourage the revitalization of historic and cultural resources.

The survey and evaluation process considers the historical significance and physical integrity of a property to determine whether it can be considered a historic resource, and thus subject to certain regulations and financial incentives.

The National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470a to 470w-6, is the primary federal law governing the preservation of cultural and historic resources in the United States. The law establishes a national preservation program and a system of procedural protections that encourage the identification and protection of cultural and historic resources of national, state, tribal and local significance. Key elements of the act include:
 Establishment of a comprehensive program for identifying historic and cultural resources for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).  Creation of a federal-state/tribal-local partnership for implementing programs established by the act.
 Requirement that federal agencies take into consideration actions that could adversely affect historic properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, commonly known as the Section 106 Review Process.
 Establishment of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation which oversees federal agency responsibilities governing the Section 106 Review Process. 1 The National Register Criteria
The National Register is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources. It is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) in conjunction with the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). The National Register includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological or cultural significance at the national, state or local level. The National Register criteria and associated definitions are outlined in National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

The following is a summary of Bulletin 15:

Generally, resources (structures, sites, buildings, districts and objects) over 50 years of age can be listed in the National Register provided that they meet the evaluative criteria described below.

1 http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/legal-resources/understanding-preservation-law/federallaw/nhpa.html (Accessed 9.1.2009).

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-7

Resources can be listed individually in the National Register or as contributors to a historic district.2 The National Register criteria are as follows:

A. Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history;
B. Resources that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Resources that 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. Resources that have yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history.

Certain resources are not usually considered for listing in the National Register. These properties can be eligible for listing, however, if they meet special requirements, called Criteria Considerations (AG), in addition to meeting the regular requirements (that is, being eligible under one or more of the four significance criteria and possessing historic integrity). Generally, such properties will qualify for the National Register if they fall within the following seven criteria considerations:

A. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance;
B. A building or structure removed from its original location, but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event;
C. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; D. A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events;
E. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived;
F. A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or
G. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

2 A “contributor” is a building, site, structure or object that adds to the historic associations or historic architectural qualities for which a property is significant. The contributor was present during the period of significance, relates to the documented significance of the property, and possesses historic integrity or provides important information about a period; or the contributor independently meets National Register criteria. A “non-contributor” does not add to the historic associations or historic architectural qualities as it was not present during the period of significance; it has experienced alterations, disturbances, additions or other changes; or it does not independently meet the National Register criteria.

City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-8 April 2011

The California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEAQ) provides the legal framework by which historic resources are identified and given consideration during the planning process. The law was adopted in 1970 and incorporated in the Public Resources Code §§21000-21177. CEQA’s basic functions are to:
 Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities;
 Identify ways to reduce or avoid adverse impacts;
 Offer alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and  Disclose to the public why a project was approved if significant environmental effects are involved.

Any type of action that has the potential to impact a historic resource is subject to CEQA review and analysis. This type analysis required by CEQA usually takes the form of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Negative Declaration (ND) or Environmental Assessment (EA). The analysis will evaluate the potential impact(s) and, if necessary, look at ways to mitigate any negative impacts to the historic resource. If a significant impact to a historic resource is unavoidable, then a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required before the project is allowed to proceed.

The California Register Criteria
The California Register of Historical Resources is the official list of properties, structures, districts and objects significant at the local, state or national level. California Register properties must have significance under one of the four following criteria and must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historic resources and convey the reasons for their significance (i.e., retain integrity). The California Register utilizes the same seven aspects of integrity as the National Register. Properties that are eligible for the National Register are automatically eligible for the California Register. Properties that do not meet the threshold for the National Register may still meet the California Register criteria.

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

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

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a design-type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or

4. Yields important information about prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time must have passed to allow a “scholarly perspective on the events or individuals

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-9

associated with the resource.” Fifty years is used as a general estimate of the time needed to understand the historical importance of a resource.3
The California Office of Historic Preservation
(OHP) recommends documenting, and taking into consideration in the planning process, any cultural resource that is 45 years or older.4

The application of National Register and California Register criteria for evaluation is very much the same, with national significance as the threshold for National Register eligible properties and statewide significance as the threshold for California Register being the only substantial difference. These are the standard criteria used by preservation professionals who qualify under the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards.

Historical Resource Status Codes
When a Historic Property Evaluation is prepared which consists of the applicable California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms (Primary Record, Building, Structure or Object, District form, etc.), an appropriate status code is selected and entered in the NR Status Code section of the form. The code that is selected is the one that best defines the relationship of the resource to the National Register and/or California Register. The status code also helps define a resource’s importance at the local (Los Altos) level. The California Historical Resource Status Codes are divided into seven major categories as follows:

Status Code 1: Properties listed in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR).

Generally applied to properties already on one of the registers, but being re-evaluated for integrity and/or being updated due to age of the original evaluation.

Status Code 2: Properties determined eligible for listing in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR). Generally applied to properties when extensive research has been conducted and substantiated data concluded eligibility.

Status Code 3: Appears eligible for listing in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR) through survey evaluation. Generally applied to properties when limited research has been conducted and concluded potential eligibility.

Status Code 4: Appears eligible for listing in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR) through other evaluation. Generally applied to State-owned properties.

Status Code 5: Properties recognized as historically significant by Local Government. Generally applied to properties with significance at the local level.

Status Code 6: Not eligible for listing or designation as specified. Generally applied to properties for various reasons noted.

Status Code 7: Not evaluated for National Register or California Register or needs reevaluation.

Generally applied to properties recorded but not evaluated for a variety of reasons.

3 CCR 14(11.5) §4852 (d)(2).
4 California Office of Historic Preservation, 1995, p.2. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-10 April 2011

It is important to note that each of these categories have sub-sets that further define and articulate the status “value.” For the City of Los Altos, the majority of historic resources listed on the HRI will be listed under Status Code 5. The subcategories of Status Code 5 are as follows:
5D1: Contributor to a district that is listed or designated locally. 5D2: Contributor to a district that is eligible for local listing or designation. 5D3: Appears to be a contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.
5S1: Individual property that is listed or designated locally. 5S2: Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation. 5S3: Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.
5B: Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears eligible through survey evaluation.

The application of the most appropriate status code therefore communicates the value of the resource and is extremely useful in any preservation planning process. A complete listing of all of the California Historical Resource Status Codes is available from the Planning Division at City Hall.

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-11

EVALUATING HISTORIC RESOURCES IN LOS ALTOS
When evaluating or re-evaluating a structure or property in Los Altos that has the potential to be a historic resource, the following process should be followed:

Step 1: Age
In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than fifty years old may be considered for listing in the California Register if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance or that it is exceptionally significant.

To be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register, a structure is usually more than 50 years old, must retain its physical integrity and must have historic significance. Similarly, in order to be eligible for listing on the Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory, a structure must first be more than 50 years of age.

Step 2: Determination of Integrity
If a structure is more than 50 years old, then the next step in assessing its historic value is to determine if it has physical integrity. Specifically, the physical integrity of Character Defining Features needs to be associated with the historic attributes of the structure or property. When looking at historic integrity, it needs to meet one or more of the applicable (national state or local) criteria. In order to be considered historic, a structure or property must retain sufficient historic integrity in most of the “seven aspects” of integrity:
 Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
 Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure and style of a property.
 Setting: The physical environment of a historic property.  Materials: 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: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
 Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
 Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Of the seven aspects listed above, the following five aspects should be taken into consideration when evaluating a property or structure in the field for physical integrity: Design, Setting,

City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-12 April 2011

Workmanship, Materials and Feeling. These five aspects can be assessed on site to determine a property’s physical integrity without having any information regarding the property’s associative significance (association with significant events/people) or historical development (including relocation). This type of information is usually not known when completing a reconnaissance survey in the field. As such, an assessment of a property’s Association and Location are further developed as part of Step 3 in the evaluation process.

Based on the five applicable aspects of integrity for a reconnaissance survey (design, setting, materials, workmanship and feeling), the “In-Field Physical Attributes” evaluation needs to be able to determine if a property retains or does not retain enough physical integrity to convey its historic association.

Retains Physical Integrity: Properties that exhibit integrity of their Character Defining Features with regard to design, materials, feeling, workmanship and setting. Such properties retain approximately 50% or more of the building’s original materials, form and character defining features, including one or more of the following: exterior siding and window materials, architectural detailing and stylistic features. Their general setting and physical context is intact.

These properties may have alterations or additions, but the general form, massing and original stylistic features of the property – the basic elements that allow it to communicate its historic character – remain intact.

Does Not Retain Physical Integrity: Properties that do not retain integrity of design, materials, feeling, workmanship and setting are properties with two or more of the following: removal and replacement of original windows with modern sash (vinyl or aluminum, usually), complete siding replacement, significant alterations to the setting/physical context and/or notably incompatible or out of scale additions. This includes alterations or additions to a property that present a false sense of history. Properties that do not retain physical integrity are not considered to warrant further evaluation as a historic resource. They may still be considered in planning in the context of an entire neighborhood or collection of properties as a contributor to a “sense of place.” If a property or structure is found to retain the physical integrity of its Character Defining Features, then a determination of association and location are made in the Significance assessment (Step 3). If found to have a majority of the seven aspects of integrity, it is eligible to be considered for listing in the Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory.

Step 3: Significance
This step of the process includes the establishment of the historic context for the property that is being evaluated. A Historic Context enables the assessment of a property’s historical significance by creating a framework against which to objectively qualify its relationship to larger themes and events in the history of the City of Los Altos, the greater Peninsula region and the State of California. A historical context for the City of Los Altos and a history of the influence of transportation on the City’s growth is included in Section II.

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-13

The process of analyzing a historic resource’s association is an invaluable tool intended to identify, protect and maintain the historic status of a property or district, and its contribution to the built environment and community character. The historic resource evaluation process should include:
 Evaluation of the property’s historic significance utilizing national, state and local criteria and status codes;
 Identification of Character Defining Features;
 Evaluation of the Physical Integrity (Step 2); and
 Establishment of the period of significance based on substantiated documentation.

A professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualification standards for history or architectural history (Federal Code 36 CFR Part 61) should be used to conduct the analysis.

The evaluation of a subject property should use the historic context as a tool for understanding where the property’s historic significance lies within the larger municipal historical timeline and to establish the property’s period of significance. The establishment of a historic context involves both broad and property specific research to determine whether the property has a demonstrable association. This research investigates broad patterns of history (i.e., suburban development in Los Altos or the growth and decline of the apricot industry), as well as the specific owners/occupants, architects, builders or events that may be associated with a particular property. In addition, physical alterations over time are assessed through survey field notes and building permit history documents, if available.

Once the background research has been completed and the integrity aspects of location and association can be confirmed (because one would then know whether a property has been moved from its original location and whether or not is continues to be associated with the particular family or use for which it may be significant), the final evaluation of historical significance is outlined using four basic criteria. These criteria, discussed in the Historic Evaluation Framework section above, address four potential areas of significance. These criteria are used as a professional standard for determining significance at state, national and local levels, and are summarized again as follows:
 Event: Associated with a single significant event or a pattern of events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local or regional history, or cultural heritage of California or the United States;
 Person/People: Associated with the lives of persons important to the local, California or national history;
 Architecture/Design: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a design-type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or
 Archaeology: Yields important information about prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-14 April 2011

If a property is found to retain physical integrity and to be clearly associated with one of the above criteria, it is then able to communicate its historic character and can be considered a Historic Resource. The historical association of a structure or property will determine the level of importance within the context of Los Altos history and, depending on that level of importance, may make it eligible to be designated as a landmark. For example, if a property is the only or last remaining property associated with a particular context in Los Altos, it may be considered a historic landmark.

A property could also be a landmark if it is an outstanding example of design or construction or if an event of citywide, statewide or national importance occurred there.

Historic Designation
The Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) is the official list of historic resources, designated historic landmarks and designated historic districts that are significant at the local level (contribute to the history of Los Altos). If a property is over 50 years old, retains its integrity and has association with one or more of the criteria of significance, then it is eligible for designation as a Historic Resource. A property that has completed the historic evaluation process can be nominated for addition to the HRI as a Historic Resource by the subject property owner, the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Historical Commission or the Community Development Director.

The Los Altos Historical Commission, which maintains the HRI as part of its charter, will hold a public hearing to consider a property or structure that is nominated for addition to the HRI.

Following a presentation of information supporting the nomination, the Historical Commission will take action on whether or not to designate the property or structure as a Historic Resource and list it on the HRI. Decisions made by the Historical Commission are appealable to the City Council. The Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 12.44 in the Los Altos Municipal Code) outlines the complete process for listing a property on the HRI.

All properties on the HRI are subject to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. Properties on the HRI are potentially eligible for designation as Historic Landmarks and economic historic preservation incentives, such as the Mills Act. For more information about the historic preservation program, incentives and resources available for historic property owners or the Historical Commission, contact the Community Development Department at City Hall.

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-1
Note: The Historical Context and Transportation Narrative were originally prepared by Historical Consultant Patricia Leach as part of the Historic Resources Inventory that was completed in September of 1997. The Historical Context and Transportation Narrative have been edited and updated as part of the Historic Resources Inventory Update in 2010-2011.

LOS ALTOS: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXTS
Context 1: Prehistory
Central California had the densest native population anywhere north of Mexico before Spain began its explorations into the new world in the latter part of the eighteenth century. There were over forty different groups of Indians living between the coastal areas of Big Sur and the San Francisco Bay.

Among those groups, more than ten languages were spoken.

The Europeans who encountered the Indians referred to them as Costenos which meant people of the coast. This was twisted into Costanoan which is still used today, although the Bay Area Indian people dislike it intensely. They prefer to be called Ohlones, even though the word Ohlone is of disputed origin. It may have been the name of a village near the San Mateo coast or it may have been a Miwok word meaning people of the west. Nevertheless, Bay Area Indians prefer the word Ohlone when referring to their heritage.

There was no Ohlone tribe in the sense there was a Sioux, Hopi or Navajo. Even though each Bay Area settlement was loosely affiliated with its neighbors by trade or intermarriage, there was not tribal organization or confederation. The people who populated the region had a common root in their languages but did not see themselves as one nation of the same people.

The diaries of the early Spanish explorers and missionaries give us a rich account of what Indian life was like before the influx of Europeans. The Bay Area, two-hundred fifty years ago, would hardly be recognizable today. The land was covered with vast meadow lands, marshes spread out near the shores of the bay and thick oak, bay and redwood forest covered much of the hillsides. Animal life was plentiful. Fish and game of almost every kind flourished. Herds of elk and antelopes as well as wolves and deer were common as the bald eagles, giant condors, mountain lions, bobcats and coyotes. There were grizzly bears who fed on the abundant berries and acorns as well as the salmon and steelhead that swam in the area’s creeks and streams. To the Ohlone, the grizzly was always present yet today there is not a single one left in all of California.

Water was everywhere. We know that the explorers suffered more from the mosquitoes and hard to cross rivers than they did the heat of summer. Places which are now very dry were described as having springs and ponds, even small lakes. The major rivers and streams stretched out over the winter and spring to form wide very marshy valleys. This is a very different scene from the semi-arid country the Bay Area has become. The San Francisco Bay was much larger than it is today, since much of the bay has been filled in with landfill.

The environment of the Bay Area has changed drastically from the days when the early Spanish explorers first began to penetrate. Some of the birds and animals are no longer here and others have diminished greatly in number. The characteristics of the animals have also changed. The early explorers wrote that foxes were virtually underfoot and that mountain lions and bobcats were often very visible. Animals then seemed to have become familiar and comfortable with man. Man, of

City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-2 April 2011
course, was the Ohlone people. The Ohlone depended upon animals for their food and for some of their clothing. They had an intense interest in animals and knew a lot about their behavior. The Ohlone viewed animal spirits as their gods and imitated animal motions in their tribal dances and ceremonies. They looked at themselves as belonging with the animals, so the relationship was not an adversarial one, but one of living in harmony.

There were as many as forty permanent villages that rimmed San Francisco Bay, plus many other temporary encampments. The Ohlone way of life was one of treks. Following the harvest, the Ohlone would travel to the seashore for shellfish, to the rivers for salmon and trout, to the marshes for ducks and geese, to the oak groves for acorns and to the meadows for seeds, greens and roots.

There were also trips to the quarries for stones and minerals and other trips for medicines, tobacco and for fiber and hemp. Because of their wandering way of life, the Ohlone built shelters of tule that could be put together and torn apart easily and quickly. The homes were a simple design made by fastening bundles of tule onto a framework of bent willow poles. Their boats were also made of tale and could be left behind when it was time to move on.

The Ohlone definitely had a very highly developed society where men and women had definite roles.

The women were keepers of the family, harvested acorns as well as ground them, gathered roots and herbs, collected seeds and made baskets. The men hunted, gathered food and participated in ceremonies. The Ohlone people were generous. They did not hoard food or other possessions, but shared them with the entire settlement. Competitiveness was not encouraged. Moderation and restraint were the virtues to admire. Because of this, strong rule or government was really nonexistent. The Europeans who first encountered the Ohlone called it anarchy, but on closer examination, the sense of right and wrong, modesty and truthfulness that were instilled in each individual created a much more sophisticated, controlled way of life.

The Ohlone developed basketry into a very intricate art-form. The baskets, made by women primarily, were made in many different shapes and sizes. There were storage baskets, winnowing baskets, hopper baskets, water-carrying baskets, seed beaters, cooking baskets, serving baskets and many more. Each basket had its certain shape that was both aesthetically pleasing as well as appropriate to its function. There could be as many as 25,000 stitches in a medium sized basket.

Each basket was an individual piece and reflected the natural world of plants of the Ohlone environment.

Dancing was a very important part of Ohlone life. They spent days, even weeks just dancing. At feasts, they would use moderation in eating and drinking just so they could continue dancing longer.

There were dances for all occasions. There were wild dances for war, acorn dances, mourning dances, dances just for men, and dances just for women. Dancing was a natural part of life, just like eating and sleeping. There was a deep religious or spiritual significance to every dance. In the dance, the Ohlones would feel power more deeply perhaps from the rhythms as they summoned spirits from their world.

The Ohlones were a strong well-developed people with an average life expectancy of about forty years. There were none of the contagious diseases that plagued Europe such as smallpox, measles, mumps and venereal diseases. However, respiratory diseases were probably prevalent. The Ohlone used natural medicines developed over the centuries to cure their ailments. They used herbs, barks and root in a variety of ways. They steamed and inhaled them or smoked them like tobacco. They

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-3
rubbed them into their skin or put them into their nostrils like snuff, plastered them on their faces or drank them as beverages or applied them as poultices to wounds. Minor illnesses like stomach aches or sprains were accepted as normal; however, major illness was believed to be caused by magic or by some evil spirit who invaded the body. When a major illness occurred the shaman was called.

