Item 18 2023-01114 African American Experience History Project Final Draft Historic Context and the Historic Building Survey Findings (M23-003) — Sacramento City Council, September 19, 2023 (part 4 of 4)

Thank you for your consideration of the application for the designation of a New Helvetia Historic District.

WHL/nlp
00079740
January 23, 2001
California State Parks

JENNIFER STANLEY
Sacramento, CA. 95819
Office of Historic Preservation
Attn: Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph.D.

State Historic Preservation Officer
1725 - 23rd Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95816
RE:C£JVE:o
JAN 2 8 2014
0Hp
Re: Support for Nomination of New Helvetia Historic Public Housing to the National Register Dear Chair Polanco and Commissioners:

As a long time resident of the City of Sacramento I wish to express my support of Upper Land Park's application for the designation of the New Helvetia Public Housing complex to the National Register as an historic district.

There are many social, legal and ethnic factors that the Commission may consider in order to approve this as an historic district, including:
► Identify New Helvetia as the location where "de facto: segregation was first discovered in Sacramento's public housing, as well as to recognize Nathaniel Colley's legal and political efforts which led to elimination of segregation in Sacramento's public housing. ► Value New Helvetia's historical and ethnic contribution to our City's historical past. ► Create a unique historic housing development - with more appeal than "anywhere U.S.A." new construction.
► Ensure a long term successful, unique housing development project by retaining New Helvetia's historic brick buildings.
► Recognize the only project created by a team of Sacramento's esteemed architects - Charles Dean, Leonard Starks, Ed Flanders and Harry Devine, Sr.

Thank you for you consideration of this important designation. I look forward to a positive outcome of your actions.

Sincere!¼
;J/
,,
I ~ ,· C ,, a-- ..

Je1~nifer Stanley .
1619- 50th Street
Sacramento, CA 95819
TODDD.IRBY
1227 0 Street, Suite 306
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 654-7022
Todd.IrbyCakalvet.ca.gov
January 24, 2013
California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation Attention: Carol Rowland-Nawi, Ph.D, State Historic Preservation Officer 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95816
Re: Support tor Anplicotin11 lo Desigurrte n Ne111 He!,,etia Hirtoric District Dear Ms. Roland-Nawi:

I am writing to request that you add my nam~ to the ranks of those individuals who have given their unequivocal support for the drive to designate New Helvetia as a protected Sacramento historical district.

While I am not a Sacramentan by birth, over the course of the more than six years that my family and I have been privileged to call Sacramento our home I have come to regard the city, its rich history, its beautiful architecture, and its racially and culturally diverse population as the ideal locale to raise our child and pursue my career. As an African-American attorney with a strong affinity for the city and its citizens' historical role in cementing California's place in our nation's racial, cultural, legal, and political firmament, I was fascinated to learn of attorney Nathaniel Colley's valiant efforts to utilize our country's legal system to end public housing discrimination in Sacramento and other California cities, as well as several Western states. His and his allies' successful efforts to eradicate the residual Jim Crow-inspired barriers to full residential equality and selfdetennination that faced New Helvetia's earliest African-American residents in the form of pernicious de facto segregation stand as a lasting testament to their unwillingness to accept the status quo.

In light of the foregoing, I firmly believe that designating a New Helvetia Historic District would be the most fitting way to assure that the brick buildings comprising the remaining portion of the original community would be the most effective method of assuring that those buildings continue to stand as perpetual monuments to those men and women who never ceased to believe that public housing for ail people, regardless of race or creed, is a right, not merely a dream.

For each of these reasons, I strongly urge the approval of this wort y proposal.

TDI: ti
Deputy Secretary & Chief Counsel
California Department of Veterans Affairs

STA TE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY

OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
1725 23rd Street, Suite 100
SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100
(916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053
[email protected],gov
www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
January 24, 2014
La Shelle Dozier
Executive Director
Housing Authority of the City of Sacramento
Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency
801 1 ih Street .

Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: New Helvetia Historic District
Sacramento County, California
National Register of Historic Places Nomination
Dear Ms. Dozier:

EDMUND G BROWN, JR., Governor
In response to your letter of January 17, 2014 requesting the above-referenced National Register nomination be tabled until the end of 2015, there is no legal basis for pulling the nomination from the State Historical Resources Commission's February 7, 2014 agenda at this time.

The legal basis for the State Historic Preservation Officer to pull a nomination is narrowly defined, per the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act.

In accordance with Title I Section 101 (16 U.S.C. 470a)(c)(2)(A), if no report and recommendation are received from the local historic preservation commission within sixty days of notification, the State shall make the nomination.

In accordance with Section 101 (c)(2)(8), if both the local historic preservation commission and the chief local elected official recommend that a property not be nominated, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall take no further action, unless an appeal is filed.

Such an appeal would most likely delay the nomination for only one quarter, from the February 7, 2014 meeting of the State Historical Resources Commission to the April 22, 2014 meeting.

The Commission hearing is an open meeting, and members of the community are welcome to attend , and comment if desired.

Sincerely,
~
Jenan Saunders
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor

OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
1725 23rd Street, Suite 100
SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100
(916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053
[email protected]
www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
January 27, 2014
La Shefle Dozier, Executive Director
Housing Authority of the City of Sacramento
Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency
801 1 ih Street
Sacramento, Californi~ 95814
Dear Ms. Dozier:

I am writing to inform you that as the State Historic Preservation Officer, I am recusing myself from any involvement with the New Helvetia /Alder Grove nomination to the National Register and from ariy Section 106 or CEQA review of the city's proposed project at that location. I own property at 956 Fremont Way and could be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.

Please direct all correspondence and inquiries to the State Office of Historic Preservation to the Deputy SHPO, Jenan Saunders. Ms. Saunders can be reached by phone at (916) 445-7019 or by email. at [email protected].' Carol Rola
State Historic Preservation Officer
"
cc: Jay Correia, Supervi~or, Office of Historic Preservation.Registration Uriit; Jenan .

Saunders, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer; Tara Lynch, Chief Counsel, CA Department of Parks and Recreation; Roberta Deering, Senior Pianner of Historic Preservation, City of Sacramento
~
-
Marcia L. Augsburger
Stephen L. Goff
1560 12th Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95818
916-446-9724

VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
January 30, 2014
California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation Attention: Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph.D.

State Historic Preservation Officer
1725 23rd Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95816
Re: Land Park Issue
Dear. Ms. Roland-Nawi:

As residents of Land Park who work down town, we regularly pass the New Helvetia brick housing units on Broadway. Brick buildings are rare in California. They bring a polished, sophisticated look to the area - a look of something lasting and substantial.

They set a high bar for "low cost housing," creating an environment that expresses strength, pride, solidarity, and community support. There can be no doubt that these buildings were the foundation for the many success stories we have heard from people who started their lives in the project.

Please do not allow these beautiful and distinguished monuments to be destroyed.

Please do all you can to preserve them and to promote the designation of a New Helvetia Historic District.

