Chapter 8: The Long Journey to Find and Fund a Campus Summary Introduction After the District was approved by the voters in December 1965, the new Board of Trustees set out to find a site for a permanent campus and pass a bond to fund the construction. This turned out to be a complicated endeavor. Some readers will be interested in the many details of the people and politics involved. However, many readers may prefer a general overview. Thus, two chapters will be devoted to this topic. Chapter 8 will be a condensed version of the process and Chapter 9 will provide the full detail. First Bond Attempt The landmark California Master Plan for Higher Education enacted in 1960 called for no-cost universal access to higher education for all Californians. As a result, numerous new Cal State and junior college campuses were built in the 1960s. Land speculation and business opportunities for municipalities, realtors, architects and construction firms were plentiful. From 1959 to 1964 the South County Junior College District (SCJCD) (Chabot College), spearheaded by the cities and school districts of Hayward and San Leandro went through the complete cycle of district formation, starting classes at a temporary location, passing a construction bond measure, and building a permanent campus. The new Fremont-Newark Junior College Trustees hoped to follow the same fast track path. Bonds, sites and architects were on the Board meeting agendas from the beginning. At their first full working session in January 1966, the Trustees received three communications that gave early signals of the major issues that would dominate the journey to build a permanent campus: the chairman of the District formation campaign reported a $108 surplus in the 1965 campaign fund and requested it be held to support an eventual construction bond campaign; there was a letter from a local realtor proposing a campus site; and an architectural firm submitted a request for consideration in a campus project. Hoping to follow the lead of the Chabot College experience, the Trustees wanted to find a site, pass a bond, set up temporary buildings on the site and start classes in September 1966 while construction got underway. However, after receiving input from local and state school construction experts, including their Chabot College
counterparts, it became apparent that a September 1967 start date was more realistic. February and March 1966 were spent on other major operational tasks, including hiring an interim part-time administrator, Mr. Lloyd Messersmith and launching the search for a Superintendent/President, leasing temporary office, procuring furniture and equipment, obtaining initial budget funds from the county, setting up an accounting system, purchasing insurance and obtaining secretarial help. April, May and June 1966 were dominated by the work to recruit, screen and select the Superintendent/President for the District. Dr. Stephen Epler was hired at the end of June and Dr. James Duke was hired as Vice President in July. Both had come from the College of Marin and had worked on with bond issues and college construction projects. Epler had successful experience in starting both a campus center and a full college from scratch. The college he developed was Reedley College in California, so he was quite familiar with the California scene. Duke was Director of Facilities and Planning at the College of Marin, and was a facilities planner and evaluator for the California State University system before that. A general election was scheduled for November 8, 1966, so there was a sense of urgency to have the bond on that ballot. There were distinct advantages for getting on the November ballot. State Proposition 4, also on that ballot, would allow school bonds to be approved with a 60% yes vote rather than the two-thirds required at the time. Further, holding a bond election in conjunction with a general election was much less expensive than holding a special election. Using state formulas for the cost of a campus based on projected enrollment, Trustees settled on a bond level of $10 million. On August 10, 1966 they unanimously voted to place the bond on the November ballot. It would be listed as Measure J. A “Citizens’ Steering Committee for the Bond” was formed by many of the folks from the District formation campaign. Assemblyman Carlos Bee agreed to serve as Honorary Chairman. Dr. Holger Rasmussen, formation campaign chair, was named Co-Chair. Site selection was put on hold until after the election. Dr. Rasmussen stated publicly, “The reason we haven’t picked a site is because you cannot choose a site...and...not have the money to buy it…and…if the site is announced too soon… land speculation will start. I hate to admit it, but it’s the truth.” The Argus newspaper, which staunchly supported the formation of the District, came out against the bond measure in October. They cited the need for considerably more specific planning and much more public vetting. The paper felt the Trustees had, “put together a hastily-prepared and rather vague bond issue to get their dreams on paper.” They were concerned that no long-range plan had been developed; a site had not been identified; the $10 million seemed to have been “pulled from a hat” to meet the maximum the state allowed; enrollment projections were vague and uncertain; and the college curriculum had not been set. On Election Day, November 8, 1966, despite endorsements by many local groups, the $10 million Measure J construction bond failed. It received a 59% “Yes” vote,