Shamans would pray and dance to try to force the evil spirit to leave. Families would pay the shaman with beads or animal skins. Shamans, generally women, were the spiritual advisors or leaders. They were believed to influence fertility, health, the abundance of fish and the weather. Shamans could also turn to evil and in general were somewhat feared by the Ohlone people.

The Ohlone believed that almost every object had a life force of its own. Although everything had power, everything did not have equal power. Stones, for example, had little power, but rivers, redwood trees, the moon and especially the sun were very powerful. The storytellers would tell and retell the myths that had been handed down for centuries. Animals, especially, were believed to have special spiritual powers. The animal gods were more like people than what we might imagine gods to be. The Ohlone believed in and lived a rich spiritual life. They fasted, abstained from sex, danced long dances, chanted and sometimes used bodily punishment in order to achieve a heightened sense of living in their spirit filled world.

They envisioned the world primarily in terms of witchcraft and magic. Death was a matter of tremendous grief. The Ohlone feared death because they often felt the spirit or ghost of the deceased would remain and harm the settlement. For this reason, the family or especially the spouse of a deceased person would be shunned for a period of time. The Ohlone also did not have a sense of genealogy as we do. They would not know the immediate past but would know long ago ancestors. They would know their history beyond a few generations. This contributed to their belief of only living in the present.

Ohlone had lived in an unchanging world for thousands of years until the Spanish explorers began their treks though the new world. The Ohlone, oddly enough, greeted their arrival with much generosity and curiosity. The Franciscan fathers, especially Father Junipero Serra, saw the Ohlone as ripe to Christianize. And although the idea that these Franciscans were evil, power-hungry men who robbed the Ohlone of their life in paradise, the Franciscans saw the opportunity to bring their Christian way of life to the Ohlone. The Indians would be the beneficiaries of their more knowledgeable way of life. The original intent was the Franciscans would teach the Ohlone the proper way to eat, drink, pray and farm. After their apprenticeship, the Ohlone would be allowed to farm the land and the Franciscans would go on to Christianize other peoples. Of course, that never happened. Disease and the bureaucracy of the Spanish government prevented the Indian’s return to the life in natural surroundings. There was a brief period in the 1860s when Indians banded together to form settlements, but the influx from the Eastern U.S. did not allow these communities to continue and flourish.

Relics of the Ohlone have been unearthed over the last one hundred years. Mortars and pestles and an Indian skull were found east of Moody Road in 1955, and the developer of Colonial Estates on O’Keefe Lane discovered many human remains and artifacts during excavation work in 1964. The major find locally occurred in 1970, when the remains of an Ohlone village and burial ground were uncovered just across OKeefe Lane, on the Los Altos side of the boundary on the property of Mrs.

Lucile Costello, which had been acquired by Edwin C. Johnsen for condominium development.

With permission from Mrs. Costello and Johnsen, a “dig” and archeological study was undertaken

City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-4 April 2011
by a team from Foothill College, aided by Mrs. Florence Fave (now McCliman), then historian for the town of Los Altos Hills. The ranks were later joined by students from the California History Center of De Anza College, San Francisco State, West Valley and St. Patrick Colleges.

Today, there are groups of Ohlone descendants who occasionally make their opinions public. Many of them have tried to bring back some Ohlone customs, traditions and way of life. Groups sometimes perform Ohlone dances at local churches and schools. The Ohlone still believe in treating strangers as brothers and sisters and though they can’t change the past, continue to believe that life will get better if we work together.

Context 2: Agriculture 1850 to 1940
Los Altos comprises a portion of what was the La Purissima Conception Rancho and Rancho San Antonio and later, after the adoption of the State constitution in 1849 and the official creation of Santa Clara County in 1851, a portion of the Fremont Township.

In the early rancho days, much of the Santa Clara Valley was used for cattle grazing. This activity later gave way to wheat and grain fields in the 1860s and 1870s. Mountain View was the principle settlement in the area and grew primarily as a result of the old Mountain View Station, a stage stop located along the San Francisco-San Jose Stage Road. This route today is known as El Camino Real.

When the Southern Pacific railroad came through in 1864, the line was located about a mile from Mountain View Station, bypassing what was known as Old Mountain View (near present day Calderon). The “New Mountain View” was officially laid out in 1865 at the present downtown area along Castro Street. Settlement in and around Los Altos area grew as a result of the railroad and Mountain View was the center for all business activity for these early residents. One early name is that of Charles Berry, who according to Sawyer’s History of Santa Clara County, was one of the earliest inhabitants of the area, arriving just prior to the railroad. Berry is said to have purchased 15 acres of the Taaffe Ranch and immediately planted it in fruit.

According to the Thompson and West Historical Atlas of 1876, Santa Clara County comprised some 578,850 acres. Nearly half of this was cultivated and included some 170,000 acres of wheat growing alone. The 1890 Sunshine, Fruit and Flowers publication of the San Jose Mercury Newspaper describes much of the area north of Mountain View as being planted in wheat fields with the area west and south devoted to orchards. Prior to this time, it appears that most land was used for grain growing; in 1875 some 2,000 acres in the county are listed-as vineyards and wineries.

Other accounts describe the Mountain View area as having some 22 wineries, including that of John Snyder. In 1875, over 182,000 gallons of wine were produced in the county, with an additional 45,000 gallons of brandy the same year. The Snyder Ranch was one of the largest in the area comprising 700 acres. Others include the Campbell Ranch (the present day Rancho Shopping Center) encompassing 150 acres, the Taaffe Ranch, the Madigan Ranch, and the Emerson Ranch.

Remnants of the early agricultural activity in this area have not been identified in the survey. It is clear that by the end of the nineteenth century, smaller farms began to appear and the large ranches which were largely in grain began to give way to smaller subdivisions and orchards.

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-5
It is the orchards in the valley that are the emphasis for this agricultural context. The earliest farms predate the official subdivision of the town by Paul Shoup and the Altos Land Company in 1907.

These farms were largely aligned economically with the town of Mountain View and along Grant Road.

By 1890, according to Eastman’s History of the Los Altos Area, smaller ranches were producing as “much as 200 dollars per acre from prunes, apricots, peaches, cherries, pears and other fruits.” The properties were lived in year round by their occupants and represent a phase in this history of the community that emphasizes farming as the means of livelihood. This activity predates the later relocation of San Francisco businessmen and their families to town after 1907. After the official establishment of the town, businesses in Los Altos grew and the beginning of residential subdivisions began to take over the orchard land use.

The impact of the railroad and subsequent layout of the townsite is another type of context that is not covered in this examination. It is in large part, due to transportation and the settlement that developed as a result of the technology that the orchards virtually disappeared in the valley. The significance of the theme did not become evident until the end of the project. Therefore, the theme of transportation and the growth of roadways in the area may be viewed as another context to be examined.

Although orchards continued up to the early 1940s in Los Altos, many of the smaller properties (five to ten acres) are not included in this category, yet provide significant examples of architectural styles and are included in the residential architecture context. The agricultural context attempts to identify properties which likely were constructed prior to the establishment of the town. An excellent description of life during this time period (and later periods) may be found in the unpublished manuscripts Apples of Gold in Settings of Silver by Lyle W. Huestis in 1977. This account gives detailed reminiscences of Mrs. Huestis about a farm and apricot orchard located on Grant Rd. (a copy can be found at the Los Altos History Museum). Properties that are, or were, part of this context include:
 170 Almond Avenue (Formway Machine Shop)♦
 210 Alta Vista Avenue♦
 960 Berry Avenue (Frank Bacon House)1
 965 Berry Avenue*
 547 Castano Court*
 1398 Chelsea Drive
 1330 Concord Avenue♦
 980 Covington (Emerson House)
 762 Edgewood Lane*
 331 El Monte Avenue
 236 Eleanor Avenue
 1520 Grant Road

1 The property at 960 Berry Avenue is not only significant because it is an early ranch house of the area, but also because of its historical association with actor Frank Bacon.

City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-6 April 2011
 1473 Miramonte Avenue (Holly Village) ♦
 1475 Oakhurst Avenue♦
 1284 Paula Court
 39 Pine Lane (Hoskins House)
 1050 Portland Avenue♦
 439 Rinconada Court*
 51 S. San Antonio Rd.*
 175 Sylvia Court♦
 10 Yerba Buena Avenue (Tankhouse)
* Denotes City Designated Landmark
♦ Denotes that the structure has been demolished and/or is no longer on the HRI All properties in this context represent farmhouses of the area that were tied to some form of agriculture prior to the influx of San Franciscans and other families after the town’s creation.

Context 3: Residential Architecture 1907 to 1940
Many believe that the real beginning of Los Altos start with the Altos Land Company and acquisition of Sarah Winchester’s 100 acres in 1906. This land became what is known today as the downtown triangle.

The earliest account, date August
2, 1906, was found in the Palo
Alto Times in an article describing
the purchase of the 100 acres
mentioned above by the
Interurban Electrical Railway for
a right-of-way. It mentioned the
creation of a new town-site to be
called “Banks and Braes.” Just
when the name was changed to
Los Altos in unknown, but we do
know that the Altos Land
Company and the University
Land Company were formed in
1907. The October 2, 1913 issue
of the Mayfield News, however,
describes the townsite as being
sold again and placed solely into
the hands of Paul Shoup and
George Herbert, a San Jose fruit
packer. The deal is described as
one of the most important real
estate transactions in Santa Clara
A 1906 tract map showing the Winchester parcel that would be sold to the Altos Land Company and become the town-site for Los Altos.

Source: Los Altos History House Museum Archives

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-7
County.

With the establishment of the town in 1907 came the beginnings of subdivisions (although a few earlier subdivisions were recorded prior to 1907). It is with the creation of the new townsite that the context of residential architecture is examined.

The original town contains the University Avenue neighborhood. This early and very elite neighborhood contains a variety of architectural house types which are unified mainly by the street layout and alleyways. The lot sizes and scales of these homes vary in size greatly; yet there is a continuity of form in the streetscape in most cases. Dates in this area range from 1908 to the 1930s and buildings in many cases are probably architect-designed judging from the styles found, and the social status of people who occupied these buildings. Many of the homes in the district began as summer homes for prominent San Francisco businessmen and their families while others remained year round living quarters for businessmen who commuted on the train. An examination of the Architect and Engineering Record of California between 1906 and 1930 reveals that many well known architects worked in the Los Altos area, but little is available that sheds any light on the exact locations of residences or their occupants.

The well-known Ng Tong Temple, for example, was designed as an outdoor theater for performances. It sat upon part of the property formed by the rear yards of five prominent families (the translation means “five families”), along Adobe Creek, where Shoup Park is now located. The theater was designed by San Francisco architect John K. Branner (listed in an August, 1924 article).

Henry C. Smith, architect, was the designer of the Los Altos Grammar School as well as the Wellman residence, known today
as the El Retiro Retreat (1916
article). John Hudson Thomas
did some work in Los Altos
along Pine Lane, but the
residence is apparently gone
today. We know Ernest Coxhead
worked in town, designing a
residence and a church. Wellknown landscape architect, Emerson Knight, also worked in
the sea, but again, the locations
are unknown. The Paul Shoup
residence at 500 University was
designed by San Jose architect,
Charles McKenzie, in 1910.

Further examination of the
records may shed more light on
local architects.

Local contractor, Claude Taylor (later of Taylor properties), built several homes in town, including the Mabel Eschenbraecher home. The most well-known contractor in town was local orchardist, J.

Gilbert Smith, whose residence is the History House Museum on the Civic Center campus.

Although the architect is unknown, the Los Altos Country Club is featured on the cover of one The Paul Shoup residence at 500 University Avenue
Source: Los Altos History House Museum Archives

City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-8 April 2011
issue of the Architect and Engineering Record. The residential architecture context, thus, centers mainly on architectural styles popular between 1907 and 1940 (including some not so popular styles).

By 1911, according to Eastman’s history of the town, Los Altos had only fifty homes; by 1913, only thirty-two telephones had been connected. The majority of properties in the residential context are homes built in the 1920s and 30s, reflecting the growth of the area.

By this period, the central business district had been established, roadways were more complete, and working-class families could afford to move to “the county” and grow a few apricot trees.

The dominant house types in this category include:
 Bungalows
 Mission
 Period Revival (Tudor, Colonial, Provincial)
 Prairie
 Italian Villa
 Spanish Colonial Revival
Three districts also appear: the already described University Avenue area, Los Altos Park and Loyola Comers. Los Altos Park was subdivided in December of 1925 and contains a variety of small homes on small lots of a uniform size. The tiny lots and cottages in the Loyola district contain a variety of styles and are also linked together due to the scale and size. Originally known as the Loyola Tract in 1904, the 600 acre area was purchased by the Jesuit Father of the University of Santa Clara for the purpose of relocating the college. The area also had a train stop. The financial pledges for the construction of the new school fell through after the San Francisco earthquake in 1906 and a good portion of the land was used for grazing dairy cattle. The official subdivision of Loyola Corners was recorded in 1926 and a group of investors purchased a portion of the land from the Jesuit Fathers for the Los Altos Country Club. Properties that are, or were, part of this context include:
 11 Angela Drive
 232 Burke Road
 448 Cherry Avenue
 6 Cypress Court
 233 West Edith Avenue♦
 1485 Fremont Avenue
 1671 Kensington Circle
 25 Maynard Court
 55 Pepper Drive*
 625 Palm Avenue
 431 University Avenue*
 436 University Avenue*
 452 University Avenue
 500 University Avenue* Villa Angela - an Italian Renaissance style house designed by Andrew Knoll and constructed in 1922 at 11 Angela Drive.

Source: Los Altos History House Museum Archives

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-9
 551 University Avenue
 711 University Avenue
 725 University Avenue
 420 Yerba Santa Avenue
* Denotes City Designated Landmark
♦ Denotes that the structure has been demolished and/or is no longer on the HRI Context 4: Institutional Development 1907 to 1940
The development of civic organizations, schools, and clubs began shortly after the creation of the new town-site. Few resources are remaining today in Los Altos from the early days of the community, but other resources will become significant as more years go by. Civic organizations, such as the Los Altos Men’s Club or the Garden Club, are recorded in detail in Joe Salameda’s Los Altos Memories, which is available at the Los Altos History Museum or the Los Altos Library.

The most significant resource within the institutional development context that still remains is the San Antonio Club, which is currently located at 647 North San Antonio Road and is a City Designated Landmark. Started in May 1907, this organization began as the Musical and Literary Club of Los Altos. By 1908, the club had changed its name to the San Antonio Country Club, whose purpose was to devote time to charity. The property was donated to the club by Julia Chandler Hill, mother of Margaret Hill, who later married J. Gilbert Smith.

The remaining
civic/institutional resources
with this context include the
Coxhead designed, Foothills
Congregational Church
(originally the Christ Episcopal
Church) and the Los Altos
Country Club building (original
building is now demolished).

The church and Country Club
have been altered significantly
and are probably not eligible
for National Register listing.

Further, the Country Club lies
within the jurisdiction of Santa
Clara County and not the City
of Los Altos. The Eschenbruecher Hardware Store and the Shoup Building – two of the first buildings to be constructed on Main Street.

Source: Los Altos History House Museum Archives

City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-10 April 2011
Context 5: Commercial Development 1907 to 1940
With the establishment of the town-site came the beginnings of commercial development in Los Altos. The first building to locate on Main Street is the well-known Eschenbruecher hardware store in 1908 (316 Main Street), followed by the Shoup building (300 Main Street). The Shoup building may also be viewed as part of Context 3, since it was the first grammar school location as well as the meeting place for the local Boy Scouts. The Altos Land Company occupied a building at the comer of Main and First (388-398 Main Street). The Copeland building sits across Main Street (395-399 Main Street). All four buildings were constructed by 1911 and are City Designated Landmarks.

Perhaps the most significant building within the commercial context is the Los Altos Railroad Station (288 First Street). Built in 1913 by the Architectural Bureau for Southern Pacific, the railroad station represents the real force behind the development of the town. The railroad station is a City Designated Landmark and appears eligible for listing on the National Register.

Other prominent commercial buildings located downtown that are listed on the HRI include:
 301 Main Street (Originally Larry Nelson’s Los Altos Pharmacy)  350 Main Street
 368 Main Street (also known as Al’s Barber Shop)
 180 Second Street (Tudor style residential building converted to commercial) The Southern Pacific Railroad Passenger Depot, constructed in 1913.

Source: Los Altos History House Museum Archives

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-11
LOS ALTOS: THE INFLUENCE OF TRANSPORATION ON GROWTH

AND DEVELOPMENT

Executive Summary
This study is the result of intensive research on transportation history as it relates to the broader Santa Clara Valley and Los Altos in particular. The basic thesis of this document maintains that the town of Los Altos would not have developed as it has without the coming of the railroad and subsequent mass production of the automobile. The earliest pioneer settlers of this area were primarily associated with the town of Mountain View as a source of commercial and recreational activity; the stage line was located there as well as the Post Office, mercantile and other establishments. The earliest city directories for the area show early residents of what is now Los Altos as residents of Mountain View. In fact, residents later changed their mailing addresses from Mountain View to Los Altos without moving. Los Altos does not show up as a separate directory listing geographically until 1911.

Paul Shoup, president of Southern Pacific Railroad Company and founder of the Altos Land Company, put Los Altos on the map. The acquisition of railroad right-of-way and surrounding lands, coupled with the new layout of the townsite in 1907 gave Los Altos a separate identity from the surrounding communities and enabled middle-class commuter populations to move into the area. The entire rural nature of the area was changed with the development of more roads, school, churches, commercial, and residential construction activity. Foremost amongst this built environment is the Los Altos Train Station, symbol of the town’s very existence.

Early History
It was not until 1769 that the Santa Clara Valley began to feel the Spanish presence. Don Gaspar de Portola discovered the valley over 200 years after Cabrillo first arrived in California. Large land grants were subsequently issued in order to encourage settlement and increase revenue for the territory of California. Starting in 1769, twenty-one widely separated missions were established along the El Camino Real by the Franciscan Friars. Essentially, the El Camino Real became California’s oldest thoroughfare (See Map One - the El Camino Real is known as San Francisco Road). Mexican independence from Spain in 1821 and the Secularization Act of 1833 soon shifted the way land was distributed.