Very truly yours,
~~~ ,wky /Jr
jrfci~ ~
February 4, 2014
;-
- ~LL --- .
-T
Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph.D., State Historic Preservation Director Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95816
Dear Ms. Roland-Nawi :

Please accept our letter of support for the nomination of the New Helvetia Historic District in Sacramento to the National Register of Historic Places.

Sacramento Modern is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to promoting, preserving and protecting modern art, architecture and design in the Sacramento region.

We concur with the findings in the nomination and applaud the effort to recognize and honor the collaborative architecture by Dean & Dean, Starks & Flanders, and Harry Devine, Sr. Over the last four years, our organization has celebrated dozens of significant mid-20th century commercial, civic, religious, and residential buildings in the Land Park and South Land Park neighborhoods -- including several designed by these modern masters. We hope you agree that this project is eligible for designation to the National Register of Historic Places.

Respectfully submitted,
Gretchen Steinberg
President, Sacramento Modern, in conjunction with the SacMod Board of Directors:

Dane Henas, Vice President
William Peterson, Secretary
Zann Gates, Treasurer
Justin Wood, Director At-Large
Jon Hill, Director At-Large
Nick Vinciguerra, Director At-Large
f\ 5~1 (c)(3) 1H111-p1 olil 01 oanirntion lledicawu 10 promoting, preservino and llr Wcling mode111 nrt, mhitr.cturn an □ dusign in tlrn Sac1 ~ment region.

Gretchen Sleinberg 4910 South Land Park Drive, Sacramento, CA 95822 (916) 813-7528 [email protected]
SacMod.org
New Helvetia Historic District
Sacramento, Sacramento County
Staff Report (UPDATED)
The New Helvetia Historic District is located within the Alder Grove housing complex between Broadway, Muir Way, Kit Carson Street, and Kemble Street in Sacramento.

There are 62 contributing buildings, including the central community center building at 816 Revere Way. Buildings are wood framed with gabled roofs, clipped eaves, brick cladding, clinker brick, and metal framed windows. The simplicity and lack of exterior ornamentation illustrate the influence of the Modern Movement that focused on the functional aspects of architecture, and reflect wartime economic constraints as well.

The buildings are set in a 26 acre rectilinear pattern of organized blocks, asphalt paved streets, concrete sidewalks, with pathways separated by lawn and containing trees, bushes and shrubs within a defined landscape accessible from major city streets. The one and two story buildings are narrow and long, have brick veneer surfaces, sidegabled roofs with composition shingles and clipped eaves, shallow roof overhangs on the side-gabled elevations, small entry canopies above doorways - some with shedroofs and some flat- and metal-framed windows, both sliding and double hung. There is ample open space within the block layout and parking lots surrounded by lawn.

Plantings and open yards without fences are dominant and provide little privacy. A very few units use plantings in their backyards to create small partially private outdoor areas.

The property is in good condition.

The New Helvetia Historic District is eligible for listing in the National Register at the local level under Criteria A, B, and C. It meets the registration requirements of the National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submission (MPS) Public Housing in the United States, 1933-1949 and is specifically listed as a Defense Housing project in the Multiple Property Documentation Form. In the area of Social History, New Helvetia represents an important local attempt to improve the housing conditions of African Americans, and in the area of Ethnic Heritage is associated with the career of Nathaniel Colley, the first African American attorney in Sacramento, who had a significant role in the effort to implement fair housing practices. In the area of Architecture, the buildings were designed by a coalition of Sacramento's Master architects - Charles Dean, Leonard Starks, Ed Flanders, and Harry Devine, Sr. - working together as a Board of Architects, the only project on which they collaborated.

Periods of significance are 1942 to 1949 for Criterion A in association with the MPS, 1951 to 1952 for Criterion B in association with Nathaniel Calley's efforts to end discrimination at New Helvetia, and 1942 for Criterion C when construction was completed.

The property is nominated by Upper Land Park Neighbors, a local neighborhood association. One letter of objection was received from the property owner, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA). Twelve letters of support have been received to date. In its role as representative of a Certified Local Government, the Sacramento Preservation Commission was scheduled to discuss the nomination at its New Helvetia Historic District
Sacramento, Sacramento County
Staff Report

Page 2 of 2 ends

January 15, 2014 meeting . The meeting was cancelled, and it does not appear there will be comments from the Preservation Commission.

Acting as historic preservation consultant for the California Department of Community Services & Development (CSD) on behalf of the Department of Energy, ICF International (ICF) completed a Section 106 review of the New Helvetia Historic District.

On CSD's behalf, ICF determined the property eligible for the National Register as a historic district under Criteria A and C at the local level of significance with a period of significance 1942 to 1949. Eligibility under Criterion B was not evaluated at that time.

In preparation for SHRA's intention to use Community Development Block Grant funds from the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, ICF's intensive survey was also the basis for SHRA's determination that the district is significant at the local level in the areas of community development, politics and government, social history, and architecture, eligible for listing in the National Register under Criteria A and C at the local level of significance. State Historic Preservation Office staff concurred with these determinations of eligibility on December 13, 2012 to Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency and on December 21, 2012 to Community Services & Development.

OHP staff supports the nomination and recommends the State Historical Resources Commission determine the New Helvetia Historic District meets National Register Criteria A, B, and C at the local level of significance. Periods of significance are 1942 to 1949 for Criterion A in association with the MPS, 1951 to 1952 for Criterion B in association with Nathaniel Calley's efforts to end discrimination at New Helvetia, and 1942 for Criterion C when construction was completed. Staff recommends the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer approve the nomination for forwarding to the National Park Service for listing in the National Register.

Amy H. Crain
Historian II
February 7, 2014

STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY

OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
1725 23'" Street, Suite 100
SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100
(916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053
[email protected]
www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
February 12, 2014
Ms. Carol Shull, Keeper
National Register of Historic Places
National Park Service 2280 ·
1201 I (Eye) Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Subject: New Helvetia Historic District
Sacramento, Sacramento County, California
National Register of Historic Places Nomination
Dear Ms. Shull:

EDMUND G_ BROWN, JR., Governor
RECEIVED 2280
FEB 1 B ;-u 1,: •
NAl R(GISTfR _J NAr10M 9l~~¢rw1
,r r
1 ~ : ,;&Es ~ ---- ~ ..

Enclosed please find the New Helvetia Historic District nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. On February 7, 2014 in Sacramento, California, the California State Historical Resources Commission unanimously found the property eligible for the Natir;:>nal Register under Criteria A, B, and C. It meets the registration requirements of the National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submission Public Housing in the United States, 1933-1949 and is specifically listed as a Defense Housing project in the Multiple Property Documentation Form.

In the area of Social History, New Helvetia represents an important local attempt to improve the housing conditions of African Americans, and in the area of Ethnic Heritage is associated with the career of Nathaniel Colley, the first African American attorney in Sacramento, who had a significant role in the effort to implement fair housing practices. In the area of Architecture, the buildings were designed by a coalition of Sacramento's Master architects - Charles Dean, Leonard Starks, Ed Flanders, and Harry Devine, Sr. - working together as a Board of Architects, the only project on which they collaborated. Periods of significance are 1942 to 1949 for Criterion A in association with the MPS, 1951 to 1952 for Criterion B in association with Nathaniel Calley's efforts to end discrimination at New Helvetia, and 1942 for Criterion C when construction was completed.

The property is nominated by Upper Land Park Neighbors, a local neighborhood association. One letter of objection was received from the property owner, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. Twelve letters of support have been received to date. In its role as representative of a Certified Local Government, the Sacramento Preservation Commission was scheduled to discuss the nomination at its January 15, 2014 meeting. The meeting was cancelled, and it does not appear there will be comments from the Preservation Commission. Under Section 106 review, State Historic Preservation Office staff concurred with two separate determinations of eligibility in December 2012.

If you have any questions regarding this nomination, please contact Amy Crain of my staff at (916) 445-7009.

Sincerely,
<?<-
Jenan Saunders
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Enclosure

Page 1 of 30 ends

*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) GEI Consultants, Inc. and Mead & Hunt. 2017. Mid-Century Modern in the City of Sacramento Historic Context Statement and Survey Results. Prepared for the City of Sacramento. *Attachments: NONE  Location Map  Sketch Map  Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record  Archaeological Record  District Record  Linear Feature Record  Milling Station Record  Rock Art Record  Artifact Record  Photograph Record  Other (list) __________________
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial _____________________________________ NRHP Status Code 3D, 3CD, 5D3
Other Listings _______________________________________________________________ Review Code __________ Reviewer ____________________________ Date ___________ P1. Other Identifier: N/A
*P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County Sacramento and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Sacramento West Date 1967 (Rev. 1980) T 8N; R 4E; ___ ¼ of Sec ___; _____ B.M. c. Address See Tables 1 and 2 City Sacramento Zip ________________ d. UTM: (give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone _____; ______________mE/ _____________mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) General Residence Characteristics
Designed by the firm of A. Quincy Jones and Frederick Emmons (Jones & Emmons), the Eichler homes in South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7 are unattached and one story in height. As was typical for similar subdivisions, when the South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7 subdivision was originally developed, new home buyers usually selected their home design from several Jones & Emmons models offered by Eichler Homes, Inc. Advertising materials for the period indicate that between 4 and 6 floor plans were available for selection. For an additional expense, buyers could request custom variations, usually to the interior, at the time of purchase. It also appears that some styles were offered that were developed in the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). (See Page 2 – Continuation Sheet)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single Family Property *P4. Resources Present:  Building  Structure  Object  Site  District  Element of District  Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date,
accession #) Photograph 1, Overview,
Oakridge Way, camera facing
northwest, September 12, 2017
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1955 / Sacramento Modern
*P7. Owner and Address: Various
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address)
Patricia Ambacher and Mark Bowen
GEI Consultants, Inc.
2068 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Melissa Montag, Volunteer
*P9. Date Recorded: September 2 and
12, 2017
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive

Page 2 of 30 ends

Fencing along the lot lines was included with the purchase price to preserve the privacy of the occupants. Radiant heating systems were standard, as well as built-in electric kitchen appliances. Given the Sacramento heat, advertisements listed weather-stripped glass and ‘Coolair’ evaporative cooling systems. Living space for the neighborhood averaged 1,600 square feet.

The entrance area is usually placed along the side of the house, set back from the street and allowing a further simplification of the front elevation. In keeping with the modem style, exteriors are clean and simple, almost devoid of decoration. Siding is typically vertical-grooved redwood plywood, stained or painted in earth-tone colors. Garage doors are sliding types and finished with matching siding, so they blend into the overall design.

Rooflines are generally flat or approximately at a 2:12 pitch. The roof structures are relatively thin, and the beams exposed giving the impression that the roof floats above the house in some respects. More expansive eaves (approximately 2 feet) provide shade in the summer and let in sunlight in the winter. The two-car garage is placed at the front of the houses, in keeping with the increased reliance on automobiles at that time.

Typically, the homes have narrow setbacks on the sides with obvious walkways extending to the rear of the building. Fence siding in many cases mimics the vertical-grooved redwood plywood siding that covers the exterior walls. The rear of the homes was planned to feature floor-to-ceiling glass and a sliding-glass door that together, in most cases, extend the width of the building. Above the glass is an approximately three-foot or more overhang, below a paved concrete patio.

Surveys of the houses in the district took place entirely from the public right-of-way. Interiors and backyards of residences were not surveyed. Survey of interior spaces is not considered necessary for register evaluations with these residential resource types.

The models used for the South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7 Eichlers are generally confined to five models based on physical cues viewed from the public right-of-way and aerial photographs. These visual surveys were compared with floor plans provided by advertising documentation for the development, building permits for the properties, and previously completed National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) documentation to ascertain the closest models the Sacramento houses aligned to. Given some modifications over time and possible customization options, the alignment with specific plan numbers was approximated to the extent possible. The five models identified are: Fairmeadow (a plan that appears derived from the Fairmeadow Eichler development in Palo Alto); JE-14; JE-83, JE-84, and JE-85. The “JE” prefix refers to the Jones & Emmons architect collaboration. The JE-14 plan houses may have borrowed from Jones & Emmons plans used in the Bay Area. It should be noted that floor plans were often rotated and reversed to provide variety and adapt to the site conditions, customer preferences, etc.

The houses are grouped by model on the DPR 523A (Primary Records) that follow.

Page 3 of 30 ends

Twin garage doors are located at the extreme end while a small atrium/entry area is set slightly offset of the center. Narrow sets of steel frame casement windows are often located on either side of the atrium/entry area while most of the façade is characterized by the predominant use of textured wood siding. Doors are typically solid wood types. (See Page 4 – Continuation Sheet)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single Family Property *P4. Resources Present:  Building  Structure  Object  Site  District  Element of District  Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date,
accession #) Photograph 2, 6465
Fordham Way, camera facing north,
September 12, 2017
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1955 / Sacramento Modern
*P7. Owner and Address: Various
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address)
Patricia Ambacher and Mark Bowen
GEI Consultants, Inc.
2068 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Melissa Montag, Volunteer
*P9. Date Recorded: September 2 and
12, 2017
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive

Page 4 of 30 ends

*Recorded by P. Ambacher, M. Bowen, GEI, M. Montag, Volunteer *Date September 2 and 12, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Photographs (cont.)
Photograph 3. 6320 South Land Park Drive, camera facing southwest September 2, 2017
Photograph 4. 6441 Fordham Way, camera facing southeast September 12, 2017

Page 5 of 30 ends

Where the gable end is visible to the street, the JE-14 model features a wide floating eve to front with wide side gable rafters exposed to either side (Photographs 5–6). Triangular-shape (both offset and center split) wood-frame transom windows are located above garage doors. Doors are in single-car pairs and larger two-car singular configurations. Most retain composite vertical wood covering while some have been replaced with roll-up doors. In some instances, roofs have been updated in the rear portion but are not easily visible from the street. (See Page 6 – Continuation Sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single Family Property *P4. Resources Present:  Building  Structure  Object  Site  District  Element of District  Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date,
accession #) Photograph 5, 6424 Oakridge
Way, camera facing northwest,
September 12, 2017
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1955 / Sacramento Modern
*P7. Owner and Address: Various
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address)
Patricia Ambacher and Mark Bowen
GEI Consultants, Inc.
2068 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Melissa Montag, Volunteer
*P9. Date Recorded: September 2 and 12,
2017
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive

Page 6 of 30 ends

*Recorded by P. Ambacher, M. Bowen, GEI, M. Montag, Volunteer *Date September 2 and 12, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Description (cont.)
Where the model is rotated 90 degrees the front façade features a small recessed entryway towards the center flanked by a garage and wall (often with small sets of steel frame windows). The roof appears flat with bi-level roofing set atop a lower roof.

Exposed rafters extend out under the wide eave towards the viewer providing a further hint of a 90-degree rotated plan (Photograph 7).

Photographs (cont.)
Photograph 6. 6457 South Land Park Drive, camera facing northeast September 2, 2017

Page 7 of 30 ends

*Recorded by P. Ambacher, M. Bowen, GEI, M. Montag, Volunteer *Date September 2 and 12, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Photographs (cont.)
Photograph 7. 6417 Fordham Way, camera facing east
September 12, 2017

Page 8 of 30 ends

Depending upon the orientation, the flat roof which extends across the façade features wide boxed eaves or wide eaves with exposed rafters. Small windows are set within the atrium areas and within the living-space walls. (See Page 9 – Continuation Sheet)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single Family Property *P4. Resources Present:  Building  Structure  Object  Site  District  Element of District  Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date,
accession #) Photograph 8, 6432 South
Land Park Drive, camera facing west,
September 2, 2017
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1955 / Sacramento Modern
*P7. Owner and Address: Various
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address)
Patricia Ambacher and Mark Bowen
GEI Consultants, Inc.
2068 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Melissa Montag, Volunteer
*P9. Date Recorded: September 2 and
12, 2017
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive

Page 9 of 30 ends

Page 10 of 30 ends

*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) GEI Consultants, Inc. and Mead & Hunt. 2017. Mid-Century Modern in the City of Sacramento Historic Context Statement and Survey Results. Prepared for the City of Sacramento. *Attachments: NONE  Location Map  Sketch Map  Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record  Archaeological Record  District Record  Linear Feature Record  Milling Station Record  Rock Art Record  Artifact Record  Photograph Record  Other (list) __________________
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial _____________________________________ NRHP Status Code 3D, 3CD, 5D3
Other Listings _______________________________________________________________ Review Code __________ Reviewer ____________________________ Date ___________ P1. Other Identifier: JE-84
*P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County Sacramento and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad ____________ Date _______________ T___; R ___; ___ ¼ of Sec ___; _____ B.M. c. Address See Table 1 City Sacramento Zip ________________ d. UTM: (give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone _____; ______________mE/ _____________mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The H-plan model of JE-84 features a garage and all-purpose room to the front and 4 bedrooms to the rear. The JE-84 model is similar to the JE-85 floorplan with one additional bedroom. The models wherein the gable-end is visible to the street, the garage and wall for the adjacent all-purpose room extends across the visible façade (Photograph 11). The triangular-shape (both offset and center split) transom windows are located above the garage doors. A small rectangular portal window is in the center of the main façade. With this model the garage doors were constructed in single-car pairs only. Most retain composite vertical wood covering while some are replaced with roll-up doors. Customization observed with this model included additional window placement (Photograph 12). (See Page11 – Continuation Sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single Family Property *P4. Resources Present:  Building  Structure  Object  Site  District  Element of District  Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date,
accession #) Photograph 11, 6409 South
Land Park Drive, camera facing east,
September 2, 2017
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1955 / Sacramento Modern
*P7. Owner and Address: Various
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address)
Patricia Ambacher and Mark Bowen
GEI Consultants, Inc.
2068 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Melissa Montag, Volunteer
*P9. Date Recorded: September 2 and
12, 2017
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive

Page 11 of 30 ends

Photographs (cont.)
Photograph 12. 6440 Fordham Way, camera facing northwest September 12, 2017

Page 12 of 30 ends

Page 13 of 30 ends

*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) GEI Consultants, Inc. and Mead & Hunt. 2017. Mid-Century Modern in the City of Sacramento Historic Context Statement and Survey Results. Prepared for the City of Sacramento. *Attachments: NONE  Location Map  Sketch Map  Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record  Archaeological Record  District Record  Linear Feature Record  Milling Station Record  Rock Art Record  Artifact Record  Photograph Record  Other (list) __________________
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial _____________________________________ NRHP Status Code 3D, 3CD, 5D3
Other Listings _______________________________________________________________ Review Code __________ Reviewer ____________________________ Date ___________ P1. Other Identifier: JE-85