The two land grants that are now Los Altos and Los Altos Hills were awarded by the Mexican government. Rancho San Antonio was made by Governor Alvarado to Don Juan Prado Mesa on March 24, 1839. It extended from San Antonio Creek (later named Adobe Creek) to Stevens Creek, with a division by Permanente Creek. The second was granted on June 30, 1840 to two Indians, Jose Gregorio and Jose Ramon. They sold this land to Dorms Juana Briones de Miranda on November 6, 1850.

In February of 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo formally transferred the California Territory form Mexican rule to the United States. Gold was also discovered in 1848. Anglo settlers had already been exploring the area and many migrated to California in the 1840s to make their fortune in mining. Several of these same settlers became the largest land holders. In 1843, one of

City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-12 April 2011
Santa Clara Valley’s first American land holders, Martin Murphy, arrived in California. By 1849, Murphy had acquired nearly half of the rancho that is now known as the City of Sunnyvale. This began a new era in the Santa Clara Valley’s history.

Early American Settlers: The Cattle and Wheat Ranches
The American settlers transformed the valley into fields and orchards mined for maximum profits.

Families such as the Murphy’s dominated the economic and political life of the valley during the 1850s, creating a landed aristocracy. These were the day of wheat and large cattle ranches in the Santa Clara Valley. The first agriculture had been from the mission, but the new immigrants began planting the produce they missed from home in 1852.

Joseph P. Hale, one of the largest land owners in the west (primarily due to a marriage to the daughter of a large Spanish grant holder), bought 2,000 acres of Donna Juana Biones’ original ranch and became one of Los Altos’ earliest large land owners. He and four other families lived on the Hale Ranch. In 1862, John Snyder became the area’s first rancher, proving that wheat and grain could be grown without irrigation on his ranch along Permanente Creek. Additional map documentation also shows the Emerson and Berry families as larger land holders.

Early Ranches in Los Altos
Name of Owner Location Crops
Joseph P. Hale Adobe Creek on the west to present
Fremont Ave. on the north, Permanente
Creek on the east and the hills to the south.

John Snyder Foothill Ranch along Permanente Creek. Hay/Grain Stone and Sanborn Between Taaffe and Hale Ranches. Horses/Grain Campbell Site of present Rancho Shopping Center. Fruit/Vineyard Spaulding North of Fremont and El Monte.

Griffin West of Adobe Creek adjoining Taffee land. Fruit Madigrm Bounded on east by San Antonio Road.

Source: Eastman’s “History of the Los Altos Area,” from Memories of Los Altos, by John Salameda In 1856, Louis Pellier introduced the Santa Clara Valley Prune in San Jose, beginning the fruit era in the valley. Although slow in its development, five and ten acre lots began being sold for fruit farms.

By 1890, many of the small ranches were producing prunes, apricots, peaches, cherries, pears and other fruits at a large profit; for as much as two hundred dollars per acre.

The table below exemplifies the large growth in the number of smaller farms as the valley changed from a ranching to an orchard economy.

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-13
Number of Farms in Santa Clara Valley by Size
Year <100 Acres >100 Acres
1880 721 771
1890 1,470 750
1900 3,057 938
1910 3,096 825
1920 4,390 626
1930 5,616 621
Source: Lukes and Okihiro, Japanese Legacy
The Age of the Subdivision and Mass Transit
Change in land ownership by the turn-of-the-century in the Los Altos area began to have an impact on land usage and development. Some 700 acres of the Hafe Ranch were sold to the University of Santa Clara as a university site. By 1906, big ranches were sold off in smaller parcels of approximately 40 to 100 acres. Many of these lots were bought by professors from the newly formed Stanford University (1891) according to Eastman’s account. Mrs. Winchester, the widow of the Winchester rifle manufacturer, purchased the present site of Los Altos.

At this time the relationship between mass transit and urban growth becomes important to Los Altos development. A brief history of the growth of transportation across the United States will shed light on the importance of transportation in the growth of Los Altos.

During the time of the Civil War, the United States was an essentially agricultural land of fewer than 34 million inhabitants. Only two of its cities had as many as half of a million citizens, and most of its people had never seen a railroad track or a three-story building.2 By 1913, Henry Ford had introduced the assembly line automobile and the American nation had become the world’s leading industrial power. New York was about to become the world’s largest city and half of the United States population had become urban.3 The railroads played a large part in that development.

In 1862, President Lincoln signed the bill authorizing the transcontinental railway. Collis P.

Huntington, Leland Stanford, Mark Hopkins, and Charles Crocker formed the Central Pacific in order to build the western link. The Union Pacific was to build westward in order to connect the two lines. By 1865, Southern Pacific had been incorporated with the intention to build from San Francisco south to San Diego and then eastward. On May 10, 1869, the Golden Spike was driven in Promontory, Utah, meeting the Union Pacific and completing the transcontinental railway. In 1870, Southern Pacific came under the control of Hopkins, Huntington, Stanford, and Crocker. By 1885, The Big Four had merged all their interests into the Southern Pacific Company.

In 1890, when the federal government first canvassed the nation’s street rail systems, it enumerated 5,700 miles of horsecar track, 500 miles for cable cars, and 1,260 miles for trolley. By 1893, more than 250 electric railways had been incorporated in the United States, and more than 60 percent of the nation’s rail systems had been electrified. By the end of 1903, America’s 30,000 miles of street

2 Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier. 87 3 Ibid

City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-14 April 2011
railway was 98 percent electrified. By comparison, the recently invented automobile was slower to develop.4
The electric streetcar was crucial in opening up the suburbs for the common man. Traditionally, railroad suburbs had been for the elite. The introduction of improved street railway lines made possible a continuing outward expansion of the city. Kenneth Jackson describes the policy of land speculation that developed from this trend:

Two policies of streetcar entrepreneurs were especially important in facilitating the outward movement of population. The first was the practice of extending lines beyond the built-up portion of the city and into the open country. …this had the practical effect of enabling heads of households to see that a convenient transportation mode would be available from their homesite. The second essential policy was the five-cent fare. …American firms usually adopted a flat fee with fee transfers, thus encouraging families to move toward the cheaper land on the periphery.5
A Massachusetts Street Railway Commission noted in 1918: “It is a well-known fact that real estate served by adequate street railway facilities is more readily saleable and commands a higher price than real estate not so served.”6 Cities such as Oakland and Los Angeles, California, and Washington, D.C. are all examples of large American urban areas that grew mainly because of land speculation efforts of transit tycoons.

Los Altos followed the same pattern as other larger cities. A typical scenario was that of a transportation official privately purchasing large tracts of undeveloped land and then
subdividing the land after the development of a transit line.

In Los Altos, Southern Pacific president, Paul Shoup, and his brother, Southern Pacific attorney, Guy Shoup, bought a right-of-way from Palo Alto through Los Altos to run a
connecting line through Los Gates and points south.

On October 19, 1907, the Altos Land Company was
incorporated with L. E. Petree as Secretary. The University Land Company was also incorporated on exactly the same
day with Petree as Secretary. Paul Shoup served as a director of the Altos Land Company; there is no documentation
showing the directors of the University Land Company.

Both companies had as their objective the layout and
subsequent sale of lots in the newly laid out town of Los Altos.

Prior to the land company incorporation, the San Jose-Los Gates Interurban Electric Railway Company had acquired

4 Jackson, 111
5 Jackson, 119
6 As quoted in Jackson, 120
Paul Shoup, known as the “Father of
Los Altos,” was President of the
Southern Pacific Railroad and founder
of the Altos Land Company.

Source: Los Altos History House
Museum Archives

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-15
100 acres of land from Sarah Winchester for the proposed route of the railway and townsite of what was then called “Banks and Braes.” The company was shortly thereafter acquired by Southern Pacific’s newly created subsidiary know as the Peninsular Railway with the stipulation that the Altos Land Company would lay out the lots for the townsite, and the town name changed to a Los Altos in 1907.

The Southern Pacific
had already established
its line from Mayfield
through Los Altos and
Saratoga on to the final
destination of Santa
Cruz. The Peninsular
Railway, the suburban
electric route, built its
line from Mayfield to
San Jose. According to
McCaleb’s Tracks, Tires
and Wires, the line was
formally dedicated on
April 12, 1908 when
two Southern Pacific
steam trains brought
prospective lot buyers
to a land sale and
barbecue in Los Altos, Regular service was established on April 19, 1908 with five trains per day passing through Los Altos. With the establishment of this regular rail service, more families could move outward into the “country,” and many promotional brochures haled this new lifestyle available to the middle-class. Lot prices ranged form $400 to $650 and homes could be built from $2,000 to $4,000. This era marks the beginning of small fruit farmers occupying 10 acre lots. With the movement of families to the Los Altos area, comes the development between 1910 and 1930 of many small subdivisions and the establishment of additional roadways. Up until this time, the El Camino Real, San Antonio Road and El Monte Road (Moody Road) served as major routes of transportation.

Up until 1913, the ticket office and train station for Los Altos was a boxcar setup along the tracks near the present day Safeway store. In 1913, the Architectural Bureau of Southern Pacific completed the new train depot at its present location. It was a Craftsman style building and a symbol of the beginning of the development of Los Altos. Without the arrival of the railroad, early land owners would probably still be affiliated with the older community of Mountain View, the source for all commercial and domestic activity (see Map One).

Growth and the Importance of Transportation
With the advent of the railroad to Los Altos, a town had begun to form. Shoup and the Altos Land Company had laid out the town plan and the promotion of Los Altos got into full swing. Businesses The Mayfield-Los Gatos cut-off railroad line under construction in 1907. Train service along this line would start serving Los Altos in 1908.

Source: Los Altos History House Museum Archives

City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-16 April 2011
had started; the first being the hardware store, the second the Shoup building. A dry good store and the Los Altos Water Company soon appeared in this “fast growing town of paved curved streets, lined with hitching posts every 25 feet.”7
According to Eastman’s “History of Los Altos,” by July of 1911 Los Altos had “boasted some fifty houses, the initial part of Sam Antonio School and an ‘unusually good water system… the water pipes of the best cast iron material that can be obtained… the water from two artesian wells 250 and 322 feet deep respectively.’” Jackson’s account of the growth of the suburbs in America discusses the importance of infrastructure and transportation development for these new towns. Jackson explains the process in the subdivision:

Whether their subdivisions were large or small, real estate specialists were more active in the city building process than anyone else. The theory that the early suburbs grew, with owners “turning town paths and natural avenues of traffic into streets,” is erroneous. Subdividers lobbied with municipal governments to extend city services, they pressured streetcar companies to send tracks into developing sections, and they set the property lines for individual homes. Each city and most suburbs created from many small real-estate developments that reflected changing market conditions and local properties.8
Affordable transpiration was also crucial to Los Altos’ success. According to Jackson, two important factors contribute to town development success: the quality and cost of housing and convenience, speed and cost of transportation. Generally, lower income groups have lived closer to urban centers due to the low cost of living. For the middle class, the importance of centrality decreases because of the sinking importance of transportation costs. The train fare in Los Altos was five cents.

Increased transportation in the form of the railroad opened up new markets in the East for farmers and other businesses in Los Altos and the Santa Clara Valley. In the early days of the Santa Clara Valley’s orchard economy, farmers relied on San Francisco for much of their business and support. San Jose soon replaced San Francisco’s role as a place to finance and sell the goods of the fruit industry. Farmers in the Los Altos area benefitted from the improved transit by having greater accessibility to both locations.

Transportation after the 1920s: The Growth of the Automobile.

In 1898, there was only one automobile in operation for every eighteen thousand Americans. The primary means of intraurban movement remained the electric trolley or streetcar and the railway. By the early 1920s, the rail system in Northern California was extensive. However, by 1925, Ford was turning out 9,000 cars per day, or one every ten seconds. The table below gives a better indication of how rapid the growth of the automobile was in the United States.

7 Eastman, “A History of Los Altos,” in Jose Salameda, Memories of Los Altos 8 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 135.

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-17
Automobile and Truck Registration in the United States
Year Automobiles Trucks Trucks:Cars
1905 80,000 1,400 1:55
1915 2,332,426 158,506 1:15
1925 17,481,001 2,569,734 1:7
1935 22,567,827 3,919,305 1:6
1945 25,793,493 5,079,802 1:5
1955 52,135,583 10,302,987 1:5
1975 106,713,000 25,755,700 1:4
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States
With the growth in automobile usage in the United States, the need for improved roads became necessary. By the 1920s, a coalition of private-pressure groups, including tire manufacturers and dealers, parts suppliers, oil companies, service station owners, road builders, and land developers were lobbying for new streets. Road and highway building was viewed as a form of social and economic therapy, and merchants justified public financing on the theory that roadway improvements would pay for themselves by increasing property-tax revenues along the routes.9 Road building in the United States was primarily financed with the establishment of a gasoline tax in the early 1920s. The Depression of the 1930s helped build more roads throughout the nation because of the availability of state and federal funds that enabled employment of many workers in the road building effort. By the 1930s, the road system in the Santa Clara Valley and Los Altos had grown extensively. This growth continued throughout booming post-World War II years.

The 1920s saw the growth of the automobile suburb. Patterns of settlement began to change drastically as the use of the automobile became more common. The streetcar settlement was relatively compact with the best homes constructed within walking distance of rail transportation.

The presence of the auto allowed tracks of land between rail centers to be developed. Los Altos was no exception to this pattern. The first subdivisions from the original town layout (such as the Los Altos Park Subdivision of 1925) were further from town. Although these subdivisions were laid out at the end of the 1920s, many were not built up until after the Depression of the 1930s.

By 1935, buses had begun to appear on San Jose’s streets, replacing the streetcar as the preferred method of transportation. By 1933, the Peninsular Railway was beginning to substitute buses for railcars on all interurban routes. On June 12, 1935, the Peninsular Railway was legally disincorporated and its properties and assets were conveyed to its parent company, the Southern Pacific. Train service in Los Altos had stopped altogether by 1964.

Together with private sources, government subsidies helped to create a national system of interstate highways. One of the first completed interurban freeways in the United States was the Pasadena Freeway in Los Angeles. This innovation raised the value of Pasadena real estate to such an extent that developers and builders anxiously supported freeways elsewhere. The Bayshore Freeway that passes east of Los Altos in Palo Alto is the connection linking San Jose and San Francisco and was envisioned starting in the late 1920s. The final link was dedicated on June 12, 1937 with major construction into the late 1940s, starting a new direction in transit for the Santa Clara Valley. The

9 Ibid, 164

City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-18 April 2011
Bayshore further changed the patterns of settlement and working in Los Altos providing quicker access to jobs throughout the valley. In 1952, the town formally incorporated.

In 1977, The Southern Pacific Company asked the California Public Utilities Commission for permission to discontinue Peninsular Commuter service. In 1980, Caltrans agreed to take financial responsibility for the route and CalTrain was born. In October 1988, Rio Grande Industries, Inc. acquired Southern Pacific rail operations.

The Commuter and Los Altos
Los Altos is ideally situated between San Jose and San Francisco. Early promotional brochures advertise its proximity to these urban centers and their accessibility by rail. A 1946 Chamber of Commerce brochure heralds the location of Los Altos as being ideal and shows the importance of transportation to Los Altos.
“San Francisco is convenient by train, bus or motor car. The thriving industrial city of San Jose is fifteen miles to the south. Palo Alto, seat of Stanford University, lies six miles to the north.

Shady, orchard-lined roads connect it directly with all Peninsula points and with busy Highway 101, the major west-coast thoroughfare. Three miles to the east stretch the salty waters of the bay, beyond which rears a rugged range of mountains extending to the north and south. The ugliness and tumult of the industrial world do not intrude on the serenity and beauty of Los Altos, although the greatest business and manufacturing centers of Northern California are within easy commuting distance, many residents gladly make the daily trip, finding adequate recompense in returning to the refreshing quiet, the clear air, and the fruitful greenery of the foothill country.”
In addition to the white collar workers who commuted to San Francisco, the rail lines and the roads that subsequently began developing from Los Altos’ increased growth served an important function to the migrant worker that sustained the Santa Clara Valley’s fruit economy. Worker and their families traveled throughout California depending on the crop that was being harvested or the fruit that was being canned. Better roads and increased rail lines helped them access the orchards.

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-19
PROFILE OF LOS ALTOS: 1907 TO 1930
Occupations
The following analysis is based on census data from 1910 and 1920. Los Altos during 1910 was a primarily agricultural town. Although this continued well into the 1930s, by 1920 the census showed an increase in white collar professions, a variety of business proprietors and their employees, clerical support positions, and more diversified blue collar workers.

Cooks and servants were a part of many large farm families. Many of the cooks were Japanese or Chinese men, the servants tended to be female and recent European immigrants. If the servants were male, they were primarily young Japanese “houseboys” that were common at this time. These large farm families generally had more children, a cook, and some hired men or general laborers included in their household. There is also evidence of many farm support professions in Los Altos, such as blacksmiths, tinsmiths, farm laborers, and machinists. The pre-Prohibition era is shown by the presence of vineyardists.

In 1910, Los Altos did have some white collar workers. A few university instructors lived in the town. There were many workers in administrative railroad support jobs such as ticketing agents or mail clerks. The make-up of the workforce had changed; sons of farmers were often listed as having jobs as clerks and housing carpenters instead of working in farming.

The evidence that the town was newly growing is seen in the number of building contractors, housing carpenters, and lumberyard workers. These professions were even more represented in the 1920 census that also showed the increase of real estate-related professions. In addition, 1920 showed the new importance of the automobile to the town with garage proprietors and oil station managers represented as part of the workforce.

In the 1910 and 1920 census, women were rarely listed as having an occupation. Those that did were often widowed or young unmarried women. These single women were often teachers, book writers, or clerical support staff.

Creativity was evident in early Los Altos; the town boasted a landscape artist, H. A. Straight, a handful of book writers (many female), a music teacher and a singer. Publishing house trades also appeared as early as 1910. Los Altos had the professional trades documented as well. Both attorneys and physicians lived in the downtown area.

Workers were obviously already commuting in 1910 to the San Francisco area. The representation of the professions such as tughead navigator, river steamer mate and a marine supervisor are all indicative of jobs away from Los Altos.

Shop proprietors of the machine shop, restaurant and the hardware store live in the downtown area of First and Second streets. This was a common pattern. El Monte Road and San Francisco Road remained relatively rural in 1920. Early businesses seemed to be related to farms or the growth of the new town.

City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-20 April 2011
The census showed that Los Altos’ population had many interesting occupations. The 1910 census even lists two tramps in Los Altos. A 57 year old single male that is listed as a tramp cites the occupation of a laborer. Additional unusual professions include a book binder, a waiter, a linen good manufacturer, and a proof-reader. These occupations all show the diversity of the population.

Demographics
Los Altos in 1910 was home to one Indian (an Eskimo Indian from Alaska) who worked as a farm laborer. In 1920, a Indian woman was a live-in servant to a family and another Indian was an 85 year old farm laborer.

The 1910 census recorded no African Americans. In 1920, there were three African Americans listed, a widowed female fruit farmer and a real estate collector and his wife.

Immigrant populations in Los Altos changed drastically from 1910 to 1920. The 1910 census showed the Canadian and English as being the most numerous with the Germans, Irish, and Japanese not far behind. By 1920, the Japanese were by far the largest immigrant group with English, Germans and Canadians following. A major change between the two decades is the growth in immigrants from many different countries. Los Altos in 1920 had a population from countries almost everywhere between China and Alsace-Loraine.

Immigrants from Italy and Portugal were not as numerous in Los Altos as in other parts of the Santa Clara Valley. This may be attributed to the fact that Italian and Portuguese communities were centered in San Jose or San Francisco, closer to the canneries that were the place of employment for many southern Europeans. Of the Los Altos southern Europeans, the majority worked in farmrelated occupations and appeared to be instrumental in vineyard development in Los Altos.

Early Asian immigrants in Los Altos followed common patterns of migration. In 1910, there was only one family of Japanese in Los Altos; the remainders were single men. These single men were mainly servants, gardeners or cooks. By 1920, their family status and working patters had changed.

Japanese farmers became a major presence in the Santa Clara Valley’s landscape. Census data analysis from 1920 shows the Japanese as being the largest immigrant group in Los Altos (22 percent). Most Japanese that arrived to the United States came through San Francisco, so the journey to Los Altos and work in the numerous fruit orchards was not far. The Japanese in Los Altos in 1920 generally worked on fruit farms although the census does show one shop owner.

Most of these Japanese farmers leased their land because restrictive and discriminatory land legislation had made it difficult to own property. According to Greenburg’s account of the orchard and canning economy of the Santa Clara Valley, each of the ethnic groups found strategies to participate in fruit growing based on their cultural traditions and the nature of their immigration patterns. While Japanese laborers used their strength as pickers and organized together under a boss and later leased land themselves, southern Europeans used their family structure and intensive agricultural techniques to combine working as laborers with their goal of farming some land of their own.

In conclusion, these early immigrants to Los Altos were vital to its growth. Often faced with economic hardships or discrimination, the immigrants joined together in order to achieve their goals

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-21
of land ownership and independence. Consequently, their growth in economic prosperity contributed to the formation of the town. In addition to their work on the farms, immigrants were instrumental in working on the railroad, beginning shops in Los Altos, and building its houses and commercial establishments.

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section III
October 2012 Page III-1

HISTORIC LANDMARKS

1. 965 Berry Avenue Cyrus P. Berry House

2. 547 Castano Corte Panama Pacific International Exposition Structure

3. 571 Cherry Avenue Erwin Reichel Designed Home

4. 762 Edgewood Lane Winchester-Merriman House

5. 288 First Street Southern Pacific Railroad Passenger Depot

6. 300 Main Street Shoup Building

7. 316 Main Street Eschenbruecher Hardware Store

8. 388-398 Main Street Altos Land Company Building

9. 395-399 Main Street Copeland Building

10. 55 Pepper Drive Adams House

11. 439 Rinconada Court Farnsworth-Myers House

12. 647 N. San Antonio Road San Antonio Club (City Owned Property)

13. 51 S. San Antonio Road J. Gilbert Smith House (City Owned Property)

14. 220 University Avenue Marini House

15. 431 University Avenue Eschenbruecher House

16. 482 University Avenue Halsey House and Redwood Grove

17. 500 University Avenue Guy Shoup House

18. 420 Yerba Santa Avenue Coxhead Designed Home

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section IV
October 2012 Page IV-1

HISTORIC RESOURCES

1. 19 Almendra Lane Myers House

2. 52 Almond Avenue

3. 11 Angela Drive A.H. Knoll Residence (Villa Angela)

4. 127 N. Avalon Drive

5. 960 Berry Avenue Frank Bacon house

6. 232 Burke Road Wallace Home

7. 876 Carmel Avenue

8. 892 Carmel Avenue Berry house

9. 1398 Chelsea Drive

10. 530 Cherry Avenue H. Bleibler Ornamental Ironworks

11. 90 Cody Lane

12. 980 Covington Road Edwin L. Emerson House

13. 290 Cuesta Drive

14. 6 Cypress Court Cranston House

15. Deep Well Lane Costello Barn

16. 973 Dolores Avenue

17. 133 W. Edith Avenue

18. 331 S. El Monte Avenue Baldwin House

19. 566 S. El Monte Avenue

20. 236 Eleanor Avenue Morris House

21. 170 Formway Court Formway Machine Shop

22. 235 Fremont Avenue

23. 1485 Fremont Avenue

24. 189 N. Gordon Way

25. 60 S. Gordon Way

26. 1365 Grant Road

27. 1520 Grant Road

28. 41 Hawthorne Avenue

29. 109 Hawthorne Avenue

30. 151 Hawthorne Avenue

31. 181 Hillview Avenue Richard Neutra Designed House (City Owned Property)

32. 183 Hillview Avenue DeMartini residence (City Owned Property)

33. 1570 Kensington Circle

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory
Page IV-2 October 2012

34. 473 Lincoln Avenue

35. 125 Los Altos Avenue Finnigan Residence

36. 479 Los Altos Avenue

37. 67 Lyell Street

38. 125 Lyell Street Hollyhock Bungalow

39. 301 Main Street Los Altos Pharmacy

40. 350 Main Street

41. 70 Marvin Avenue

42. 25 Maynard Court Lenox House

43. 120 Merritt Court

44. 604 Milverton Road Costello House

45. 461 Orange Avenue Foothills Congregational Church

46. 580 Orange Avenue Albert S. Robinson House

47. 640 Orange Avenue McKillican House

48. 654 Orange Avenue Denny Residence

49. 668 Orange Avenue F. W. Rathbun House

50. 672 Orange Avenue Francisco Home

51. 706 Orange Avenue

52. 714 Orange Avenue Ingraham Home/Archey Residence

53. 718 Orange Avenue Peters Home

54. 625 Palm Avenue Lanthier Home

55. 10 Pasa Robles Avenue

56. 71 Pasa Robles Avenue Taylor House

57. 41 Pepper Drive

58. 81 Pepper Drive

59. 121 Pepper Drive

60. 39 Pine Lane

61. 1050 Portland Avenue

62. 160 W. Portola Avenue Stevens Fox Farm/Thoma Residence

63. 146 N. San Antonio Road

64. 457 San Luis Avenue

65. 188 Second Street

66. 275 Silvia Court Segur Home

67. 260 Surrey Place

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section IV
October 2012 Page IV-3

68. 368 University Avenue Sarah Shoup House

69. 436 University Avenue Robert M. Tooker House

70. 452 University Avenue Guy Shoup House

71. 485 University Avenue M. O. Adams House

72. 551 University Avenue Frothingham House

73. 662 University Avenue El Retiro, Jesuit Retreat House

74. 711 University Avenue Judge Shenk House

75. 725 University Avenue Scheid Residence

76. 600 University Terrace Hyde/Huttlinger House

77. 275 Valley Street Spangler Home

78. 396 Van Buren Street

79. 556 Van Buren Street

80. 10 Yerba Buena Avenue Yerba Buena Tankhouse

81. 211 Yerba Buena Avenue

City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section V
October 2012 Page V-1

HERITAGE TREES

1. Rinconada Court Palm Trees

2. 1 N. San Antonio Road Civic Center Apricot Orchard (City Owned Property)

HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL SUBURBS

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION AND DOCUMENTATION

FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

National Register Bulletin

HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL SUBURBS

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION AND DOCUMENTATION

FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
David L. Ames, University of Delaware
Linda Flint McClelland, National Park Service
September 2002
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places

Mission ofthe National Park Service
The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the
natural and cultural resources and the values ofthe
National Park System for the enjoyment, education and
inspiration ofthis and future generations. The Park
Service cooperates with partners to extend the
benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and K> the world.
4t>ove: Monte Vista School (1931), Albuquerque, New Mexico. In keeping with formal Beaux Arts principles ofplanning, the Spanish Colonial Revival school was designed as an architectural landmark marking the entrance to the Monte Vista and College View neighborhoods. (Photo by Kathleen Brooker, courtesy New Mexico Office of Cultural Affairs) Inside front cover and title page: Plat (c. 1892) and Aerial View (1920), Ladd's Addition, Portland, Oregon. Platted as a streetcar suburb at the beginning of the City Beautiful movement, Ladd's Addition represents one of the earliest documented cases of a garden suburb with a complex, radial plan. (Plat and photograph courtesy Oregon Historical Society, negs. 80838 and 39917) ii National Register Bulletin

Foreword
T
he body of literature on
America’s suburbanization is
vast and growing, covering many disciplines and reflecting diverse opinions. This bulletin attempts to bring together information about current
scholarship and preservation practice
relating to the history ofsuburban
neighborhoods in the United States.

The focus ofthis bulletin is the identification, evaluation, and registration ofresidential historic districts and
associated suburban resources, such
as schools and shopping centers. The
information and methodology should
also be useful in understanding the
significance of other resources that
have shaped the metropolitan landscape, such as parkways and public water systems.

The bulletin has been developed in
tandem with a national multiple
property listing entitled “Historic
Residential Suburbs in the United
States, 1830-1960, MPS” under which
related properties may be listed in the
National Register of Historic Places.

Because the context for suburbanization, which forms Section E of the Multiple Property Documentation
Form, brings together diverse information nowhere else available in a single source, a condensed version
has been included in this bulletin to
enhance its usefulness. Both the bulletin and multiple property form are intended to encourage the expansion
of existing historic resources surveys,
foster the development oflocal and
metropolitan suburbanization contexts, and facilitate the nomination of residential historic districts and other
suburban resources to the National
Register.

The National Park Service is greatly indebted to Professor David L.

Ames ofthe Center for Historic
Architecture and Design, University
of Delaware, for drawing our attention to the rich history ofAmerica’s suburbs, and for producing “A Context and Guidelines for Evaluating America’s Historic Suburbs for the
National Register of Historic Places,”
which was circulated for review and
comment in fall of 1998. In response
to the many comments received, we
broadened our literature search to
additional related areas and expanded the project beyond its original scope. The conceptual framework of
chronological periods based on
developments in transportation technology and subdivision planning and the contextually-based survey methodology introduced by Dr. Ames, however, remain at the core ofthe
current bulletin and multiple property form. We believe they represent a sound and useful approach for evaluating the nation’s rich legacy ofsuburban properties.

We greatly appreciate the
comments and recommendations
offered by the bulletin’s many reviewers and the contributions of many other scholars and practitioners
involved in the study ofsuburban
neighborhoods across the nation.

Comments came from people representing different professional disciplines and various points of view, indicating a wide range of opinion on
how the topic should be approached
for National Register purposes. We
carefully considered all recommendations in determining the final format ofthe bulletin and in deciding what
subjects to include in the final text.

The impressive number of residential historic districts listed in the National Register of Historic Places
since 1966 attests to the wealth of professional expertise in State historic preservation programs and elsewhere
in the preservation field, and the
increasing popular interest in recognizing and preserving historic neighborhoods. We have relied heavily on National Register documentation as a
source ofinformation about
American suburbs and as verification
ofthe broad national patterns documented by current literary sources.

We acknowledge the contributions
made by many nomination preparers
to the understanding ofsuburbanization in the United States.

Considerable discussion has surrounded the selection of an inclusive set of dates covering the historic period of America’s suburbanization. The dates 1830-1960 should be used as a
general guide and adjusted to accommodate local historical events and associations. In keeping with advances in transportation technology, the organizing framework for the
suburbanization context, we have
used 1830, the date ofthe introduction ofthe steam-powered locomotive, for the purposes ofthis bulletin. i960 was selected as a logical closing
date based on the current literature
that provides a historical assessment
oftwentieth-century suburbanization
and for the practical purposes of contextual development and field surveys. The history ofspecific local and metropolitan areas may support
other dates that better reflect local
patterns and trends. While we recognize the potential exceptional significance of planned new towns such as Columbia, Maryland, and Reston,
Virginia, and model planned unit
developments (called “PUDs”), and
their roots in the American Garden
City movement, addressing them is
beyond the scope ofthis bulletin.

Suburbs are of great interest to
scholars ofthe American landscape
and built environment and have
design significance in several areas,
including community planning and
development, architecture, and landscape architecture. Suburban neighborhoods were generally platted, subdivided, and developed according to a plan and often laid out according to
professional principles of design
practiced by planners and landscape
architects. For these reasons, this bulletin puts forth a landscape approach, consistent with that presented in earlier National Register bulletins on designed and rural historic districts,
but adapted to the special characterHistoric Residential Suburbs iii

istics ofsuburban neighborhoods.

The landscape approach presented
here is based on an understanding
that suburban neighborhoods possess important landscape characteristics and typically took form in a three-layered process: selection of
location; platting and layout; and
design ofthe house and yard.

Surveying and evaluating residential
historic districts as cultural landscapes
will better equip preservationists to
recognize these important places as
having multiple aspects ofsocial and
design history, identify significant values and characteristics, and assist in planning their preservation.

We have profiled the roles of real
estate developers, town planners,
architects, and landscape architects,
so that the contributions of each
profession to the design ofsuburban
America will be recognized and in
hopes that future nominations will
document similar contributions and
recognize important collaborative
efforts. The landscape approach also
offers a suitable framework for integrating information about the social history and physical design of
America’s suburban places because
they i) were shaped by economic and
demographic factors, 2) resulted
from broadbased decisions about
how land could be best used to serve
human needs, and 3) were designed
according to established principles of
landscape architecture, civil engineering, and community planning.

Several topics have been introduced here that did not appear in the earlier draft. These include the Better
Homes movement ofthe 1920s, the
rise ofsmall house architects and
merchant builders, the highly influential Federal Housing Administration principles of housing and subdivision design of the 1930s, trends in African American suburbanization,
prefabricated methods of house construction, and the landscape design of home grounds and suburban
yards. The sources for researching
local suburban history and historic
neighborhoods and the list of sources
forrecommended reading have been
substantially expanded.

New technologies are rapidly
changing the ways we gather data
about historic neighborhoods and
the ways in which we carry out surveys. The increasing availability of computerized databases offering a
wealth of detailed tax assessment and
planning information, coupled with
advances in Geographical Information Systems (GIS), are making it possible to assemble information
about large numbers of residential
subdivisions and to plot this information in the form of detailed property lists and survey maps. We encourage
the use ofthese new tools and recognize their value in managing information about suburban development, organizing surveys, and providing a
comparative basis for evaluation.

These advances are particularly welcome at a time when many communities are just beginning to examine their extensive legacy of post-World
War II suburbs. The lack of experience using these sources and methods to document suburbs, however, makes providing more detailed guidance impractical at this time. We hope that future revisions ofthis bulletin will highlight the success and results ofmany of the pioneering
projects currently underway.

Several reviewersrequested our
discussion of planning be expanded
to include company towns, philanthropic projects, and governmentsponsored communities. Providing a comprehensive history ofsuch developments was beyond the scope of the present context, which is primarily
concerned with the development of
privately-financed and constructed
neighborhoods. We have included
references to specific cases where the
planning, design, or history of a company town or philanthropic project provided an important model or
exerted substantial influence on the
design of privately developed suburbs. Greenbelt communities, public housing, and defense housing projects are discussed only to the extent that they influenced the development
of private residential communities or
illustrate prevailing trendsin housing
or subdivision design, leaving their
social history and the administrative
histories ofthe programs that created
them to be told elsewhere. Selected
bibliographical entries for these
kinds of communities are included in
the list ofrecommended reading
materials.

Every effort has been made to
provide the most up-to-date list of
sources ofinformation. These
include materials currently in print
or likely available in a strong central
or university library or through a
library loan program. With the
upsurge of interest among scholars in
suburbanization in recent years, the
body of literature is expanding rapidly. We apologize for any omissions and continue to welcome your recommendations for new bibliographical sources that can be included in future revisions.

Carol. D. Shull
Keeper ofthe
NationalRegister ofHistoric Places
September 2002
iv National Register Bulletin

Credits and Acknowledgments
T
his bulletin was developed
under the supervision ofCarol
D. Shull, Keeper ofthe National
Register of Historic Places. Many
individuals representing a variety of
preservation organizations contributed to its development. The authors recognize the expertsurvey
and registration activities carried out
by State historic preservation programs and the wealth ofinformation about America’s suburbs contained in
countless nominations to the National
Register since its beginnings in 1966.

Appreciation is extended to Beth L.

Savage and Sarah Dillard Pope ofthe
National Register staffwho contributed substantially to the production ofthis bulletin through their comments and editorial assistance.

Thanks is also extended to other
members ofthe National Register for
their comments and support: Patrick
Andrus, Shannon Bell, Beth Boland,
John Byrne, Marilyn Harper, Paul
Lusignan, Octavia Pearson, Erika
Seibert, and Daniel Vivian.

Special thanks go to several individuals who shared their expert research, provided extensive comments, and directed us to additional sources and perspectives. They
include Marty Arbunich, Eichler
Network; William Baldwin, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; David Bricker,
California Department ofTransportation; Claudia Brown, North Carolina Department ofCultural
Resources;John A. Burns, Historic
American Buildings Survey; RobertW
Craig, NewJersey Department of
Environmental Protection; Timothy
Davis, Historic American Engineering
Record; Richard S. Harris, McMaster
University, Hamilton, Ontario;James
E.Jacobsen, Des Moines, Iowa; Bruce
Jensen, Texas Historical Commission;
Richard Longstreth, George Washington University; Susan Chase Mulcahey, University ofDelaware; Marty Perry, Kentucky Heritage Council;
Catha Grace Rambusch, Catalog of
Landscape Records in the United
States; Rodd Wheaton, NPS-Denver;
Diane Wray, Englewood, Colorado.

In addition, the authors extend
their appreciation to the following
individuals for their comments on an
early draft: Arnold R. Alanen, University ofWisconsin; Mary R. Allman, Littleton Historical Museum, City of
Littleton, Colorado; Karen Bode
Baxter, St. Louis, Missouri; Claire F.