*P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County Sacramento and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad ____________ Date _______________ T___; R ___; ___ ¼ of Sec ___; _____ B.M. c. Address See Table 1 City Sacramento Zip ________________ d. UTM: (give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone _____; ______________mE/ _____________mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This H-plan model of the JE-85 floorplan features a garage and all-purpose room to the front and 3 bedrooms to the rear. This model is very similar to JE-84 but with one less bedroom. The models wherein the gable-end is visible to the street, the garage and wall for the adjacent all-purpose room extends across the visible façade. The triangular-shape (both offset and center split) transom windows are located above the garage doors. With this model the garage doors were constructed in single-car pairs only (Photograph 14). Most retain composite vertical wood covering while some were replaced with roll-up doors.

Customization observed with this model included additional window placement (Photograph 15). (See Page14 – Continuation Sheet)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single Family Property *P4. Resources Present:  Building  Structure  Object  Site  District  Element of District  Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date,
accession #) Photograph 14, 6472 South
Land Park Drive, camera facing
southwest, September 2, 2017
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1955 / Sacramento Modern
*P7. Owner and Address: Various
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address)
Patricia Ambacher and Mark Bowen
GEI Consultants, Inc.
2068 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Melissa Montag, Volunteer
*P9. Date Recorded: September 2 and
12, 2017
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive

Page 14 of 30 ends

Photographs (cont.)
Photograph 15. 6448 Oakridge Way, camera facing south
September 17, 2017

Page 15 of 30 ends

Page 16 of 30 ends

Recorded by M. Bowen and P. Ambacher, GEI *Date September 2017 DPR 523D (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial _____________________________________ NRHP Status Code 3S, 3CS, 5S3
Other Listings _______________________________________________________________ Review Code __________ Reviewer ____________________________ Date ___________ *D1. Historic Name None *D2. Common Name South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7 Eichler Historic District *D3a. Description: (Discuss overall coherence of the district, its setting, visual characteristics, and minor features. List all elements of district.):

The development of South Land Park Hills is comprised of 48 single-story residences (three or four bedrooms, two baths, twocar garages) designed in the Post & Beam style using slab-on-grade post-and-beam construction. The South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7 Eichler Historic District (District) is in the southern part of the city of Sacramento, Sacramento County, California southeast of Reichmuth Park. Eichler Homes, Inc. constructed the South Land Park Hills Eichler development in 1955 on approximately 14 acres of the subdivision named South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7. Located on three streets: South Land Park Drive; Fordham Way and Oakridge Way, the condition of the homes overall is good with properties being well tended as is characteristic of the neighborhood. The District consists of 48 buildings classified as "contributing," and 12 buildings located within the District boundary classified as "non-contributing." The character of the District is in keeping with the original construction period except for the more modern houses constructed south and north of the development. The tract is to the east of Munger’s Lake and southeast of what ultimately became Reichmuth Park. The streets are generally characterized by long curvilinear alignments that are flanked by sidewalks and mature landscape that decorate (and sometimes obscure) the residences. (See Continuation Sheet)
*D4. Boundary Description (Describe limits of district and attach map showing boundary and district elements.) Beginning at the northwest corner of 6280 South Land Park Drive’s parcel line, the boundary follows the parcel line west. It then turns south and follows the parcel lines for 6298, 6300, and 6320 South Land Park Drive. The boundary follows the southern parcel line of 6320 South Land Park Drive until it meets South Land Park Drive and turns south along the drive’s western boundary. At the northwest corner of 6424 South Land Park Drive it turns west along the parcel’s northern boundary. The boundary turns south and runs along the western parcel lines of 6424, 6432, 6440, 6456, 6464, 6472, 6480, 6488, 6496, and 6500 South Land Park Drive and then follows the parcel line moving east, crossing South Land Park Drive and following the western parcel lines of 6501, 6509, 6517, and 6525 South Land Park Drive. (See Continuation Sheet) *D5. Boundary Justification:

The boundary for the District encompasses all the contributing and non-contributing residences and that are historically associated with the Eichler residential development.
*D6. Significance: Theme Architecture Area Sacramento
Period of Significance 1955-1956 Applicable Criteria A, 1, i; C, 3, iii, (Discuss district's importance in terms of its historical context as defined by theme, period of significance, and geographic scope. Also address the integrity of the district as a whole.)
The District appears to meet NRHP Criterion C, California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Criterion 3, and Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (Sacramento Register) Criteria iii, iv, and v at the local level of significance as an important example of post-World War II development by the innovative Eichler Homes Company from Palo Alto. There are 48 contributing properties (see Table 1) and 12 non-contributing properties (see Table 2). The period of significance is 1955-1956, the years the houses were constructed. (See Continuation Sheet) *D7. References See Continuation Sheet
*D9. Date Recorded: September 2 and 12, 2017
*D10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive
*D8. Evaluator: Mark Bowen, M.A. Date: September 2017
Affiliation and Address: GEI, 2868 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 400, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Page 17 of 30 ends

While several of the Eichler homes have been subject to varying levels of modification or updating since construction, it should be noted that an increasingly active group of homeowners has taken to advocating for and undertaking more sympathetic rehabilitations and updates of the Eichler houses in the recent years and the good condition of many houses reflects that latest interest.

The character of the neighborhood appears to have generally remained the same since the period of construction. Given the span of years since construction, it is not surprising that some exterior modifications have taken place to allow for repairs and updating for livability. The predominant changes to houses are with garage doors, windows, and roofing materials. The exterior siding and garage doors of many houses in the district are original with a few garage doors replaced with aluminum rollup types1. Some windows have been updated. Originally tar-and-gravel, roof system applications now include other materials and most often for this district, polyurethane foam and roof-mounted air conditioning equipment.

Access was not attempted at any of the houses in the district. Through information gathered during the pedestrian survey, review of aerial photographs and review of documentation produced during the period of construction, some classification of the various models was possible. The option of customizing standard house plans allowed for a little variety in the neighborhood. Because of this, precise model identification for each house was difficult in most circumstances and model numbers are reflective of visual approximation of overhead views of houses with the sales documentation produced at the time showing various floor plans.

Variations occur within the houses ultimately constructed. Given the amount of customization options available at the time, the lack of adherence to the advertised plans during construction does not in this case reduce the ability of the residence to contribute to the significance of the District. The variations that allowed for the rotation of the building upon the parcel (often by 90 degrees) means that some houses of the same floor plan may show different elevations to the street.

Boundary Description (cont.)
The boundary follows the eastern parcel line of 6525 South Land Park Drive then turns and goes along the northern parcel lines of 6517 and 6509 South Land Park Drive before heading north along the eastern parcel line of 6500 Fordham Way. The boundary crosses Fordham Way and follows the eastern parcel line of 6473 Fordham Way. It then meets the western and southern parcel lines of 6436 Oakridge Way and continues east along the southern parcel lines of 6442 and 6448 Oakridge Way. It then follows the eastern and northern parcel line 6448 Oakridge Way before continuing west and following the eastern parcel lines of 6442, 6436, 6430, 6424, 6418, 6412, and 6406 Oakridge Way before turning west along 6406 Oakridge Way’s northern parcel line. It then follows the northern parcel lines of 6409 and 6408 Fordham Way. When it meets the northwest corner of 6409 South Land Park Drive’s parcel it moves north along the eastern parcel line of 6401 South Land Park Drive.

The boundary then heads north along the eastern parcel lines of 6399, 6381, 6361, and 6341 South Land Park Drive before turning along the northern parcel line of 6341 South Land Park Drive. It then continues north down the center of the drive before following the eastern parcel lines of 6320, 6300, 6298, and 6280 South Land Park Drive until it meets its beginning point.
1 6517 South Land Park Drive is somewhat unique in that the clear sliding glass doors that are currently located in the garage door frames are original as the residence served as a both a model home and the Eichler Homes office. An adjacent garage door bay (to facilitate vehicle storage) appears to have been added following construction.

Page 18 of 30 ends

List of Contributing Properties
(Note: The Assigned Model
Numbers are Not Definitive)
APN
Address Model *
California
Historical
Resource Status
Code
024-0281-003-0000 6280 S. Land Park Drive JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0281-005-0000 6300 S. Land Park Drive JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0281-006-0000 6320 S. Land Park Drive Fairmeadow 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0292-008-0000 6401 S. Land Park Drive JE-14 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0292-007-0000 6409 S. Land Park Drive JE-84 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0292-006-0000 6417 S. Land Park Drive JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0321-001-0000 6424 S. Land Park Drive JE-84 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0292-005-0000 6425 S. Land Park Drive JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0321-002-0000 6432 S. Land Park Drive JE-83 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0323-012-0000 6433 S. Land Park Drive JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0321-003-0000 6440 S. Land Park Drive JE-83 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0323-010-0000 6449 S. Land Park Drive JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0322-001-0000 6456 S. Land Park Drive JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0323-009-0000 6457 S. Land Park Drive JE-14 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0322-002-0000 6464 S. Land Park Drive JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0323-008-0000 6465 S. Land Park Drive JE-84 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0322-003-0000 6472 S. Land Park Drive JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0323-007-0000 6473 S. Land Park Drive JE-83 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0352-001-0000 6480 S. Land Park Drive JE-14 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0352-002-0000 6488 S. Land Park Drive JE-14 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0351-022-0000 6489 S. Land Park Drive JE-14 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0352-003-0000 6496 S. Land Park Drive JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0351-020-0000 6509 S. Land Park Drive JE-83 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0351-019-0000 6517 S. Land Park Drive JE-83 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0351-018-0000 6525 S. Land Park Drive JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0292-002-0000 6408 Fordham Way JE-14 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0294-009-0000 6409 Fordham Way JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0292-003-0000 6416 Fordham Way JE-84 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0294-008-0000 6417 Fordham Way JE-14 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0292-004-0000 6424 Fordham Way JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0294-007-0000 6425 Fordham Way JE-83 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0323-001-0000 6432 Fordham Way JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0294-006-0000 6433 Fordham Way JE-84 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0323-002-0000 6440 Fordham Way JE-84 3D, 3CD, 5D2