Blackwell, Missouri Department of
Natural Resources; Lauren Weiss
Bricker, California Polytechnical
University-Pomona; Richard H.

Broun, U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development; Dorene
Clement, California Department of
Transportation; Rebecca Conard,
Middle Tennessee State University;
Robert Fishman, Rutgers UniversityCamden; Betsy Friedberg, Massachusetts HistoricalCommission;J.Bennett Graham,Tennessee Valley Authority;
Betsy Gurlacz, Western Springs,
Illinois; Karen L.Jessup, Roger
Williams University; Thomas F. King,
Silver Spring, Maryland; Bruce M.

Kriviskey, Department of Planning
and Zoning, Fairfax County, Virginia;
Antoinette J. Lee, Heritage Preservation Services, NPS; Barbara Mattick, Florida Division of Historical
Resources; Vincent L. Michael, School
ofthe Art Institute ofChicago; Sheila
Mone, California Department of
Transportation; Lance M. Neckar,
University ofMinnesota;Julie
Osborne, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department; Barbara Powers, Ohio Historical Society;John
Robbins, National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, NPS; Eileen Starr, NPS-Omaha; Don
Stevens, NPS-Omaha; Richard D.

Wagner, Goucher College, Baltimore;
Rachel Franklin-Weekley, NPSOmaha; Gwendolyn Wright, Columbia University; and Barbara Wyatt, Frederick, Maryland.

We also thank the many other individuals who contributed to this project in various ways, including:

Deborah Abele, Phoenix, Arizona;
Dorothy Buffmire, Alexandria,
Virginia; Charles Birnbaum, Heritage
Preservation Services, NPS; Anne
Bruder, Maryland Historical Trust;
William Callahan, Nebraska State
Historical Society; Ralph Christian,
Iowa State Historical Society; Richard
Cloues, Georgia Department of
Natural Resources;James Draeger,
Wisconsin State Historical Society;
James Gabbert, Oklahoma Historical
Society; Martha Hagedorn-Krass,
Kansas State Historical Society;
Dwayne Jones, Texas Historical Commission; Terry Karschner, NewJersey Department of Parks and Forestry;
Shevin Kupperman, Falls Church,
Virginia; Peter Kurtze, Maryland
Historical Trust; Sara Amy Leach,
Historic American Engineering
Record; Suzan Lindstrom, Eichler
Network,California;JanetMcDonnell,
NPS; David Morgan, Kentucky
Heritage Council; Margaret Peters,
Virginia Department of Historic
Resources; Greg Ramsey, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission; Paula Reed, Hagerstown, Maryland; Lee and Cheryl Siebert, Arlington, Virginia; W. Dale
Waters, Department ofCommunity
Planning, Housing and Development,
Arlington, Virginia; Sherda Williams,
NPS-Omaha; Sarah A. Woodward,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Arthur
Wrubel, Ridgewood, NewJersey;
Sherry Joines Wyatt, Charlotte, North
Carolina.

We wish to thank the many
State historic preservation offices,
historical societies, libraries, and
other institutions for the use ofillustrations from their collections. And finally, we extend our appreciation to
Marcia Axtmann Smith for her
expertise and recommendations on
this publication’s design.

Historic Residential Suburbs v

Table of Contents
Foreword................................................................m Figure 2. Federal Laws and Programs Encouraging Credits and Acknowledgments........................v
Home Ownership ........................................................... 30 Planning and Domestic Land Use....................................... 31 DeedRestrictions
INTRODUCTION........................................................ i Defining Historic Residential Suburbs........................................ 4 Using Historic Context to Evaluate Eligibility............................7 Understanding Residential Suburbs as
Cultural Landscapes............................................................................ 7 Landscape Characteristics........................................................ 8 Land Use andActivities
Response to the Natural Environment
Patterns ofSpatial Organization
Cultural Traditions
Circulation Networks
Boundary Demarcations
Vegetation
Buildings, Structures, and Objects
Clusters
Archeological Sites
Small-scale Elements

AN OVERVIEW OF SUBURBANIZATION
IN THE UNITED STATES, 1830 TO 1960............

Transportation....................................................................... 16 Trends in Urban and Metropolitan
Transportation .................................................................................. 16 Railroad and Horsecar Suburbs, 1830 to 1890....................r6 Streetcar Suburbs, 1888 to 1928 .............................................. 17 Figure 1. Milestones in Urban and
Metropolitan Transportation ...................18
Early Automobile Suburbs, 1908 to 1945..............................21 Post-World War II and Early Freeway Suburbs,
1945 to i960.................................................................................. 24 Land Use and Site Development...............................26 Suburban Land Development Practices................................... 26 Developers and the Development Process.........................26 The Subdivider
The Home Builder
The CommunityBuilder
The Operative Builder
The Merchant Builder
Financing Suburban Residential Development...............29 Early Trends
President's Conference on Home Building and Home
Ownership
FederalHome Loan Banking System
Home Owners' Loan Corporation
FederalHousingAdministration (FHA)
Defense HousingPrograms
The “GI" Bill
Zoning Ordinances and Subdivision Regulations
Comprehensive Planning and RegionalPlans
Trends in Subdivision Design.......................................................34 Figure 3. Trends in Suburban Land
Development and Subdivision Design...........................35 Gridiron Plats..............................................................................37 Planned Rectilinear Suburbs .................................................37 Early Picturesque Suburbs......................................................38 Riverside and the Olmsted Ideal............................................39 City Beautiful Influences ........................................................39 Boulevards andResidentialParks
Early Radial Plans
Twentieth-Century Garden Suburbs .................................. 41 Garden Suburbs and Country Club Suburbs
Influence oftheArts and Crafts Movement
American Garden City Planning............................................41 Forest Hills
Guilford
Washington Highlands
World War 1 Defense Housing
Mariemont
The RPAA and Sunnyside
Radburn and Chatham Village
The Neighborhood Unit and the 1931 President’s Conference FHA Principles for Neighborhood Planning....................48 Neighborhoods ofSmall Houses
FHA-Approved Garden Apartment Communities
The Postwar Curvilinear Subdivision
House and Yard...................................................................... 52 The Design ofthe Suburban Home............................................52 The Suburban Prerequisite: The Invention ofthe
Balloon Frame............................................................................ 52 Rural Architecture and Home Grounds,
1838 to 1890 ................................................................................. 52 Early Pattern Books
Landscape Gardeningfor Suburban Homes
Eclectic House Designs and Mail OrderPlans
The Homestead Temple-House
The Practical Suburban House, 1890 to 1920....................56 The Open Plan Bungalow
The American Foursquare
Factory Cut, Mail Order Houses
Introduction ofthe Garage
Home Gardening and the Arts and Crafts Movement
Better Homes and the Small House Movement,
1919 to 1945 ...................................................................................59 The Better Homes Campaign
Architect-Designed Small Houses
vi National Register Bulletin

Federal Home Building Service Pla11
Landscape Design for Small House Grounds
Public and Private Initiatives: The Efficient,
Low-Cost Home, 1931 to 1948 ...................... 60
Findings of the 1931 President's Conference
FHA's Minimum House and Small House Program
FHA's Rental Housing Program
Prefabricated Houses
The Postwar Suburban House and Yard,
1945 to 1960 ................................... 65
From the FHA Minimum House to the Cape Cod
The Suburban Ranch House
The Contemporary House
Postwar Suburban Apartment Houses
Contemporary Landscape Design
Figure 4. Suburban Architecture and Landscape
Gardening, 1832 to 1960 •••••••••.••••••••••• 70

IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION,
DOCUMENTATION AND REGISTRATION ....... 73
IDENTIFICATION ................•..............• 74
Developing a Local Historic Context .................. 74 Conducting Historical Research ....... ,,,,, .. , .... 74 Determining Geographical Scale and
Chronological Periods .......................... 74
Compiling Data from Historic Maps and Plats ....... 75
Mapping the Study Area
Preparing a Master List of Residential Subdivisions
Figure 5. Process for Identification,
Evaluation, and Documentation ••••••••• , •••••• 76
Developing a Statement of Context ................ 77
Figure 6. Historical Sources for Researching
Local Patterns of Suburbanization •••• , •• , •••••• 79 Surveying Historic Residential Suburbs ............... 82 Survey Forms ................................. 82
Field Reference Materials ........................ 83
The Reconnaissance Survey ...................... 84
Organizing an Itinerary
Recording Field Observations
Figure 7. Guidelines for Surveying Historic
Residential Suburbs ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 86
Analyzing Survey Results ........................ 88
Identifying Significant Patterns of Development
Conducting an Intensive-Level Survey and
Compiling National Register Documentation ........ 89
Documenting the Physical Evolution of a Historic
Residential Suburb
Classifying House Types for Inventory Purposes
EVALUATION .................... ......... ... ... 92
Figure 8. How Residential Suburbs Meet the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation •••••••••• 93 Historic Significance ................................ 94 Applying the National Register Criteria
and Criteria Considerations ....... , ...•.... , ..... 94 Association with Important Events and Persons
Distinctive Characteristics of Design
Ability to Yield Important Information
Evaluation under Criteria Consideration G
Selecting Areas of Significance ............... , .... 97 Defining Period of Significance ................... 99
Determining Level of Significance ...... , ......... 100 Historic Integrity ................................. 101 Applying Qualities of Integrity ................... 102 Seven Qualities of Integrity
Classifying Contributing and Noncontributing
Resources . . . ......... , ...... , . , .......... 106 Nonhistoric Alteratio,zs and Additions
Weighing Overall Integrity ...................... 107
Boundaries . . . . . . . ............................. 107 Defining the Historic Property .. , . , ....... , ...... 107 Deciding What to Include ..... , . , ............... 107 Selecting Appropriate Edges .......... , . , .. , .. , , .107 DOCUMENTATION AND REGISTRATION .......... 108
Multiple Property Submissions .. , . , ................ 108 Individual Nominations and Determinations
of Eligibility . . . . . . . ....... , ..... , ............... 108 Name ........................... , ... ,,., .... 108
Classification ............ , ....... , ............ 108 Description ................... , .. , .. , ........ 108 Statement of Significance . , ...................... 111 Maps and Photographs .......... , .............. 111
ENDNOTES .• , • , , , , , . , .. , , .. , . , •. , , , , , . , • , . , .. , 112 RESOURCES .................................. 117
Reference Services and Specialized Repositories ..... 118 Historic Periodicals •....... , ................... 120 Popular Magazines
Professional and Trade Periodicals
Recommended Reading ... , ............... , .... 120
Related National Register Bulletins , •• , , , • , ••••• , ••. 120 General History •••.• , ••• , • , • , ••• , , , , , , , • , • , .. 120 Methodology, References, and Style Guides , • , ••.•• , • , • 121 Political and Social History •••.• , • , • , • , , • , , ••.••• 122 Community Planning, Real Estate, and Subdivision Design 123 Regional Histories and Case Studies , , , , , .. , .•••• , • , 124 Transportation, Utilities, a11d Public Parks ••• , • , ••• , • , 125 House Design and Production , , , •. , , • , , • , •••••• , • 126 Other Suburban Property Types • , • , •• , ••.. , •• , , • , • 129 Yard Design a11d Gardening • .•.••••••.•••.••••••• 130
Selected Pattern Books, Landscape Guides, and
House Catalogs . , • , . , •.. , •• , ••. , . , , . , , , , , .•.• , 131 Dissertations .. , • , • , • , ••• , • , , , , , • , , • , , , , , , , , , 133 Selected Theses , •• , • , ••• , • , .•• , , , , •• , , .. , , , , . , 133 Selected Multiple Property Listings •• , , , ••• , , , , , , , , , 133 HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL SUBURBS vii

Introduction
Modeled after a Tuscan villa, the Parker House (c. 1870) in the 392-acre Glendale Historic District, Hamilton County, Ohio, shows the widespread influence of mid-nineteenth-century pattern books which offered local builders plans for romantic house types and decorative features, such as roofbrackets, hoodmolds, and porch rails. Platted in 1851 with lots from one to 20 acres by civil engineer Robert C. Phillips for the Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad, Glendale is considered the earliest Picturesque suburb in the United States and the first to feature a naturalistic plan of curvilinear streets closely following the site's undulating topography. (Photo by Glendale Heritage Preservation, courtesy National Historic Landmarks Survey) i

M
any of America’s residential
neighborhoods are significant
historic places. Even though many
preservationists think ofsuburbs as
relatively recent developments and a
new type of cultural landscape, most
having been built since the end of
World War II, Americans have been
extending their cities outward by building suburban neighborhoods since the mid-nineteenth century. Transportation to and from earlier suburbs was provided successively by the horsedrawn carriage, steam-driven train, horse-drawn omnibus, electric streetcar and, finally, the mass-produced, gasoline-powered automobile and
motorbus.

This bulletin and the corresponding
multiple property listing, “Historic
Residential Suburbs in the United
States,” recognize the important role
that transportation played in fostering
America’s suburbanization and in shaping the physical character ofAmerican suburbs. For this reason, contextual
information has been organized in a
chronological format with each time
period corresponding to the introduction and rise of a particular method of transportation. Each successive generation ofsuburb has been named for the predominant mode oftransportation
that spawned it—“railroad suburb,”
“streetcar suburb,” “automobile suburb,” and “freeway suburb.” Each of these types produced a distinctive suburban landscape, contributing to the growth ofAmerican cities and coinciding with a major event in American history—the emergence ofthe metropolis.

Demographically, suburbanization
spurred the growth of population on
the edge of cities. In the second half of
the nineteenth century, American cities
grew rapidly as they industrialized. The
degraded conditions ofthe city, coupled with a growing demand for housing in an environment that melded nature with community, created pressures for suburbanization. Advances in transportation, most notably the introduction ofthe electric streetcar in 1887 and the mass production of gasolinepowered automobiles after 1908, allowed an increasingly broad spectrum of households to suburbanize.

Suburbanization spurred the rapid
growth of metropolitan areas in the
twentieth century. In 1910, the U.S.

Census recognized 44 metropolitan
districts—areas where the population
ofthe central city and all jurisdictions
within a 10-mile radius exceeded
100,000. By the 1920s, suburban areas
were growing at a faster rate than central cities—33.2 percent compared to

24.2 percentin the previous decade.

During the 1940s, the average population of core cities increased 14 percent while that ofthe suburbs increased 36
percent. For the first time, the absolute
growth of the population residing in
suburbs nationwide, estimated at nine
million, surpassed that of central cities,
estimated at six million. This trend
continued, and in the 1950s, the population ofsuburban areas increased by 19 million compared to an increase of
six million in the core cities. This
growth signaled the post-World War II
suburban boom. By i960, a greater
number of people in metropolitan
areas lived in the suburbs than in the
central city, and, by 1990, the majority
of all Americans lived in suburban
areas.1
Historically, the residential subdivision has been the building block of America’s suburban landscape. Its
origin can be traced to the eighteenthcentury suburbs of London and, in the United States, to the Romantic landscape movement ofthe mid-nineteenth century. The two residential developments recognized as the design prototypes ofthe modern, self-contained subdivision, where single-family houses
were located along curvilinear roads in
2 National Register Bulletin

a parklike setting, were Llewellyn Park
(1857), in Orange, NewJersey, just west
of New York City, and Riverside (1869),
Illinois, west ofChicago. The early residential suburbs fostered an emerging American aspiration for life in a semirural environment, apart from the noise, pollution, and activity ofthe
crowded city, but close enough to the
city for commuting daily to work.

The American ideal ofsuburban
life in the parklike setting of a selfcontained subdivision fueled the aspirations ofrising middle- and lowerincome families. These aspirations were increasingly met as advances in
transportation opened fringe land for
residential development and lowered
the time and cost of commuting to
work in the city. Even those having
modest incomes would achieve the
ideal in the form ofsmall, detached
houses on the narrow lots ofstrictly
rectilinear plats or the spacious
grounds of garden apartment villages.

The passage of Federal legislation in
the 1930s, establishing a system of
home-loan banking and creating insurance for long-term, low-interest home mortgages, put home ownership within
reach of many Americans and further
encouraged widespread suburbanization. With more favorable mortgage guarantees and builders’ credits by the
end of the 1940s, this system, to a previously unprecedented degree, helped finance the great suburban boom ofthe
postwar years. For many Americans,
life in the postwar suburbs represented
the fulfillment ofthe dream of home
ownership and material well-being.

Postwar suburbs—the result of one
of the largest building booms in
American history—represented a new
and distinctive stage in the succession
ofsuburban neighborhood types. They,
furthermore, created an almost seamless suburban landscape in the extensive territory they occupied, the manner in which large numbers of homes were rapidly mass-produced, and the
dispersed pattern ofsettlement made
possible by the construction of modern
freeways.

As the postwar suburbs approach 50
years of age, they are being included in
local surveys and are being evaluated
according to the National Register criteria. Several having exceptional importance are already listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The number eligible for listing in the National Register is likely to increase dramatically in the next decade, presenting a major challenge to decision makers and
preservation planners at the local,
State, and Federal and tribal government levels.

This bulletin offers guidance to
Federal agencies, State historic preservation offices, Indian tribes, Certified Local Governments, preservation professionals, and interested individuals in developing local and metropolitan contexts for suburban development and in preparing National Register nominations and determinations of eligibility for historic residential suburbs. An
overview ofthe national context for
suburbanization in the United States
provides a chronological framework
for understanding nationaltrends that
may have influenced local patterns of
suburbanization. Guidelines for identification set forth a methodology for developing local contexts and conducting local surveys, while guidelines for evaluation examine the key issues of
evaluating the significance, integrity,
and boundaries of National Register
eligible properties.2
Architect-designed Cape Cod homes built
between 1948 and 1955 in Mariemont (1922-
1960), a model Garden City near Cincinnati,
reflect the enduring popularity of Colonial
Revival house types in twentieth-century
domestic design. (Photo by Steve Gordon,
courtesy Ohio Historic Preservation Office)
Historic Residential Suburbs 3

DEFINING HISTORIC

RESIDENTIAL SUBURBS
Suburbanization is the process of land
development on or near the edge of an
existing city, usually occurring at a
lower density than the central city. In
the United States, the development of
residential neighborhoods has led this
process and has influenced the physical
character of the American landscape as
cities have expanded outward. First
appearing in the mid-nineteenth century, residential suburbs reflect important aspects of the decentralization of American cities and towns as well as
important patterns of architecture,
community planning and development,
landscape design, social history, and
other aspects of culture.