Page 19 of 30 ends

List of Contributing Properties
(Note: The Assigned Model
Numbers are Not Definitive)
APN
Address Model *
California
Historical
Resource Status
Code
024-0324-017-0000 6441 Fordham Way Fairmeadow 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0323-003-0000 6448 Fordham Way JE-14 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0323-004-0000 6456 Fordham Way JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0324-016-0000 6457 Fordham Way JE-83 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0323-005-0000 6464 Fordham Way JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0324-015-0000 6465 Fordham Way Fairmeadow 3D, 3CD, 5D2 024-0351-001-0000 6472 Fordham Way JE-84 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0351-002-0000 6500 Fordham Way JE-83 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0294-003-0000 6412 Oakridge Way JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0294-004-0000 6418 Oakridge Way JE-84 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0294-005-0000 6424 Oakridge Way JE-14 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0324-001-0000 6430 Oakridge Way JE-14 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0324-002-0000 6436 Oakridge Way JE-84 3D, 3CD, 5D2
024-0324-004-0000 6448 Oakridge Way JE-85 3D, 3CD, 5D2
* The assigned “Model” numbers are not definitive
Table 2. List of Non-contributing Properties

Page 20 of 30 ends

*Recorded by P. Ambacher, M. Bowen, GEI, M. Montag, Volunteer *Date September 2, 12, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ APN Address Alterations
California
Historical
Resource
Status Code
024-0281-004-0000 6298 S. Land Park Drive
Extensive roof
modifications
6Z
024-0282-008-0000 6341 S. Land Park Drive
Extensive roof
modifications
6Z
024-0291-001-0000 6361 S. Land Park Drive
Extensive roof
modifications
6Z
024-0291-002-0000 6381 S. Land Park Drive
Extensive roof
modifications and
partial second story
addition
6Z
024-0291-003-0000 6399 S. Land Park Drive
Original lost in fire -
1995
6Z
024-0323-011-0000 6441 S. Land Park Drive
Extensive roof
modifications
6Z
024-0323-006-0000 6481 S. Land Park Drive
Extensive roof
modifications and
rear addition
6Z
024-0352-004-0000 6500 S. Land Park Drive
Extensive roof
modifications
6Z
024-0351-021-0000 6501 S. Land Park Drive
Complete
remodel/replacement
6Z
024-0324-014-0000 6473 Fordham Way
Original lost to fire -
1965
6Z
024-0294-002-0000 6406 Oakridge Way
Extensive roof
modifications
6Z
024-0324-003-0000 6442 Oakridge Way
Non-Eichler Ranch
Style Home
6Z
The Eichler model units in South Land Park Hills were advertised within Sacramento newspapers in early May 1955 as a preview of the model units with a more formal opening in the middle of the month. Advertised as an initial development unit of 54 homes, Eichler’s initial plan was to eventually complete 143 homes in the Sacramento Eichler neighborhood. Eichler’s confidence in the larger plan is evidenced in his inclusion of a street named for the project’s patriarch (see Figure 1) 2 . At the
time the Eichler company had completed approximately 2,500 homes throughout the San Francisco Peninsula and embarked on an expansion into new markets including Marin, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sacramento counties (Sacramento Union May 15, 1955: 21; Shell Oil Company 1956). 2 Fordham Way was originally called Reichmuth Way on subdivision maps and street maps. Unclear when name was changed.

Page 21 of 30 ends

Advertised amenities included floor-to-ceiling glass walls, protected gardens on the sides of the houses and beamed ceilings of Douglas fir and 2X8 redwood as well as radiant heat and air-cooling systems (Sacramento Union 1955:21; The Sacramento Bee 1956:C20; Adamson 2002:84).
3 Site plans for the development appear to be held within the A. Quincy Jones papers at University of California Los Angeles that may help identify which plans were used for South Land Park Hills. Access at this time of this analysis was not possible.

Page 22 of 30 ends

Also, varying and changing codes in different municipalities caused problems in keeping construction going efficiently. By early December of 1956, Alvin Eichler of the Eichler Homes Company was in town attempting to sell the last four houses of the first (and only) unit “by Christmas” and concluding: “Eichler Homes are positively through building in Sacramento” (The Sacramento Bee: 1956: D16; Adamson 2002:107).
(Unless otherwise noted, the following narrative significance statement is adapted from the 2005 NRHP Nomination for the Greenmeadow Eichler Development (Arbunich 2005)
The South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7 Eichler Development was built by merchant builder Joseph Eichler and his Eichler Homes, Inc. in 1955 through 1956. The development was one of Eichler’s most distant in Northern California from the hub of Palo Alto.

The South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7 Eichler Development’s architects, A. Quincy Jones, FAIA and Frederick Emmons, FAIA whose Jones & Emmons firm became internationally renowned during their 18-year partnership (1950-1968), were affiliated 4 JE-89 plan does not appear to have been widely used. It was not readily apparent in the 48 contributors, but future research of site plans or interior verification may clarify the existence (with possible modification) of this plan.

Page 23 of 30 ends

During his time as a homebuilder, Joseph Eichler practiced a policy of open -occupancy by refusing to discriminate against potential homeowners based on race, ethnicity, or religion. Historian Ocean Howell has labeled Eichler and those connected to him as ‘merchant crusaders’ due to their efforts to sell “homes on an open-occupancy basis” while also engaging “in civil rights activism behind the scenes” (Howell, pg 381). An example of Eichler’s activism came in 1964, when he joined a committee of ten prominent Californian political and business leaders who came out against those seeking to repeal the Rumford Fair Housing Act (1963) — an act that banned discrimination in housing accommodations. The repeal initiative was sponsored by the California Real Estate Association, the California Apartment House Owners Association, and the California Home Builders Association, groups that Eichler had professional ties with. However, the committee Eichler belonged to maintained that the purpose of the Rumford Fair Housing Act was to “discourage bitterness and bigotry,” and that fair housing was not just a “fundamental property right,” but a “human right” as well (“Church Heads Fight Bigotry.” San Francisco Examiner, 7 Jan. 1964).

Eichler’s practice of open occupancy was in stark contrast with the customary discriminatory practices of most homebuilders during the 1950s and 1960s, who assumed that “profit and social progress were at odds” (Howell, pg 381). Instead, Eichler asserted that a policy of open occupancy helped to “stabilize real estate values” (Pierson, D17). On average, Eichler Homes “sold about 30 to 40 houses per year to African Americans and other racial minorities” (California Department of Transportation, pg 34). Occasionally, Eichler was required to publicly defend his commitment to open occupancy and fair housing. In 1958, owing to the association’s support for racial restrictions, Joseph Eichler resigned from the National Association of Home Builders. In 1964 at an Eichler subdivision in Palo Alto, a white married couple was worried about having an African American family as their new neighbors. Refusing to listen to the couple’s concerns, Eichler bought their house back from them and allowed the African American family to continue to move into their new home (Pierson, D17).

The non-discriminatory practices of Joseph Eichler and Eichler Homes were rare in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet, even when large homeowner associations and lobbies pushed for restrictions, Eichler remained committed to his beliefs of open - occupancy and fair housing. Eichler demonstrated these beliefs in all his subdivisions, and his example in Sacramento is no exception.

Joseph Eichler’s penchant for modern design was deeply rooted in his psyche, but it was not until the second half of his life that he revealed his feelings and fully developed his interest in it. Born in New York City in 1900 to an Austrian-Jewish father and a German-Jewish mother, he was raised amid traditional circumstances. Although his family was politically liberal (they were devoted supporters of Franklin Roosevelt), Eichler’s interest in Modern design emerged gradually.

Eichler’s education was pragmatic. A business degree from New York University and a career start on Wall Street helped prepare Eichler for a mainstream career. A competitive man by nature and cultivated in the tough-minded atmosphere of America's financial capital, he was primed for business, yet found his early career as a financial officer in his wife's family business dissatisfying. Some of Eichler’s reticence for this work may have been inherited. Ned Eichler pointed out that his own grandparents did not conform with the stereotypical German-Jewish immigrants and were not ambitious about wealth It was Eichler’s in-laws who succeeded on a grand scale, building a large and successful wholesale food business called Nye and Nisson, Inc.

In 1925, Joseph and his wife Lillian Eichler moved to the Bay Area, where the company was the largest independent butterand-egg wholesaler in the region. Eichler assumed the position of chief financial officer for the business on the West Coast.

For 20 years Eichler excelled in his job, and the family that eventually included two sons, Richard and Edward, or “Ned,” thrived, despite the nationwide depression and the approaching Second World War. Eichler, however, harbored a repressed resentment for his work; its predictability and the requirement to work for others undermined his sense of personal fulfillment.

Page 24 of 30 ends

Eichler learned by this experience what others have since concluded; that Frank Lloyd Wright's genius for design often achieved its most profound effect in his small residences, where his singular attention to function and detail were so complete and so deftly handled as to transform everyday life into art. Wright’s attention to the intimacies of everyday life sprung from his strongly populist philosophy, and he designed his Usonian houses specifically for middle-class homeowners. Joseph and Lillian Eichler left the house as “devotees of contemporary architecture.” At the close of World War II in 1945, some 10 million veterans returned home from overseas. These service men and women began building families that would require new housing on an unprecedented scale. Among the regions with the greatest need was California, where the population grew at a greater rate than any other state. Many veterans had shipped out of California ports, and upon their return elected to stay in the state. Add to this an influx of new residents that moved west because California offered one of the strongest postwar economies in the nation. A great many independent builders sought to capitalize on the early postwar need for new housing. While their production soon fulfilled the basic requirements for new families, these builders produced a quality of construction that was often poor, and innovative design was rare. Eichler’s company would become an exception, responding to the challenges with ingenuity and style.