For the purposes of the National
Register program, a historic residential
suburb is classified as a historic district
and is defined as:

A geographic area, usually located outside the central city, that was historically connected to the
city by one or more modes of
transportation; subdivided and
developed primarily for residential use according to a plan; and possessing a significant concentration, linkage, and continuity of dwellings on small parcels of
land, roads and streets, utilities,
and community facilities.

This definition applies to a broad range
of residential neighborhoods which, by
design or historic association, illustrate
significant aspects of America's suburbanization. The following typically meet this definition and may be surveyed, evaluated, and documented for National Register listing using the
guidelines found in this bulletin:
• planned residential communities;
• residential neighborhoods that
through historic events and
associations have achieved a
cohesive identity;
• single residential subdivisions of
various sizes;
• groups of contiguous residential
subdivisions that are historically
4 NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN
interrelated by design, planning, or
historic association;
• residential clusters along streetcar
lines or major thoroughfares;
• entire villages built along railroads,
trolley lines, or parkways; and
• concentrations of multiple family
units, such as duplexes, double and
triple-deckers, and apartment
houses.

Nonresidential resources located within or adjacent to a historic neighborhood may contribute to significance if they are integrally related to the neighborhood by design, plan, or association, and share a common period of historic significance. These include:
• shopping centers;
• parks and parkways;
• institutions and facilities that supported and enhanced suburban domestic life (e.g. schools, churches,
stores, community buildings, libraries, parks, and playgrounds); and • transportation facilities associated
with daily commuting, including
train stations, bus shelters, boulevards, and parkways.

This bulletin may also be useful in documenting several other property types which, although falling outside the context of suburbanization, share similar design characteristics and patterns of
historic development. These include:
• vacation or resort developments;
• company towns;
• urban residential neighborhoods;
• resettlement communities; and
• public housing developments 3
Historic residential suburbs exhibit
diverse physical characteristics and
reflect national trends in various ways.

For example, a subdivision platted in
the 1920s, but developed over a period
of many years due to local economic
conditions, availability of mortgage
financing, or the relationship between
developers and builders, may exhibit a
broad range of architectural styles and
housing types. The homogeneous
physical character of other suburbs, on
the other hand, may be the result of any
of the following factors:
• a relatively short period of
development;
• planning specifications for lot size,
uniform setbacks, or the relationship of dwellings to the street and to each other;
• deed restrictions dictating dwelling
cost, architectural style, or conditions of ownership; • local zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations; • housing of a similar size, scale, style,
and period of construction, built by
a single or small number of architects or builders;
• unifying landscape design, including
features such as gateways, signs,
common spaces, tree lined streets,
walls and curbs, and street patterns;
and
• adherence to FHA standards to
qualify for mortgage insurance.

For the purposes of this bulletin, a historic suburb is defined by the historical events that shaped it and by its location
in relation to the existing city, regardless of current transportation modes or the city's legal boundaries. It applies to
the densely built streetcar suburbs of
(top left) Community park in the Avondale
Estates Historic District (1924-1941), a suburb of Atlanta, features a manmade lake, a club house, and shaded grounds. (Photo by
James R. Lockhart, courtesy Georgia
Department of Natural Resources)
(top right) The American Beach Historic
District (1935-1965) on Florida's Amelia
Island originated as a planned vacation community for prosperous African Americans during the era of segregation. (Photo by Joel McEachln, courtesy Florida Division of
Histoncal Resources)
(bottom) Baltimore City Fire Station
(c. 1905) in Jacobethan Revival style i
l
lustrates
the Enghsh village setting and prov1S1on of city
services at Roland Park, one of the nation's
most influential planned streetcar suburbs.
(Photo by Nancy Miller, courtesy of Maryland
Department of Housing and Community
Development)

Historic Residential Suburbs 5

Due to a local "Own Your Own Home"
campaign, Des Moines led other American
cities in the 1920 Census in the percentage of
homes occupied by their owners. Located near
streetcar lines, many were bungalows bought
on installment in small subdivisions such as
the Woodland Place Plat, listed in the National
Register under the Des Moines Residential
Growth and Development, 1900-1942, MPS.
(Photo by James E. Jacobsen, courtesy State
Historical Society of Iowa)
the 1890s even though the streetcars
and trolley tracks that created them
have disappeared and many have been
incorporated into the legal limits ofthe
city. Conversely, it applies to newer
cities such as Los Angeles, called the
“suburban metropolis,” where the single-family home in a subdivision became the building block ofthe entire
city as legal boundaries expanded outward in response to pressures for new development.4
As a dominant trend inAmerican history, suburbanization has progressively cut across lines ofsocial and
economic class, extending from the
wealthy to the working classes. Although
the earliest suburbs, distinguished by
stately houses set on large landscaped
lots, were developed forthe uppermiddle classes, the aspiration for the freestanding house on a residential street
was equally shared by middle-and even
working-class families, many ofwhom
by the turn ofthe century had settled in
temple-fronted homes or modest bungalows on the small rectangular lots and rectilinear streets ofthe city’s gridiron
plan. Although suburban life has
appealed to all socioeconomic groups,
historically the middle class has been the
largest group to establish homes in suburban neighborhoods. To many Americans, especially after World War II,
home ownership became equated with
the attainment of middle-class status.
6 National Register Bulletin

Using Historic Context
to Evaluate Eligibility
To qualify for the National Register, a
property must represent a significant
aspect of history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture of an area, and it must have the characteristics that
make it a good representative ofthe
properties associated with that aspect
ofthe past. Historic residential suburbs
are historic districts comprised ofsites
(including the overall plan, house lots,
and community spaces), buildings
(primarily houses), structures (including walls, fences, streets and roads both serving the suburb and connecting it to
corridors leading to the larger metropolitan area), and objects (signs, fountains, statuary, etc.).

Eligibility for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places is evaluated
according to the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation. Eligible are
historic residential suburbs and neighborhoods:

A. that are associated with events that
have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of our history;
or
B. that are associated with the lives of
persons significant to our past; or
C. that 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. that have yielded, or may be likely to
yield, information important in prehistory or history.

An eligible district must meet one of
the above criteria and possess integrity
oflocation, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association.

Criteria Consideration G, requiring
exceptional importance, should be
applied to neighborhoods that have not
yet reached 50 years of age. Although
many will be evaluated for significance
at the local level, historic suburbs within major metropolitan areas should be evaluated for significance at the State
level as well as local level. Those that
introduced important trends or design
principles later adopted nationally or
regionally, represent outstanding artistic achievement, or were particularly influential as prototypes for subsequent
design merit study for designation as
National Historic Landmarks.

In considering National Register eligibility, several determinations must be made:
• how the districtillustrates an important aspect ofAmerica’s suburbanization, and reflects the growth and historic development ofthe locality
or metropolitan area where it is
located; and
• whether the district possesses
1) physical features characterizing it
as a historic residential suburb, and
2) attributes of historic integrity conveying its association with important historic events or representing significant aspects ofits historic design.

Decisions concerning significance and
integrity are best made when based on
factual information aboutthe history of
a neighborhood and a knowledge of
local patterns ofsuburbanization. Such
information may be organized into a
historic context defined by theme, geographic area, and chronological period.

One or more historic contexts can be
developed for a metropolitan area or a
locality within it to bring together
information about important events in
transportation, ethnic heritage, industry, architecture, and community development, which shaped its growth and development and influenced its suburbanization.

Several approaches may be followed
for developing historic contexts:
• A metropolitan-wide historic context would 1) identify specific events which contributed to the region’s
historic growth and development;
2) establish where and when suburbanization took place, tracing the emergence ofsuburban communities outside the central city; and 3) define important aspects of community planning, architecture, or landscape architecture that materially contributed to the character of suburban development on a regional
scale.
• A local context, developed for an
individual community or jurisdiction within the metropolitan area, would 1) define local patterns of historic suburban development in themes such as transportation, community planning, and architecture; 2) relate local patterns to both broad
national trends and the specific
events that influenced the growth of
the metropolitan area of which it is a
part; and 3) identify specific neighborhoods illustrating significant patterns.
• A thematically based context would
document a single significant pattern
or trend ofsuburbanization, establishing its importance and identifying neighborhoods associated with it.

Such a context could be based on a
locally significant pattern, such as
the numerous subdivisions of bungalows and foursquares which shaped the character of Des Moines
in the early twentieth century, or an
important regional trend, such as
merchant-builderJoseph Eichler’s
modernistic subdivisions in
California.

Understanding
Residential Suburbs as
Cultural Landscapes
Residential neighborhoods form one of
America’s most distinctive landscape
types. For this reason, their significance
is best evaluated using a landscape
approach which recognizes the presence of historic landscape characteristics and seeks to understand the interrelationship ofthese characteristics spatially and chronologically.

Subdivision development typically
occurred in several clearly defined
stages, which can be read as a series of
layers imprinted on the land:
• The first layer resulted from the
selection of a parcel ofland dedicated for residential use and is defined by geographical location and
Historic Residential Suburbs 7

relationship to natural topography
and cultural factors, such as proximity to places of employment and availability oftransportation.

The second corresponds to the subdivision design, usually the result of a predetermined plan or plat with
very precise boundaries. This layer
is characterized by an internal circulation network, a system of utilities, blocks of buildable house lots, and,
sometimes, community facilities.

The third representsthe arrangement of each home and yard with its dwelling, garage, lawn, driveway,
gardens, walls, fences, and plantings.

The length oftime in which each layer
took form depends on the particular
history ofthe subdivision, local building and real estate practices, and factors such as economics, availability of financing, and the demand for housing
in a particular location.

Many of America’s residential
suburbs resulted from the collaboration of developers, planners, architects, and landscape architects. The contributions of these professional groups, individually and collectively, give American suburbs their characteristic identity as
historic neighborhoods, collections of
residential architecture, and designed
landscapes. In addition to the professionally designed plans and landscaped settings of many historic subdivisions,
countless vernacular landscapes have
been shaped in tandem by homebuilders, seeking conformity with local zoning regulations and national policy,
and home owners, following popular
trends in home design and gardening.

Landscape Characteristics
The following landscape characteristics
can be used as a guide for examining
these layers, describing the physical
evolution of a suburb, understanding
the varied forces that shaped its development, and determining aspects of significance. A knowledge of landscape
8 National Register Bulletin

characteristics related to the suburban
development of a particularmetropolitan area is valuable in developing typologies for suburban planning,
domestic architecture, and landscape
design. Information about landscape
characteristics should be gathered during field survey and included in National Register documentation. For additional
guidance, consult National Register bulletin How to Evaluate andNominate Designed Historic Landscapes.

Land Use and Activities
The selection ofland for residential
subdivision has historically resulted
from a combinations of factors,
including demographics, proximity to
transportation, availability of water and
other utilities, and opportunities for
employment. Topographic features,
such as floodplain, deeply-cut stream
valleys, and escarpments, often influenced the choice of land considered suitable for residential development.

Predominantly residential in use,
subdivisions typically contain singlefamily houses, multiple family housing, or a combination ofthe two. Facilities
that support domestic life and provide
recreational pleasure, such as schools,
shops, community buildings, playgrounds, and parks may also be present. While the private yard is a
distinguishing feature ofAmerican
suburbs, many suburbs also include
common areas that function as parks or
playgrounds.

Subdivision development relies on
the availability of public utilities, including water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, telephone, and road maintenance.

Before the advent ofwater mains, the
design of many subdivisions included
reservoirs and water towers and, even in
the twentieth century, apartment villages
often included power generating and
sewage treatment plants.

Private deed restrictions have been
used since the nineteenth century to
limit development within suburban
subdivisions to residential use and
exclude nonconforming activities such
as industry or commerce. Since the
1920s, local zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations have been adopted in many jurisdictions to control the use
and character ofresidential neighborhoods. In addition, master plans, comprehensive plans, and regional plans have been adopted in many localities to
specify both the location and the
density ofresidential construction.

Response to the Natural Environment
Climate, topography, soil, and the availability of water historically determined the suitability ofsites for residential
construction. Water has always been a
critical factor for residential development, and many early suburbs incorporated provisions for reservoirs and water towers. The advent of public systems of water, especially in metropolitan areas, facilitated residential subdivision on a large scale.

Historically natural topography was
a strong determinant of design,
influencing street patterns, site drainage, the size and shape of building lots, and provision of community parks.

The subdivision of areas having a varied
or dramatic topography, such as the
Whitley Heights Historic District (1918-1928)
in Los Angeles, required the expertise of master site planners and architects who were able to create efficient systems for traffic circulation and water drainage, make use of natural features for scenic and picturesque effects,
and design houses to fit irregular, steeply sloping sites. (Photo by Brian Moore, courtesy California Office of Historic Preservation)
Historic Residential Suburbs 9

Residential suburbs were designed to
follow the natural topography ofthe
land. In areas ofrelatively flat topography, the most common solution was to extend the existing rectilinear grid of
city streets. The subdivision of areas
having varied topography—in the form
ofsteep hillsides, rocky bluffs and outcroppings, or wooded ravines—often required the design expertise of master
landscape architects and engineers,
who were able to utilize natural features for scenic and picturesque effects, as well as create efficient systems for
traffic circulation and water drainage.

Stream valleys, ravines, flood plains,
and canyons were often left undeveloped to allow for site drainage and provide for outdoor recreation. In some places, such sites were avoided because
ofthe high cost of construction. In others, particularly where there was a market for more expensive housing, they were considered desirable for the privacy, variety, and picturesque qualities such a setting afforded.

Climate, soil, and availability of
water, as well as decorative value and
taste, often influenced the retention of
existing trees and the planting of new
trees and shrubs, whether native or
exotic. In arid regions, public water and
irrigation made possible the planting of
lawns and non-native vegetation. While
nineteenth-century yards and neighborhoods reflected the increasing variety of exotic species becoming available in the United States, those ofthe early
twentieth century exhibited more
planting oftrees and shrubs that were
native or better-suited to regional conditions.

Natural topography, climate, wind
direction, orientation to the sun, and
views may have influenced the placement of houses on individual lots as well as the arrangement ofrooms, placement
ofwindows, and provisions for outdoor
living (e.g. porches, patios, and gardens.)
Twentieth-century concerns for domestic reform led designers such as Henry Wright and the Federal housing agencies
to encourage the design of dwellings, in
reference to sun and wind direction, to
maximize natural lighting conditions
and air circulation.

Early neighborhoods are more likely
to reflect indigenous or regional building materials, including stone, brick, adobe, tile, and wood. With the introduction of pre-cut mail order housing in the early twentieth century and the
expanded use of prefabricated components, such as plywood, asbestos board, and steel panels, during and after
World War II, home building materials
became more a function of cost and
taste, rather than geographical availability. In the 1930s, a national market began to emerge for materials, such as
California redwood, Northwest red
cedar, and Arkansas soft pine, which
could be shipped anywhere in the
country. The diffusion ofregional prototypes nationwide in the twentieth century further severed the relationship between house design and local sources
ofbuilding materials.

Patterns ofSpatial Organization
Spatial organization applies to both the
subdivision ofthe overall parcel and
the arrangement ofthe yard, sometimes
called the “home ground.” The expansion ofpublic utilities, particularly water and sewer mains, as well as improvements in transportation influenced the design of many new neighborhoods.

Prevailing trends of city planning
and principles of landscape design
exerted substantial influence on the
spatial organization of new subdivisions. In some places, the gridiron plan ofthe city was simply extended outward, providing rectilinear streets and new blocks of evenly sized house lots.

In others, a larger parcel was developed
to form a more private, or nucleated,
enclave separate from busy thoroughfares; such subdivisions frequently reflected principles oflandscape architecture in the layout ofstreets and lots to follow the existing topography and
create a parklike setting that fulfilled
the ideal of domestic life in a semi-rural
environment.

A general plan or plat, drawn up in
advance and often filed with the local
government, indicated the boundaries
ofthe parcel to be developed, provision
of utilities and drainage, and the layout
ofstreets and lots. The general plan was
drawn up by the developer, often with
the assistance of a surveyor, engineer or
site planner.

Written specifications accompanying a general plan sometimes prescribed design requirements such as the distance to which buildings must be set
back from the street; the size, style, or
cost of houses to be built; and any
restrictions on the use ofland or the
design ofindividual housing lots.

Private deed restrictions were commonly used to specify the size, scale, style, and cost of dwellings and in other
ways controlled the setback and placement of a house on its lot. In addition, local zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations influenced the character ofsuburban neighborhoods by placing limits on the density, number of
dwellings per acre, height of dwellings,
distance between dwellings, and the
distance, or setback of each dwelling
from the street.

Whether the result of popular trends
or professional landscape design, the
organization ofthe domestic yard
includes the arrangement ofthe house
and garage in relationship to the street
or common areas; the placement of
walks and a driveway; and the division
offront, back, and side yards into areas
for specialized uses. Depending on
their period of development, domestic
yards typically included walks, driveways, lawns, trees and shrubbery, foundation plantings, and a variety ofspecialized areas, including gardens, patios, swimming pools, play areas,
storage sheds, and service areas.

Cultural Traditions
The design ofAmerican suburbs
springs from advances made in
England and the United States in the
development of picturesque and
Garden City models for suburban living. With the rise ofsuburbs, regional vernacular forms of housing gave way
to a wide variety of house types and
styles popularized by pattern books,
periodicals, mail order catalogs, stock
plan suppliers, and small house architects. Popular housing forms were often modest adaptations of high-style
domestic architecture. Similarly, popular garden magazines and landscape guides exerted influence on the design
of domestic yards and gardens.
10 National Register Bulletin

The romantic allusions to historic
European prototypes that characterized mid-nineteenth-century housing styles, promoted by landscape designer
Andrew Jackson Downing and others,
gave way to an eclecticism ofstyle by
the end of the century that derived
from the mainstream architectural
styles and achievements ofthe Nation’s
emerging architectural profession.

Regionalism, native materials, and local
building traditions persisted in homes
ofthe Arts and Crafts movement before
World War I; their widespread publication as modest bungalows by editors, such as Gustav Stickley and Henry
Wilson, resulted in the diffusion of
examples nationwide. Similarly, following World War I, great interest in America's rich and diverse cultural heritage resulted in the popularity of revival house styles and types, typically
drawn from English, Dutch, Spanish,
and other Colonial traditions and associated with a particular geographical region. Deed restrictions in the exclusive planned communities sometimes dictated a homogeneous style of
housing adapted to local climate,
regional building traditions, or prevailing cultural tastes. In the case of Palos Verdes, California, this meant the
Spanish Colonial Revival style, and in
communities like Shaker Village, Ohio,
preference persisted for the English
Colonial and Tudor Revival styles.

The majority ofresidential neighborhoods ofthe period, however, were distinguished by a variety ofstyles
drawn from many stylistic traditions,
many ofwhich had little association
with the cultural identity or traditions
ofthe region where they are located.

Such nationalization of housing styles
based on historical prototypes, such as
the Cape Cod or Monterey Revival, as
small house architects, designers of
stock plans, and manufacturers of precut, mail order houses adapted colonial forms for modern living and marketed
them to a national audience.

By the mid-twentieth century, the
emergence of prefabricated building
components further contributed to the
nationalization ofsmall house types
and styles that, while American in derivation, bore little or no association to the history ofthe region where they
were located. By the 1950s, types such
as the Cape Cod and western Ranch
house were adopted by large-scale
builders and appeared in large numbers and multiple variations across the country.

The values and traditions that
shaped life in American suburbs are
typically viewed as stemming from a
mainstream ofAmerican culture, one
often interpreted as quintessentially
middle-class. Such neighborhoods
often possess strong cultural associations derived from the social values and experiences shared by past generations.

Having evolved and changed over the
course of many years, many neighborDwelling in the romantic Germanic Cottage style (1928) by Milwaukee architect
William F. Thalman is one of the many fine
homes built for Milwaukee's rising professional class in the 133-acre Washington Highlands Historic District (1916-1940), in
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. The winding tree
lined roads (at the left) and meandering
streambed ofSchoonmaker Creek (in the foreground), incorporated in the subdivision's 1916 plan by landscape architects Hegemann
& Peets, reflect the persistence of a naturalistic
tradition drawn from Olmsted's nineteenthcentury suburbs. (Photo by Cynthia Lynch, courtesy Wisconsin State Historical Society)
Historic Residential Suburbs ii

hoods have also become identified with
a succession of home owners and
residents representing different economic, immigrant, or racial groups that contributed to the prosperity and vitality of the growing metropolis.

Circulation Networks
Roads and walkways provide circulation for automobiles and pedestrians within a suburban neighborhood. The
circulation network is a key organizing
component ofthe subdivision site plan
and often illustrates important aspects
of design. Distinctive street patterns
may reflect a designer’s response to
natural topography, adherence to
established principles of design, adoption of popular trends, or imitation of successful prototypes.

Typically a hierarchy of roads exists,
whereby major roads provide entry
into and circulation through a subdivision (e.g. loop or perimeter road, central boulevard or parkway, and collector roads), while others form tiers, spur roads, cul-de-sacs, or traffic circles.

Entry roads provide important links to
the surrounding community, metropolitan area, and local and regional systems oftransportation, including highways, parkways, train lines, subways, and streetcar lines. Sidewalks, paths,
and recreational trails form a circulation network for pedestrians, which may follow or be separate from the network ofstreets.

Circulation networks contain specific features such as embankments, planted islands or medians, traffic circles, sidewalks, parking areas, driveway cuts, curbing, culverts, bridges, and
gutters, that contribute to aesthetic as
Circulation networks contain features that
contribute to aesthetic as well as functional
aspects of design, (left) Historic street lighting
and brick pavement in the Oak Circle Historic
District in Wilmette, a suburb of Chicago, add
considerably to the neighborhood's historic
setting, (right) Cul-de-sacs at Green Hills,
Ohio, were designed with circular islands to
accommodate turning automobiles, reduce
the cost ofpaving, and enhance the community's parklike setting. (Photo by Truckenmiller, courtesy Illinois Historic Preservation Agency;
photo by Paul Richardson, courtesy Ohio
Historic Preservation Office)
well as functional aspects of design.

Streets and roads were typically
recessed below the grade of adjoining
house lots in subdivisions laid out
according to principles of landscape
architecture. Grade separations, in the
form of tunnels (underpasses) and
bridges (overpasses), may be present in
communities having separate circulation systems for pedestrians and motorists.

Boundary Demarcations
Fences, walls, and planted screens of
trees and shrubs may separate a suburban neighborhood from surrounding development and provide privacy
between adjoining homes. Gates, gate
houses, pylons, signs, and planted gardens typically signified the entrance to many early planned subdivisions and
may be important aspects of design.

The sense of enclosure created by siting
houses on curvilinear streets and culde-sacs was considered a desirable feature ofsubdivision design by the FHA in the 1930s. It was derived from the
pioneering work oflandscape architect
Frederick Law Olmsted, American
Garden City designers, Clarence Stein
and Henry Wright, and neighborhood
theorist Clarence Perry.

Boundaries between housing lots
may be unmarked to allow for spacious,
free-flowing lawns between dwellings
or they may be marked by fences, walls,
hedges, gardens, or walkways. In some
places, deed restrictions limited or
prohibited the construction of fences.

Retaining walls between house lots or
along streets are common in areas
having steeply sloping topography. In
multiple family housing developments,
a sense of enclosure and privacy may be
provided by the arrangement of
dwellings to create recessed entry
courts, private gardens, patios, and
playgrounds.

Vegetation
Trees, shrubs, and other plantings in
the form of lawns, shade trees, hedges,
foundation plantings, and gardens
often contribute to the historic setting
and significance of historic neighborhoods. Plantings were often the result of conscious efforts to create an attractive neighborhood as well as a cohesive, semi-rural setting. Preexisting trees—
often native to the area—may have been
12 National Register Bulletin

retained. Street trees planted for shade
or ornamental purposes may reflect a
conscious program of civic improvements by the subdivider, a municipal or local government, village improvement
society, or community association.

Parks, playgrounds, and public buildings such as schools and community buildings may have specially designed
plantings. In addition, the grounds of
individual residences may be notable
examples of domestic landscape design
or the work of master landscape
designers. By the 1930s neighborhood
planting was considered important for
maintaining long-term real estate value.

While the plantings of individual
yards typically reflect the tastes and
interests of homeowners, they may also
reflect once popular trends in domestic
landscape design or include vegetation
left from previous land uses. Neighborhood plantings are frequently dominated by grassy lawns, occasional specimen trees, shade trees, and shrubbery. Regional horticultural practices, as well as historic trends, may be
reflected in the choice of native species
or exotic species well adapted to the
local conditions and climate. Plants
may have a strong thematic appeal for
their seasonal display (for example,
flowering apple trees, magnolias, azaleas and rhododendrons, oleanders and crape myrtles, sugar maples, palm
trees, and golden rain trees). In the
1950s neighborhood associations in
some areas engaged landscape architects to develop landscape plans for home owners at a modest cost.

Buildings, Structures, and Objects
Dwellings and buildings associated
with domestic use, including garages,
carriage houses, and sheds, make up
most ofthe built resources in a residential neighborhood. Some neighborhoods will include schools, churches, shopping centers, community halls,
and even a train station or bus shelter.

Dwellings may conform to a typology of models, styles, or methods of construction specified in the plans or initial architectural designs for the suburb, or they may reflect prevailing trends and styles related to the period
in which the suburb was developed.

Depending on the subdivision’s pattern
of development, one or more architects
may be associated with the design of
the dwellings.

Bridges, culverts, and retaining walls
may be present on roads and paths,
especially where the topography is
rugged and cut by streams, ravines, or
arroyos. Evidence of utility systems
may include water towers, reservoirs,
and street lighting. Large apartment
villages frequently contained facilities
such as a power-generating plant,
sewage treatment plant, or maintenance garage.

Clusters
Although a historic residential suburb
generally reflects an even distribution
of dwellings, some also contain clusters
of buildings in the form of apartment
villages, shopping centers, educational
campuses, and recreational facilities.

Such clusters are often integral aspects
of neighborhood planning and contribute to design and social history.

Archeological Sites
Historic residential suburbs may contain pre- and post-contact sites, such as quarries, mounds, and mill sites, which
have been left undisturbed in a park or
on the undeveloped land of a flood
plain, ravine, or outcropping. Existing
homes and domestic yards that yield
information related to data sets and
research questions important in understanding patterns ofsuburbanization and domestic life may also be contributing archeological sites.

Small-scale Elements
Small-scale elements dating from the
historic period contribute collectively
to the significance and integrity of a
historic neighborhood. Such elements
include lamp posts, curbs and gutters,
stairs and stairways, benches, signs,
and sewer covers. Outdoor fireplaces,
pergolas, gazebos, fountains, monuments, and statuary may be present in common areas or individual yards.

Historic Residential Suburbs 13

DRUGS
□ DRUSSG

An Overview
of Suburbanization
in the United States,
1830 to 1960
Historic view (c. 1935) of suburban streetcar and corner drug store, Indianapolis. As the introduction of the electric streetcar spurred the expansion of metropolitan areas across the Nation after 1887, commercial centers emerged at nodes along streetcar lines. The streetcar continued to shape the daily life of commuters and their families well into the twentieth century, eventually to be displaced by automobiles, buses, and motorcycles, which offered greater speed and mobility. (Photo by Bass Photo Company, courtesy William Henry Smith Memorial Library, Indiana Historical Society)
15

TRANSPORTATION
T
he evolution ofAmerican suburbs
from 1830 to i960 can be divided
into four stages, each corresponding to
a particular chronological period and
named for the mode oftransportation
which predominated at the time and
fostered the outward growth ofthe city
and the development of residential
neighborhoods:

1. Railroad and Horsecar Suburbs,
1830 to 1890;

2. Streetcar Suburbs, 1888 to 1928;

3. Early Automobile Suburbs, 1908 to
1945;

4. Post-World War II and Early
Freeway Suburbs, 1945 to i960.

The chronological periods listed above
should be viewed as a general organizing framework, rather than a fixed set of dates, thereby allowing for overlapping trends, regional influences, and variations in local economic or social
conditions. Within each period, a
distinctive type of residential suburb
emerged as a result ofthe transportation system that served it, advances in community planning and building
practices, and popular trends in design.

The following overview examines the
major national trendsthatshaped
America’s suburbs, including the development of urban and metropolitan transportation systems, the evolution of
building and planning practices, a
national system of home financing, the
design ofthe residential subdivision, and
trends in the design ofthe American
home.

In 1890 at the urging ofreal estate developers, the Burlington and Quincy Railroad built an attractive and comfortable suburban
station at Berwyn, Illinois, nine and one-half
miles west of downtown Chicago. (Photo by
Charles Hasbrouck, courtesy Illinois Historic
Preservation Agency)
Trends in Urban
and Metropolitan
Transportation
The laying out of new transportation
routes, using new technologies, spurred
the outward movement ofsuburban
development. New circulation patterns
formed the skeleton around which new
land uses and suburbs became organized. Farmland near the city was acquired, planned, and developed into residential subdivisions ofvarying sizes.

Separate from the city, new subdivisions
were designed as residential landscapes,
combining the open space, fresh air,
and greenery ofthe country with an
efficient arrangement of houses.

Railroad and Horsecar
Suburbs, 1830 to 1890
With the introduction ofthe Tom
Thumb locomotive in 1830, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad became the first steam-powered railroad to operate
in the United States. Soon after, railroad lines rapidly expanded westward from major northeastern cities, making
possible the long-distance transportation ofraw materials and manufactured goods. On the eve ofthe Civil War, an
extensive network of railroads existed
in the eastern half ofthe United States,
connecting major cities as far west as
Chicago.

Seeking new sources of revenue,
railroad companies started to build
passenger stations along their routes
connecting cities with outlying rural
villages. These stations became the
focal points of villages that developed
in nodes along the railroad lines radiating outward from cities. Land development companies formed with the purpose of laying out attractive, semi-rural residential communities.

Railroad suburbs offered the upper
and upper-middle classes an escape
from the city to what historian John
Stilgoe has called the “borderland,”
where rural countryside and the city,
with its modern amenities, merged. The
railroad simultaneously provided
access to the center city while insulating communities from the urban, lower classes who could not afford the high
cost of commuting, creating what historian Robert Fishman has called a “bourgeois utopia.”5
By the mid-i86os, railroad commuting was well established in many cities.

Outside Philadelphia, “mainline” suburbs developed along the route ofthe Pennsylvania Railroad at places such as
Swarthmore, Villanova, and Radnor.

Lines from New York City extended
north and east to Westchester County,
Long Island, and New Haven, Connecticut, and west and south into New Jersey. In 1850, 83 commuter stations lay
within a 15-mile radius of the city of
Boston. The building of a railroad
south of San Francisco in 1864 stimulated the rapid growth of a string of suburban towns from Burlingame to
Atherton.6
Outside Chicago, which rapidly
developed during the railroad era,
extensive new suburbs took form in
places such as Aurora, Englewood,
Evanston, Highland Park, Hinsdale,
Hyde Park, Kenwood, Lake Forest,
Wilmette, and Winnetka. Eleven separate railroad lines operated in the city between 1847 and 1861, and by 1873 railroad service extended outward to more than 100 communities. The most
famous was Riverside, a Picturesque
planned suburb west of the city, developed by Emery E. Childs ofthe Riverside Improvement Company. Designed in 1869 by Olmsted, Vaux, and Company, Riverside would become a highly emulated model ofsuburban design
well into the twentieth century.7
Revolutionizing cross-city travel in
the 1830s, horse-drawn cars provided
the first mass transitsystems by offering
regularly scheduled operations along a
fixed route. Due to the introduction of
the horse-drawn omnibus and later the
16 National Register Bulletin

more efficient horse-drawn streetcar
that operated on rails, the perimeters of
many cities began to expand in the 1850s.

By i860, horsecar systems operated in
New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia,
Pittsburgh, Chicago, Cincinnati, Montreal, and Boston.8 Horse-drawn cars increased the distance one could commute in one-half hour from two to three miles, thereby
extending the distance between the center city and land desirable for residential development from 13 to almost 30 square
miles. Horsecar tracks followed the main
roads radiating out from the center city
toward the emerging railroad suburbs
on the periphery. Transportation began
to influence the geography ofsocial and
economic class, as the cost oftraveling
between home and work determined
where different groups settled. The middle and working classes settled in neighborhoods closer to the central city accessible by horse-drawn cars, while those with higher incomes settled in the railroad suburbs.9
Following the precedent ofCentral
Park in New York City in 1858, large,
publicly-funded, naturalistic parks
began to appear in many ofAmerica’s
rapidly industrializing cities. Aimed at
improving the quality oflife, they offered
city dwellers the refreshing experience
of open space, natural scenery, and outdoor recreation. In cities such as Buffalo, Brooklyn, Boston, and Louisville, the
desire to connect parks with the central
city and each other resulted in the creation of parkways and boulevards that were essentially extensions of park
carriage roads. Characterized as wide,
tree lined roadways often running alongside natural brooks and streams, these roads quickly became desirable corridors along which new neighborhoods and suburban estates were built for
thosewealthy enough to travel by horse
and carriage.

Streetcar Suburbs, 1888 to 1928
The introduction ofthe first electricpowered streetcar system in Richmond, Virginia, in 1887 by Frank J. Sprague
ushered in a new period ofsuburbanization. The electric streetcar, or trolley, Historic Residential Suburbs 17

Figure 1.

Milestones in Urban and Metropolitan Transportation
1830
1868-92
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad introduces
the steam locomotive in America.

Parkways designed by Olmsted firm
for Brooklyn, Buffalo, Boston, and
Louisville.
1923
1928-29
Detroit Rapid Transit Commission
announces comprehensive system of mass
transit including a centralized subway.

Radburn developed as the "Town for
the Motor Age."
1887 Electric streetcar introduced by Frank J. 1938 Bureau of Public Roads report. Toll Sprague in Richmond, Virginia. Roads and Free Roads, calls for a master 1893-1915 Kessler Brothers design park and boulevard system for Kansas City. plan for highway development, a series
of upgraded interregional roads, and
the construction of express highways
1902 Improvement of Towns and Cities by into and through cities to relieve urban Charles Mulford Robinson calls for civic traffic congestion. improvements such as roads, site plan1939 New York World's Fair "Futurama" ning, playgrounds and parks, street plantings, paving, lighting, and sanitation. presents designer Norman Bel Geddes's vision for a national highway system
1908 Introduction of the Model-T automobile and the modern city of the motor age. by Henry Ford. 1940 Arroyo Seco Freeway opens in
1911 The Width and Arrangement of Streets Pasadena; first modern, high-speed by Charles Mulford Robinson is pub­ turnpike opens in Pennsylvania. lished, later republished as City
Planning (1916). 1944 Federal Aid Highway Act calls for a limited system of national highways
1916 Federal Aid Highway Act (42 U.S. Stat. and a National System of Interstate 212), commonly called the "Good Roads Defense Highways; Interregional Act," establishes Bureau of Public Roads Highway Committee recommends creand authorizes Federal funding of 50 ation of a 32,000-mile national network percent of State road projects within a of express highways, now known as the Federal aid highway network. Eisenhower Interstate System. 1916-24 Construction of Bronx River Parkway,
New York.
allowed people to travel in io minutes
as far they could walk in 30 minutes. It
was quickly adopted in cities from
Boston to Los Angeles. By 1902,22,000
miles ofstreetcar tracks served American cities; from 1890 to 1907, this distance increased from 5,783 to 34,404 miles.10
By 1890, streetcar lines began to foster a tremendous expansion ofsuburban growth in cities of all sizes. In older cities, electric streetcars quickly
replaced horse-drawn cars, making it
possible to extend transportation lines
outward and greatly expanding the
availability ofland for residential
development. Growth occurred first in
outlying rural villages that were now
interconnected by streetcar lines, and,
second, along the new residential corridors created along the streetcar routes.