Eichler began his development career cautiously, pursuing mostly conventional techniques, while schooling himself in the home-building business. In 1947, Eichler launched a company providing prefabricated homes to owners who purchased their own lots. Even these tentative first steps, however, reflected Eichler’s modern taste. The “pre-fabs” he chose featured a contemporary look, with rectangular massing and long bands of windows. Over the next two years, his operation expanded to the building of small housing tracts. In 1949, Eichler hired a draftsman who produced more stylish but less overtly modern designs for two new subdivisions, in Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Eichler explained later that he put off a wholehearted plunge into original architectural designs until he acquired enough “experience and know-how” to manage a process that involved top-flight architects and full-fledged modern building techniques. Within a few years, Eichler became a merchant builder by the classic definition, his company functioning to oversee every aspect of selling housing to consumers without intermediaries.

This included land acquisition and development, construction, financing, and marketing. One obvious element that separated him from the rest of the pack was his choice of product: architect-designed modern houses.

As his business became established, Eichler defined an individualistic approach that in many ways challenged conventional practice. Not infrequently, building and planning authorities withheld support for his designs. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), set up to insure home mortgages, made it possible for families just entering the middle class to afford homes in Eichler’s price range. However, the agency imposed several restrictive design guidelines that compromised the assistance they could give. As architectural historian Gwendolyn Wright described it, “FHA evaluators were instructed to lower the rating score of houses with conspicuously modern designs because they were not considered to be a good investment.

An agency pamphlet expressed doubt whether the modern style of flat roofs and plain asymmetrical facades would prove to be more than a fad.” When this policy threatened to exclude the market for Eichler Homes, Eichler, with company co-founder James San Jule as his negotiating partner, went to Washington, D.C. to lobby the FHA for changes to their guidelines. Apart from overcoming the objections of the authorities, Eichler’s company would need to appeal to buyers largely unfamiliar with modern architecture. The pure, modern look of his homes limited market appeal. Despite these obstacles, Eichler embraced modern design, appealing to the authorities when necessary and marketing aggressively.

Working with architects set Eichler apart from most builders. Most builders in the postwar, needing to control the designs for economic and aesthetic reasons, preferred not to hire architectural firms as independent consultants. Further, according to Gwendolyn Wright, “most architects looked down on the average builder’s aesthetic taste, as well as his cost controls; and they scorned the cautious, conservative FHA design guidelines as well.” For these reasons, as well as the limited market appeal of modernist residential architecture, Eichler’s first architect-designed developments, designed by the emerging San Francisco-based firm of Anshen and Allen and built in Sunnyvale, California, in 1949, were considered a gamble.

Generally, homebuilders preferred to control design themselves. East Coast-based Levitt and Sons, the most successful of the postwar merchant builders, was a more typical example of merchant builder practice. Despite their company’s largescale production, the family members directed much of the design work themselves. William Levitt acted as spokesman and

Page 25 of 30 ends

One of the Bay Area’s most successful homebuilders during the early postwar was Earl Smith, who built 2,700 moderately priced new homes in 1953 in more than 14 different Bay Area cities. Like the Levitt’s in-house process, Smith designed the homes himself.

This trend began to shift by the mid-1950s. The market for new homes softened after 1953, and competition among builders for more demanding buyers led some to commission architects to raise the standards of their products. Mackay Homes was one Bay Area company that began to employ architects, including for a brief period Anshen and Allen. Mackay, however, exhibited the typical builder’s concerns about modern aesthetics, and hedged on their designs, building homes that were contemporary in plan, but clad on the outside in more familiar vernacular styles. Eichler’s work remained distinctive among Bay Area builders for his consistent use of modern aesthetics. By 1955, when The South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7 Eichler Development was underway, Eichler Homes, Inc.’s headquarters in Palo Alto, which would be home to 3,000 Eichler homes over the next 20 years, served as the hub of its Bay Area peninsula operation. By the mid-1950s, the company had built approximately 1,800 modern houses on the Bay Area peninsula, and the popular press regularly acknowledged Eichler’s achievements.

Eichler’s architecturally designed subdivisions led to widespread critical acclaim. When Eichler built his first subdivision of architecturally designed homes, observers perceived his efforts as daring. Even the professional journals of the architectural press that had been touting the advantages of modernism for middle-class American homes since before the end of the war seemed surprised with Eichler’s boldness. Architectural Forum, the most elite of the nation’s professional journals during the postwar, in April 1950 called architects Anshen and Allen’s first Eichler Homes subdivision a “gamble in modern.” In the December issue that year, the publication collectively named four Eichler projects in Palo Alto (El Centro Gardens, Green Gables, and Greer Park) and Redwood City (Atherwood) “Subdivision of the Year.” Arts + Architecture, the premier west coast trade journal devoted to modern design and distributed internationally, published several features on Eichler Homes in the early 1950s. Notable was a pair of articles featuring the Ladera subdivision in Portola Valley, designed by Jones & Emmons. The first, in 1950, described the designs. Then, in the November 1951 issue, an article documented the completed first phase of the development, citing the “enormous value of real cooperation between the architect and builder.” It concluded that the results assured a “better way of living at a much more reasonable cost.” Popular “shelter magazines” aimed at the consumer market also featured Eichler Homes during the 1950s. House and Home, published by McGraw Hill, who also produced Architecture Record, the establishment architectural journal, became a consistent supporter of Eichler Homes. The magazine’s editor, Perry Prentice, an influential advocate for improved residential design who hosted numerous symposia at the annual conventions for the American Institute of Architects and the National Association of Homebuilders, came to champion Eichler’s work. Writing in 1955, the year after the completion of the first phase of Greenmeadow, the editors praised Eichler for recognizing the benefits of modern architecture. His architects, they noted, “designed better living into houses,” enabling buyers to “live the way they really wanted today.” Eichler’s architects brought knowledge of modern building techniques and their skills with California Modern design. Robert Anshen, of the San Francisco-based firm of Anshen and Allen, had worked for the National Housing Authority in Vallejo during World War II. In 1945, realizing the need for inexpensive, quick-to-build houses, he drew upon his experiences to write a series of papers proposing much-needed home building industry reforms. A. Quincy Jones, FAIA, with his partner Frederick Emmons, FAIA, was the designer most responsible for the first (and only) phase of the South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7 Eichler Development. Jones was a leader in California modernism; an educator and a celebrated practitioner, Jones taught at the architecture school at the University of Southern California for more than 20 years, ascending to the deanship in the 1970s.

The architect of the experimental steel-framed X-100 Eichler-built house, Case Study House 24, three other steel houses of note, Jones won numerous awards for design in several building types, yet he remained committed to the improvement of single-family house design. His practice matured and Jones was commissioned for prestigious institutional buildings. While many offices that ascend to this level decline to participate in residential work, Jones pursued single-family house designs throughout his career.

Archibald Quincy Jones, FAIA garnered national attention early in his career with designs for postwar housing. In 1946, a year after his discharge from the Navy, Jones collaborated on the Mutual Homes development in the Santa Monica Mountains, above Los Angeles, where his designs for post-and-beam houses—featuring redwood siding, concrete masonry, floor-to-

Page 26 of 30 ends

Jones committed his early career to improving the affordable single-family house. His successes in this field include work for several developers apart from Eichler Homes. Like Robert Anshen, Jones devoted a great deal of thought, and a significant portion of his career, to the issue of suburban speculative development. In addition to his contributions to home design, Jones was a consistent advocate for planning reform. He was among the first architects to call for greater density in suburban planning, preceding popular acceptance of that idea by at least 15 years.

Jones brought his experience and status to Eichler Homes, putting his recognized talents to work on the design of individual house models as well as site design and community planning. His addition to the design team helped to establish the Eichler Homes developments as a high-design product. Specific contributions credited to Jones & Emmons included refining Eichler’s construction methods by integrating an economy of means with architectural expression. Jones’ designs were distinctive because of his use of pronounced roof profiles, which despite their lofty shape were free of expensive trusses or redundant framing typically used in builders’ so-called “cathedral ceilings.” Jones’ interior planning was known for its free-flowing dining/living areas and clearly zoned public and private areas, both products of his early postwar developer designs as well as his numerous experiments with his own personal dwellings.

The style of the Eichler homes is endemically Californian. The look may seem in some ways almost generically 1950s, but that is partly because during the postwar period the fashion in residential architecture often resembled work originated in California. California modernism was a social and aesthetic movement that derived ideas and practices from the modem movement in European. Many of the innovators of postwar American residential design, particularly designs suited to moderate-income buyers, were California architects. William Wurster, a Dean of the College of Environmental Design at University California Berkeley, Joseph Esherick, John Funk, Gordon Drake, and many other lesser-known practitioners constituted a loose-knit but consistent school of designers that helped define a Californian aesthetic. This style emphasized modest-scaled homes with informal open plans and indoor-outdoor relationships, and often employed post-and-beam structures and natural finished wood inside and out.

Eichler and his architects brought California modernism to a middle-class mass market. Eichler initially looked to Anshen and Allen for a construction system that would be efficient to build but inherently flexible enough to provide opportunities for individual designs. Anshen recommended employing post-and-beam construction, which had the twin benefits of speedy erection time and plan flexibility. The Eichler architects’ design strategy of post-and-beam structure and exposed redwood or mahogany-veneer plywood panels was a simple one that, nonetheless, imbued their mass-produced product with a customdesigned feeling.

Architects overcame difficulties that Eichler Homes encountered because of their desire for innovation. Hiring architects proved valuable in terms of construction and cost efficiencies. Anshen and Allen planned the buildings on a four-foot module, and their clearly delineated drawings simplified Eichler’s materials purchasing and construction management. Further, the architects standardized the building components. A kit-of-parts system, similar in some ways to Frank Lloyd Wright’s Usonian concept, enabled multiple variations of the same basic plan. In Palo Alto’s Green Gables Eichler development, a single plan type was used to compose four variations, allowing the design to adapt to different lot orientations. This strategy gave Eichler Homes a competitive edge in the market because the company could provide greater variety than other developers at comparable cost.

By the time Eichler broke ground at South Land Park Hills in 1955, he already had built hundreds of architect-designed homes in more than a dozen individual subdivisions on the Bay Area peninsula. After a string of successes in Sunnyvale, Menlo Park, Redwood City, and Palo Alto, Eichler made a decision to move up the market and leave the lower, midrange pricing that typified most of his earlier developments. In the higher, $16-$22,000 price bracket, as Eichler pointed out in a 1955 interview, he found that “people are more interested in better living than in terms.” By 1953, the postwar housing shortage had eased, and Americans were growing increasingly prosperous while becoming more demanding consumers. They wanted larger houses with new levels of amenities, and Eichler knew he had to meet their expectations in the highly competitive housing market. The Greenmeadow development in Palo Alto met this demand by introducing a fourth bedroom or an all-purpose room (aka “family room”) to its models, and was Eichler’s first significant step in this direction. The South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7 Eichler Development followed this lead by offering houses between the $17,750- $21,000 price range.

Page 27 of 30 ends

Like Greenmeadow before it, the homes in the South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7 Eichler Development are larger than those of the previous developments, show more complex planning, much more articulated building massing, and a sophisticated blending of natural and machined building materials. Perhaps most importantly, the new models advanced the theme, initiated in Eichler’s earliest architecturally design models, of indoor-outdoor living, enabling owners to better experience the benefits of the region's hospitable climate.

The architectural achievements in the South Land Park Hills Unit No. 7 Eichler Development homes are based upon advances in internal planning. A key example of this advance is found in a series of Jones & Emmons-initiated ‘T-shaped’ plan types. In these models the bedroom wing and living areas are defined as separate volumes, lending a distinct feel to each realm. The kitchen occupied its usual central position, but greater transparency of the living area walls meant the user, usually a wife and mother, could see both internal spaces and right through to the garden beyond. The front entry is ideally located between the garage and kitchen, overcoming the need for a back-door connection (common to most tract homes) that so often reduces the owner’s entry experience to a service-like feeling. Of particular significance and a very important achievement for homes of this class was the addition of a second bath. This enabled the planning of a master suite. The children’s bath was provided with an independent door to the side yard. This would minimize children tracking dirt through the living areas. These advances led Eichler’s competitors to follow suit, advancing the quality of an entire class of speculative homes.

The T-shaped plan layout enabled building massing that defined multiple outdoor spaces, increasing and enriching the living spaces throughout the house. First, placing the garage separately from the house defined a protected court off the kitchen, advertised in Eichler’s sales literature as an “outdoor dining nook.” The bedroom wing was positioned such that the master bedroom projects beyond the living room volume, defining a rear-yard terrace. Sliding-glass doors in full height glass walls offer access to this patio from both rooms. Front-yard courts are enclosed with a street-side concrete masonry wall bounded on two other sides by the bedroom wing and the garage. This feature alludes to the atrium, a later innovation that might not have emerged without this precedent.

The theme of integrating building and landscape was further advanced with the use of varied materials. Street-side concrete masonry walls built up to the eave height enriched the texture of the buildings while blurring the distinction between landscape and building. Low-pitched roof forms alluded to more traditional imagery of forms while also enabling more day lighting through clerestories beneath the eaves. Finally, the massing of the houses, derived from the separate volumes for bedrooms and living areas, enhanced this interplay of exterior and interior spaces.

The architects’ attention to design extended to site planning and placed homes in ways they felt best fit individual lots, provided the best solar orientation possible, and ensured privacy for neighboring residents. In this way the architects made Eichler’s houses feel like custom homes. Although a specific landscape architect was not listed for South Land Park Hills, it is known that landscape architects were hired to finish exterior spaces. This was another example of the improved design quality.

Eichler’s continued work until the mid-sixties left a legacy of design integrity, and set new standards for developer housing, which remain unparalleled in the history of American building. During the construction of South Land Park Hills, Eichler was expanding his operation into Marin County (the Terra Linda development of San Rafael), San Mateo County (Highlands), and the East Bay (Rancho San Miguel in Walnut Creek). In all, by 1974, he would build nearly 11,000 tract houses and hundreds of custom homes in scores of developments in 32 Northern and Southern California cities and towns.

In 1961, Eichler Homes became a public stock company, although Joseph Eichler disliked being beholden to the stockholders.

Having to put sales goals ahead of his intuitive schemes and continual tinkering with designs frustrated Eichler's creative ambitions and contributed to a brooding dissatisfaction. Loath to have any control wrested from him, he was skeptical of

Page 28 of 30 ends

Several of Eichler Homes’ urban projects were in transitional neighborhoods in which Eichler gambled that his developments could turn conditions around. In addition, Eichler made what some saw as fundamental marketing mistakes. While the suburban projects continued to do well, the difficulties with the urban projects began to jeopardize the operations as a whole, and Eichler Homes began to lose money. In 1966, Eichler’s company was taken over when two southern California investors bought a controlling share of the company's stock, perhaps not realizing that the firm’s worth was almost completely depleted from the overambitious projects of the by-then glamorous, but doomed, Eichler Homes. Eichler continued to build housing through a series of reincarnations of his original company until his death in 1974. However, none of these subsequent efforts matched the earlier projects in their enthusiasm for new design ideas or social aspirations.

The District meets NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1 and Sacramento Register Criterion I as it is an early example of a residential development that deviated from the standard practice of racially restricting new subdivisions in the United States. Research suggests that this district and its developer played a significant role in promoting fair-housing and non-discriminatory housing practices that contributed to the historical development if the region. The District does not appear to meet NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2 or Sacramento Register Criterion ii. Research did not support that any of the residences have direct associations with individuals who made significant contributions in Sacramento or the larger region.

Architecturally, the District appears significant as an important example of Eichler Homes Modernist style in Sacramento and represents the collaborative work of Joseph Eichler, Archibald Quincy Jones, FAIA and Frederick Emmons, FAIA. The District expresses a unified entity that expresses the Mid-Century Modern design elements of Jones & Emmons designs for Eichler Homes, Inc. The District represents Eichler and Jones & Emmons, leaders in modern design. It is Eichler’s only development in Sacramento and it conveys an architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, and association. The District displays the character-defining features evidenced in several aspects of noted Eichler design. These aspects include: 1) complex geometric floor plans for the exposed post-and-beam constructed one-story residences; 2) public-facing facades that eschew the use of typical eye-level fenestration for greater use of simple vertical composition wood siding, thus suggesting a deference to owner’s privacy; 3) flat or low-pitch gabled roof forms that lack attic spaces but feature extended eaves and frequent use of clerestory windows; 4) varied orientation of residences along the streets and customization details such as patio enclosure walls, trellises, and floor to ceiling window configurations within the non-public-facing areas.

As a built environment resource, the building does not appear to meet NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4 or Sacramento Register vi because it is not the sole source of important information to history.

In addition to being architecturally significant, the District retains the necessary aspects of integrity to represent that significance. Integrity of location remains because the District contributors remain in their original location. The overall design of the District is intact with few residences having been modified extensively. The District’s design is reflected in its curvilinear street alignments along which the District was laid out; the series of model homes along South Land Park Drive (north of 47th Ave) that provided the welcoming entryway to the larger district; its planned orientation options for residences to allow for a variety of facades; and its innovative spacing by using professionally designed landscape between houses that focused occupants views into the backyard areas instead of out to the front areas. In some instances, rear roofs have been upgraded but are not highly visible from the street. In its 62 years, the District has retained integrity of materials for most contributors with few residences having updated metal garage doors or vinyl window replacements. Very few non-historic materials have been introduced. Those that have been altered are primarily major roof reconfigurations from flat to hipped in the front and conversion of garages to living space. These few non-contributing resources do not detract from the overall integrity of contributors with regards to their visible materials, which is evidenced in retention of composite wood siding, wood frame transom windows, and exposed wood beams. The setting for the District has not been significantly altered as it has always been part of a larger subdivision of similar period houses. Integrity of feeling is displayed because the District expresses the aesthetic and historic sense of the mid-1950s when Eichler Homes was at its peak of production and success.

In summary, the District is significant architecturally and for its association with non-discriminatory housing practices and is therefor also considered a historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Page 29 of 30 ends

Arbunich, Marty. 2005. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for Greenmeadow (Units I and II). Available at https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/9045e8b8-559b-43ce-8546-12bb24f49aab?branding=NRHP, accessed July 26, 2017.

California Department of Transportation, Caltrans. “Tract Housing in California, 1945-1974.” (2011), pg 34. “Church Heads Fight Bigotry.” San Francisco Examiner, 7 Jan. 1964.