In cities ofthe Midwest and West,
such as Indianapolis and Des Moines,
streetcar lines formed the skeleton of
the emerging metropolis and influenced the initial pattern ofsuburban development.11
Socioeconomically, streetcar suburbs attracted a wide range of people from the working to upper-middle
class, with the great majority being
middle class. By keeping fares low in
cost and offering a flat fare with free
transfers, streetcar operators encouraged households to move to the suburban periphery, where the cost ofland and a new home was cheaper. In many
places, especially the Midwest and
West, the streetcar became the primary
means oftransportation for all income
groups.12
As streetcar systems evolved, crosstown lines made it possible to travel from one suburban center to another,
and interurban lines connected
18 National Register Bulletin

Nineteenth-century public parks were
pleasure grounds with gardens of exotic
plants, fountains and ponds, paths for
strolling, and sometimes a spacious
greensward. In Buffalo (at the left), the creation of a system ofparks and parkways by Frederick Law Olmsted spurred the transformation of adjoining land into attractive, tree lined neighborhoods, such as the Parkside East
Historic District. In St. Louis (below), Lafayette
Square became the heart of a growing residential district distinguished by some of the city's finest homes. (Photo by L. Newman,
courtesy New York Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation; historic photo courtesy Landmarks Association of St. Louis) Historic Residential Suburbs 19

outlying towns to the central city and to
each other. Between the late 1880s and
World War I, a number of industrial
suburbs appeared outside major cities,
including Gary, Indiana, outside
Chicago, and Homestead and Vandergrift, both outside Pittsburgh.1? Concentrated along radial streetcar
lines, streetcar suburbs extended outward from the city, sometimes giving the growing metropolitan area a star
shape. Unlike railroad suburbs which
grew in nodes around rail stations,
streetcar suburbs formed continuous
corridors. Because the streetcar made
numerous stops spaced at short intervals, developers platted rectilinear subdivisions where homes, generally on small lots, were built within a five- or
10-minute walk ofthe streetcar line.

Often the streets were extensions of the
gridiron that characterized the plan of
the older city.

Neighborhood oriented commercial
facilities, such as grocery stores, bakeries, and drugstores, clustered at the intersections ofstreetcar lines or along
the more heavily traveled routes.

Multiple story apartment houses also
appeared at these locations, designed
either to front directly on the street or
to form a u-shaped enclosure around a
recessed entrance court and garden.

In many places the development of
real estate closely followed the introduction ofstreetcar lines, sometimes being financed by a single operator or
developer. East ofCleveland, Ohio, the
community of Shaker Village took form
after 1904 when O. P. and M.J. van
Sweringen set outto create a residential
community for middle- and upper-class
families. To ensure the fastest and most
direct service for home owners they
eventually purchased a right-of-way
and installed a high-speed electric
streetcar to downtown Cleveland. By
1911, the community of Shaker Village
was incorporated, establishing a system
of local government that would ensure
the community’s development as a residential suburb for decades to corned Streetcar use continued to increase
until 1923 when patronage reached 15.7
billion and thereafter slowly declined.

There was no distinct break between
streetcar and automobile use from 1910 to
1930. As cities continued to grow and the
demand for transportation increased,
the automobile was adopted by increasing numbers of upper-middle to upperincome households, while streetcars continued to serve the middle and
working class population. Streetcar
companies, however, in the 1920s
remained confident abouttheir industry’s future. By the 1930s, many became mass transit companies, adding buses
and trackless trolleys to their fleets to
make their routes more flexible. In a
few cities—Boston, Chicago, New York,
and Detroit—mass transit included elevated trains and subways.1? By the 1940s, streetcar ridership had
dropped precipitously. The vast
increase in automobile ownership and
decentralization of industry to locations outside the central city after World War II brought an end to the role
ofthe streetcar as a determinant of
American urban form.
20 National Register Bulletin

Early Automobile Suburbs:
1908 to 194s
The introduction ofthe Model-T automobile by Henry Ford in 1908 spurred the third stage ofsuburbanization. The
rapid adoption ofthe mass-produced
automobile by Americans led to the
creation ofthe automobile-oriented
suburb ofsingle-family houses on
spacious lots that has become the
quintessential American landscape of
the twentieth century.

Between 1910, when Ford began producing the Model-T on a massive scale, and 1930, automobile registrations in
the United States increased from
458,000 to nearly 22 million. Automobile sales grew astronomically:
2,274,000 cars in 1922, more than
3,000,000 annually from 1923 to 1926,
and nearly four and a half million in
1929 before the stock market crashed.

Bird's eye view (1974) of Shaker Square,
outside Cleveland, Ohio, shows the transit
right-of-way, planned shopping center, nearby
apartment houses, and outlying subdivisions
of detached houses which attracted residents
to the newly incorporated town ofShaker
Heights in the early decades of the twentieth
century. (Photo by Eric Johannesen, courtesy
Ohio Historic Preservation Office)
Historic Residential Suburbs 21

According to Federal Highway Administration statistics, 8,000 automobiles were in operation in 1900, one-half a
million in 1910, nine-and-a-quarter
million in 1920, and nearly 27 million
in 1930.16
The rise of private automobile ownership stimulated an intense period of suburban expansion between 1918 and
the onset ofthe Great Depression in
1929. As a result ofthe increased mobility offered by the automobile, suburban development began to fill in the starshaped city created by the radial streetcar lines. Development on the periphery became more dispersed as workers were able to commute longer distances
to work, as businesses moved away
from the center city, and as factories,
warehouses, and distribution centers
were able to locate outside the railroad
corridors due to the increased use of
rubber-tired trucks.1?
The popularity ofthe automobile
brought with it the need for a new
transportation infrastructure that
included the construction and
improvement of roads and highways,
development oftraffic controls, building of bridges and tunnels, and widening and reconstruction of downtown streets. One ofthe most unheralded
structures that facilitated the growth of
the suburbs was the
perfected
mechanical road. Automobiles required
smooth, hard surfaces, and before 1900,
even in cities, most roads were
unpaved. Asphalt, introduced in the
1890s, became the common road surface by 1916.18
Beginning in the 1890s, the City
Beautiful movement spurred advances
in city planning and urban design.

Transportation planning, as well as the
improvement ofstreets, was recognized
as central to the coordinated growth of
urban areas. In cities such as Kansas
City, Denver, and Memphis, the collaboration of planners, landscape architects, architects, and local political leaders, forged a rich legacy of parkways and boulevards that linked new residential suburbs with the center city.

Highly influential were the writings of
Charles Mulford Robinson, a journalist
and advocate for Denver’s park and
parkway system. These included
Improvement ofTowns and Cities (1901),
Width andArrangement ofStreets (1911),
and City Planning, with Special
Reference to the Planning ofStreets and
Lots (1916).

Proposed in 1906 and built between
1916 and 1924, the Bronx River Parkway
was one ofthe first modern parkways
designed for automobiles. Sixteen miles
in length, the parkway connected suburban communities in Westchester County with downtown New York.

The parkway followed the Bronx River
through a reservation initially
established to reclaim what had
become a polluted and unsightly watershed. Featuring a right-of-way ranging from 300 to 1,800 feet, the parkway was
extensively planted with trees and
shrubs, provided scenic river views,
and achieved the illusion of being
totally separated from adjoining development. The alignment featured graceful curves and gently followed the undulating topography to give motorists, many of whom were daily commuters,
a pleasurable driving experience.1?
Metropolitan areas expanded as
streets, parkways, and boulevards
extended outward, opening up new
land for subdivision. As new radial
arterials were built, suburban development becamq decentralized, creating fringes of increasingly low densities.

With commuters no longer needing to
live within walking distance ofthe
streetcar line, residential suburbs could
be built at lower densities to form selfcontained neighborhoods that afforded more privacy, larger yards, and a parklike setting. Neighborhood improvements typically included paved roads, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and
driveways, as well as connections to
municipal water systems and other
public utilities.20
Concerns over pedestrian safety
emerged as automobile use
increased, and by the late
1920s, subdivision
designers and
housing
22 National Register Bulletin

reformers alike were examining ways to
separate neighborhood traffic from
arterial traffic and to design neighborhoods that remained safe, quiet, and free ofspeeding traffic. The “Radburn
Idea,” first introduced by Clarence
Stein and Henry Wright in their 1928
design for a “Town for the Motor Age,”
called for separate circulation systems
to serve pedestrians and automobiles.

Published a year later in the regional
plan for metropolitan New York City,
Clarence Perry’s Neighborhood Unit
Formula called for a hierachy ofstreets
of varying widths to control automobile
traffic.

In 1916 the United States Congress
passed the Federal Aid Highway Act,
authorizing expenditure of Federal
funds for up to 50 percent ofthe cost of
State road projects within the Federal
aid network. During the 1920s, most
States established highway departments, and the total miles ofsurfaced highway in the Nation doubled.21
During the “golden age of highway
building” from 1921 to 1936, more than
420,000 miles of roads were built in the
United States. The increase in intercity
highways and roads connecting farms
with markets made new land available
for suburbanization. Advances in highway engineering, including the development of divided highways,
bridges and tunnels, and cloverleaves,
made automobile travel faster and
safer.22
Suburban areas continued to grow
faster than central cities, and the planning of metropolitan highway systems gained increasing attention. High speed
roads extending outward from central
cities appeared in major metropolitan
areas: Lakeshore Drive to Chicago’s
northern suburbs opened in 1933; and,
in 1936, the Grand Central Parkway was
added to the already extensive system
of roads on Long Island built under
Robert Moses’s direction. In 1940, the
opening ofthe Arroyo Seco Freeway in
Los Angeles heralded a new age of freeway construction connecting city and suburb.23
The Futurama exhibit sponsored by
General Motors Corporation at the 1939
New York World’s Fair presented one of
the most influential and memorable
visions for the future of highway engineering, and with it suburban life.

Designed by Norman Bel Geddes, the
exhibit featured a huge diorama ofthe
American landscape overlaid with an
intricate network of high-speed, multilane, limited-access highways joining country and city. Called “magic motorways,” the highways featured total separation of grades and graduated
speeds. A ring highway surrounded the
city interconnecting with radial freeways
that guided suburban commuters to the
center city where exit ramps eventually
led to underground garages.24
In its 1938 report, Toll Roads and
Free Roads, the Bureau of Public
Roads called for a master plan for
highway development, a series of
upgraded interregional roads, and the
construction of express highways into
and through cities to relieve urban
(left) Historic photograph (c. 1928) of a
typical new subdivision of "better homes"
in Indianapolis. By the 1920s, improvements in
suburban street design to accommodate the
automobile, the growing acceptance of landuse controls, and the development of public utilities resulted in a host of suburban amenities, including paved roads, mandatory setbacks, sidewalks and driveways, concrete curbs, street lighting, and underground utilities. (Photo by Bass Photo Company, courtesy William Henry Smith Memorial Library, Indiana
Historical Society)
(right) Streetcar Waiting Station at
Brentmoor Park, Clayton, Missouri, one of
three residential parks designed by Henry
Wright and featured in a 1913 Architectural
Record article, entitled "Cooperative Group
Planning. " Each subdivision featured an
arrangement of fine houses along a private
curvilinear drive, commonly owned gardens
and grounds, and a perimeter service road.
(Photo by Esley Hamilton, courtesy Missouri
Department of Natural Resources)
Historic Residential Suburbs 23

traffic congestion. The report also outlined the routes for six transcontinental highways and debated the feasibility of
using tolls to support highway construction.25
The emergency of World War II
intervened, and Federal highway
spending was limited to the improvement ofroads directly serving military installations or defense industries. In
1941 President Franklin D. Roosevelt
appointed a seven-member Interregional Highway Committee to work with Public Roads administrator
Thomas H. MacDonald on recommendations for national highway planning following the war. The committee’s recommendations for an extensive 32,000- mile national network of expressways
resulted in the Federal Aid Highway Act
of 1944. The act authorized a National
System of Interstate Highways, which
included metropolitan expressways
designed to relieve traffic congestion
and serve as a framework for urban
redevelopment.26
Since Congress did not appropriate
additional funds for the system’s construction until the mid-1950s, State highway departments were forced to
rely on other sources, including public
bonds, toll revenues, and the usual
matching Federal funds earmarked for
the improvement of the Federal aid
highway network.2?
From the end of World War I until
1945, increasing automobile ownership
accelerated suburbanization and significantly expanded the amount ofland available for residential development.

This trend further stimulated the
design and construction of a new infrastructure of roads, highways, bridges, and tunnels, laying the groundwork for
highway systems that would transform
metropolitan areas after World War II.

Post-World War II and Early
Freeway Suburbs: 1945 to i960
The fourth and most dramatic stage of
suburbanization in the United States
followed World War II. The postwar
housing boom, manifested in the
so-called “freeway” or “bedroom”
suburbs, was fueled by increased automobile ownership, advances in building technology, and the Baby Boom. A critical shortage of housing and the
availability of low-cost, long-term
mortgages, especially favorable to veterans, greatly spurred the increase of home ownership.

Highway construction authorized
under the 1944 act got offto a slow start,
but by 1951, every major city was working on arterial highway improvements with 65 percent of Federal funds being
used for urban expressways. Under
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the
Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 provided substantial funding for the accelerated construction of a 41,000-mile, national system ofinterstate and defense
highways which included 5,000 miles of
urban freeways.28
By the late 1950s, the interstate system began to take form and already exerted considerable influence on patterns ofsuburbanization. As the network of high-speed highways opened new land for development, residential
subdivisions and multiple family apartment complexes materialized on a scale previously unimagined. Increasing
national prosperity, the availability of
low-cost, long-term mortgages, and the
application ofmass production and
prefabrication methods created favorable conditions for home building and home ownership. These factors gave
rise to merchant builders, who with
loan guarantees and an eager market,
were able to develop extensive tracts of
affordable, mass produced housing at
unprecedented speeds.

The increase of large, self-contained
residential subdivisions, connected to
the city by arterials and freeways, created a suburban landscape dependent on the automobile for virtually all aspects
of daily living. Retailing facilities
migrated to the suburbs and were clustered in community shopping centers or along commercial strips. Large
regional shopping centers began to
appear first along arteries radiating
from the center city and then along the
new circumferential highways. By i960,
the construction ofsuburban industrial
and office parks added further impetus
to the decentralization ofthe American
city and the expansion ofAmerica’s
suburban landscape.
24 National Register Bulletin

(above) The Park-and-Shop (1930) in the
ClevelandParkHistoric District, Washington, D.C., designedby architectArthur B.

Heaton for real estate developers Shannon&
Luchs, illustrates the convenience of shopping
in one's neighborhood. Located on abusy
street leading out of the city this early shopping centerprovided an innovative front automobileparking lot and a collection ofstores serving daily needs that were planned, developed, owned and managed asa singleunit. (PhotocourtesyLibrary of Congress, Theodo
Horydczak Collection, LC-H814-T-1049)
Designed as the "Town for the Motor
Age," Radburn, New Jersey, featured sepa
rate circulation systems for pedestrians and
automobiles.A network of interconnected
pedestrianpaths and a grade separation (visible at the right), similar to the "arches" Olmsted designed for Central Parkin New
YorkCity, enabled residentsto reachtheir
neighborhood park on foot and passfrom
one park to another without crossing busy
streets. (Photoby LouisDiGeronimo, courtesy
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection)
HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL SUBURBS 25

Land Use and Site Development
Suburban Land
Development Practices
The basic landscape unit of residential
suburban development is the subdivision. The development process starts with a parcel of undeveloped land,
often previously used for agricultural
purposes, large enough to be subdivided into individual lots for detached, single-family homes and equipped with
improvements in the form ofstreets,
drainage, and utilities, such as water,
sewer, electricity, gas, and telephone
lines. In other suburban neighborhoods, groups of attached dwellings and apartment buildings would be
arranged within a large parcel ofland
and interspersed with common areas
used for walkways, gardens, lawns,
parking, and playgrounds.

Developers and the
Development Process
Until the early twentieth century, most
subdivisions were relatively small, and
suburban neighborhoods tended to
expand in increments as adjoining
parcels of land were subdivided and the
existing grid ofstreets extended outward. Subdivisions were generally planned and designed as a single development, requiring developers to file a plat, or general development plan, with
the local governmental authority indicating their plans for improving the land with streets and utilities. Homes
were often built by different builders
and sometimes the owners themselves.

As metropolitan areas established
large public water systems and other
public utilities, developers could install
utilities at a lower expense and often
used enhancements, such as paved
roads, street lighting, and public water,
to attract buyers. Early planned subdivisions typically included utilities in the form ofreservoirs, water towers, and
drainage systems designed to follow the
26 National Register Bulletin
natural topography and layout of
streets. Power plants and maintenance
facilities were also included to support
many of the larger planned developments of multiple family dwellings.

Historically the subdivision process
has evolved in several overlapping
stages and can be traced through the
roles ofseveral groups of developers.

The Subdivider
Beginning in the nineteenth century,
the earliest group of developers, called
“subdividers,” acquired and surveyed
the land, developed a plan, laid out
building lots and roads, and improved
the overall site. The range ofsite
improvements varied but usually
included utilities, graded roads, curbs
and sidewalks, storm-water drains, tree
planting, and graded common areas
and house lots. Lots were then sold
either to prospective homeowners who
would contract with their own builder,
to builders buying several parcels at
once to construct homes for resale, or
to speculators intending to resell the
land when real estate values rose. Land
improvement companies typically
organized to oversee the subdivision of
larger parcels, especially those forming
new communities along railroad and
streetcar lines. Mostsubdividers, however, operated on a small scale—laying out, improving, and selling lots on only
a few subdivisions a year.29
The Home Builder
By the turn ofthe twentieth century,
subdividers discovered they could
enhance the marketability oftheir land
by building houses on a small number
of lots. At a time of widespread real
estate speculation and fraud, home
building helped convince prospective
buyers that the plan on paper would
materialize into a suburban neighborhood. Subdividers still competed in the market through the types of improvements they offered, such as graded and paved roads, sidewalks, curbs, tree
plantings, and facilities such as railroad
depots or streetcar waiting stations.

These developers continued to view
their business as selling land, not houses, and the realization ofsubdivision plans took many years.?0
The Community Builder
The term “community builder” came
into use in the first decade of the twentieth century in connection with the city planning movement and the development of large planned residential neighborhoods. Developers of this type
were real estate entrepreneurs who
acquired large tracts of land that were
to be developed according to a master
plan, often with the professional
expertise ofsite planners, landscape
architects, architects, and engineers.

Proximity to schools, shopping centers,
country clubs and other recreational
facilities, religious structures, and civic
centers, as well as the convenience of
commuting, became important considerations for planning new neighborhoods and attracting home owners.31 Community builders, such as
Edward H. Bouton of Baltimore and
J. C. Nichols of Kansas City, greatly
affected land use policy in the United
States, influencing to a large extent the
design of the modern residential subdivision. Nichols’s reputation was based on the development ofthe Country
Club District in Kansas City-an area
that would ultimately house 35,000 residents in 6,000 homes and 160 apartment buildings. Because they operated on a large scale and controlled all
aspects of a development, these developers were concerned with long-term planning issues such as transportation
and economic development, and
extended the realm ofsuburban developmentto include well-planned boulevards, civic centers, shopping centers, and parks.?2
To promote predictability in the
land market and protect the value of
their real estate investments,
community builders became strong