Eichler Homes. 1955. Eichler Homes Comes to Sacramento (Sales Brochure). https://www.flickr.com/photos/atomicpear/sets/72157621914235795 Howell, Ocean. “The Merchant Crusaders: Eichler Homes and Fair Housing, 1949–1974.” Pacific Historical Review 85, no. 3 (2016), pg 381.

Pierson, John. “Builder Finds Unbiased Policy Need Not Cut Home Values.” The Sacramento Bee, 20 Dec. 1964, p. D17.

Sacramento Union. 1955. “Eichler Home Units are Opened to the Public.” May 15.

Shell Oil Company. 1956 Shell Street Map of Sacramento. Shell Oil Company. Chicago, IL. David Rumsey Map Collection. https://www.davidrumsey.com/rumsey/Size4/D5005/5840155.jpg The Sacramento Bee. 1956. Eichler Homes Advertisement: “Last Chance!” December 8. ________. 1956.“Home Builder Gets National Awards.” June 30. 5 Accessing relevant portions of the A. Quincy Jones papers held at the University of Southern California Library Special Collections was not part of this evaluation but could be considered in the future to augment understanding of the history of the South Land Park Hills development and to provide a clearer identification of model types, etc. used by Eichler Homes.

Page 30 of 30 ends

*Map Name None *Scale see map *Date of Map 2017
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ LOCATION MAP Trinomial ____________________________________________

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 1
Vicinity Maps
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 2
Sketch Map of Kyles Temple A.M.E. Zion Church
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 3
Aerial View of Kyles Temple A.M.E. Zion Church
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 4
Kyles Temple A.M.E. Zion Church, Sacramento, California Additional Documentation (attached):

NAACP (Esther B. Nelson): Article about Sacramento Branch of the NAACP Sacramento Bee Newspaper Articles:
• Article about Bishop Spottswood and Kyles Temple: January 10, 1964 • Article about Kyles Temple Civil Rights and International Meetings (2):

January 10, 1964; January 12, 1964
• James C. Dodd Obituary: February 10, 1999
• James C. Dodd Article: March 30, 1969
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 5
•
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 6
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 7
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 8
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 9
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 10
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 11
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 12
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 13
Sketch Map of Kyles Temple with Lettered Photo Key
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 14
Photographs- Letters refer to sketch map with photo key A.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 15
B.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 16
C.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 17
D.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 18
E.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 19
F.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 20
G.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 21
H.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 22
I.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 23
J.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 24
K.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 25
L.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 26
M.

NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 11 Page 27
N.

Racial Equity Committee
City of Sacramento
Subject: Letter of Support for the African American Experience Project Dear Members of the Racial Equity Committee,
As the President and CEO of the California Black Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to express our enthusiastic endorsement and commitment to the African American Experience Project, a commendable initiative that holds immense potential for advancing unity, understanding, and equity within our community.

I am pleased to convey our wholehearted support for the African American Experience Project.

Beyond our endorsement, we are excited to offer an additional layer of contribution by partnering with the project to ensure the accuracy, authenticity, and richness of the information being presented. Given our commitment to fostering an accurate narrative that represents the African American experience, our organization is well-equipped to assist in vetting the information, thereby adding depth and credibility to the project's outcomes.

Recognizing the importance of community collaboration, I assure you of the California Black Chamber of Commerce's dedication to working hand in hand with initiatives that resonate with our shared vision. Our involvement extends beyond verbal support—we are eager to actively contribute our resources and expertise to enhance the project's impact.

We applaud the City of Sacramento for championing initiatives that foster understanding and equity within the city. Your commitment to driving positive change is deeply appreciated, and we look forward to working together to ensure the success of the African American Experience Project.

Thank you for your time, and we eagerly await the opportunity to collaborate and contribute to this remarkable endeavor. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Jay King
President and CEO
California Black Chamber of Commerce
Rebekkah Mulholland
History Department Tahoe Hall MS 6059
[email protected]
June 16th, 2023
To whom it may concern,
My name is Rebekkah Mulholland and I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of History as well as the director of the Public History graduate program at Sac State. I am writing this letter in support of the African American Experience Project. In spring 2020, I was approached to be a potential community partner on this project with the City of Sacramento. After a series of meetings discussing what our program could offer, we moved forward with seeking a grant from Sacrament State University through its Anchor University Initiative. This initiative seeks to embrace and support our interdependent role in the community as significant drivers for economic and cultural growth, innovation, and revitalization.

In undergraduate and graduate courses such as HIST 177: African American Experience, 1603- Present, HIST 15H: Major Problems in U.S History, and HIST 281C: Reading Seminar in Modern U.S History to name a few, our students have conducted archival research using sources from institutions throughout Sacramento. Additionally, a number of graduate students in the Public History program have worked with the City of Sacramento to conduct oral history interviews with residents from Oak Park, which will be housed at the Center for Sacramento History. Our students have volunteered and interned with the city to work on Preservation and Cultural Resource Management projects. As a result of this collaboration with the city, our students have been featured in newspaper articles and interviews with CapRadio.

This project has proved to be invaluable to our faculty, students, and programs at the undergraduate and graduate level, especially our Public History Program. Public History is a discipline that brings history to the public. It is a collaborative field that empowers the public to share and tell its own stories. As public historians, we value authenticity, diversity, community, and collaboration. This collaboration over the past three years have given our students the opportunity to not only learn histories from their own communities, but have help to professionalize them as Public Historians. On behalf of the Sacramento State University History department and the Public History program, I strongly support the efforts of the African American Experience Project presented by our community partners throughout the city of Sacramento.

If I can be of any further assistance, or provide you with any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely,
Rebekkah Mulholland
Assistant Professor of History
PO Box 162140, Sacramento CA 95816 – [email protected] - PreservationSacramento.org - (916)604-8320 Preservation Sacramento – Founded in 1972 as Sacramento Old City Association Sean deCourcy, Preservation Director
Community Development Department
City of Sacramento
300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor
Sacramento, California 95811
July 31, 2023
RE: Letter of Support, African American Experience Project Dear Director DeCourcy and members of the Preservation Commission, The Board of Directors of Preservation Sacramento wishes to express their support for the City of Sacramento’s African American Experience project. As a partner in this project, Preservation Sacramento provided matching funds in the amount of $5000, and administered the grant. We appreciate the City of Sacramento’s efforts at making historic preservation a more inclusive endeavor, and spending the time and effort to engage in the research and outreach necessary for this groundbreaking project.

Historic preservation is an environmental justice issue. The loss of historic places due to redevelopment and highway construction became a major driver of the modern historic preservation movement, but until recently, historic places directly associated with underrepresented communities were often overlooked. All of our historic places deserve consideration and protection, and suitable tools to promote their rehabilitation and reuse to serve contemporary needs.

It is our sincere hope that this project spurs two equally necessary outcomes: first the creation of new landmarks and historic districts listed in the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources, based on the information revealed by this report, and second, the continuation of these efforts, engaging in further research and outreach regarding historic properties throughout the City of Sacramento associated with other underrepresented communities. Completion of the African American Experience Project brings Sacramento closer to achieving both of these goals, and Preservation Sacramento will be ready to support the City’s next steps on that journey.

Sincerely,
William Burg
President, Preservation Sacramento Board of Directors

From: Sharon Styles
To: Sean deCourcy; Carson Anderson
Cc: Sam Starks
Subject: Re: African American Experience Project Partner"s Final Draft Review Meeting Date: Thursday, June 29, 2023 8:55:44 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Carson,
I wanted to take a moment to thank you for inviting me to participate in the
Sacramento African American Experience History Project.

It is amazing to see how much has been accomplished since the initial meeting on June 7, 2022. Various members of the community contributed along their lines of knowledge, experience or expertise to create a detailed report.

It was an honor to assist with the Discover Your African American Roots genealogy
event on June 10, 2023 at Belle Cooledge Library. So many guests were able to
find information about their ancestors that was life affirming and often emotional.

It was a wonderful event! I would be happy to assist Sam Starks with future plans
to share genealogy with the community.

When people begin to research their ancestry, it flows into researching the history
of their neighborhood, school, church, city, state and country. They often discover
the reasons their elders migrated and other families that may have been part of that migration.

During the final meeting on June 28, 2023 you mentioned several ideas for the future. In
addition to placing historical markers, I loved the idea of Black church tours, virtual reality neighborhood experiences, projecting photos with bios on buildings and scanning photos from
the community to compile a citywide photo album.

Several great ideas were suggested in that meeting as well. The gentleman from 100 Black Men
had a wonderful idea about holding a Sacramento Black History Day.

Identifying and recognizing properties which are landmarks. Collecting more oral histories from the elders. Wonderful ideas.

In closing, again, thank you for inviting me to participate in this project. I was happy to contribute in some small way to the overall project. Best wishes for future success.

Warmly,
Sharon
Sharon J. Styles
Co-Chair
African American Genealogy Seminar
http://www.aafhs.com

Sacramento City CouncilSeptember 19, 2023

Sacramento City Council
September 19, 2023