seven 7 points lower than the required 66.6%. Proposition 4 also failed. If it had passed the 59% vote still would not have been enough. Board President Wes Sears was quoted as saying that the bond failed with, “…a landslide majority vote of 59%.” Regrouping and Focusing on Site Selection As the year 1967 began, the Board and administration proceeded to 1) find temporary facilities for classes, 2) choose an architectural firm, 3) finalize a permanent campus site, and 4) pass a bond to fund the construction. All this was done while also preparing for classes to begin in September of that year. Temporary Campus at the Serra Center During January, February and March of 1967, the search for a temporary site or sites for classes in September continued. Discussion with the Fremont and Newark Unified School Districts regarding the use of high school classrooms in the late afternoons and evenings were underway. However, no agreements were reached. On March 20 the Catholic Diocese of San Jose announced the closure of its Fremont school for troubled adolescent girls operated by the Dominican Sisters. The Junipero Serra Center, St. Mary of the Palms School for Girls was located at 650 Washington Boulevard in Fremont. During April, May and June, District staff followed up with the Diocese to explore leasing the site. In July the Board approved a one-year lease for the 2,500 sq. foot Serra Campus, as it came to be called, for $60,000. Administrative staff moved from the temporary offices in Newark. The campus had four classroom buildings and an administration building. One classroom building housed student services, library and bookstore. Music, science, and secretarial classes were held at Kennedy High School. Physical Education classes were held at the Fremont Boys’ Club. Selection of an Architectural Firm During January, February and March 1967 the administration solicited applications for architects for the permanent campus work. From approximately 50 applications, a committee of the Board selected six to interview at the March 29, 1967 Board meeting. The Board was not satisfied with the interviews and asked that more applicants be sought. At the April 12, 1967 Board meeting Trustees interviewed and additional four firms. These four were ranked and the firm of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, of San Francisco was chosen. The contract with Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) was approved at the May 17, 1967 Board meeting. The full proposal from SOM was separated into three categories: 1) site selection, 2) pre-bond master planning, and 3) post-bond master planning. He pointed out the site feasibility portion was up for approval that evening, and the other parts would be reviewed and approved separately. The initial contract was specific to the first part: site selection.
The Hunt for a Permanent Campus Site Although discussion of a site was limited during the first bond effort, it was certainly taking place in the background. At the first Board meeting in January 1967 College Vice President Dr. James Duke presented a map of Fremont and Newark showing five sites that were investigated. Chapter 9 will provide significant detail on the various sites that were considered. As will be seen, some of the sites tended to be described differently from time to time, and some seemed to appear out of nowhere. Various lists were presented at different times during the planning process and it is somewhat difficult to keep a tally of how many different sites were involved. The best estimate here is that no less than 22 sites were considered at one point or another. At the end of January the Board appointed a 14-member Site Selection Committee (SSC) and named Dr. William Vandenburgh of Fremont as Chair. One of the first things the committee needed was a direction from the Board on two issues: 1) the number of campuses to be established, and 2) the size of the site to be considered. After deliberation, the Trustees agreed to seek a single site of not less than 160 usable acres, as recommended by the State Department of Education. At the March 29, 1967 Board meeting the SSC gave its recommendations. They considered 15 different options. The SSC identified the Huddleson Ranch property in the Mission San Jose area as its top choice. The other sites included: No. 2 Warm Springs, No. 3 Heath-Rogers, No. 4 Durham Road and No. 5 Cherry Lane. Not included was the Patterson Ranch property on the northern border of Newark, which had been promoted by several Newark residents. The Board thanked the Committee members for their work and then spent the months of April and May completing the selection process for an architectural firm, as summarized above. As stated, the Board approved the selection of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill as architects on May 17, 1967. The first phase of their contract was to help assess potential campus sites. It was felt that the Selection Committee had finished its work but, as will be seen, that was not to be the case. Also during April and May, the Board continued to discuss various sites, with the goal of having a consensus on those to be considered once the architect contract was finalized. The discussions went fairly smoothly but there a few wrinkles given that Trustees Blawie, Costello and Hochler were up for re-election. Several other candidates were running on the basis that the current Board had not acted with enough transparency on the site selection issue and generally had not done enough to move things along. In the end Trustees Costello and Hochler were re-elected but Trustee Blawie was replaced by Joe McCord. When the initial contract with Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) was approved on May 17 the Board had narrowed the potential sites down to the four of the six recommended by the Site Selection Committee (SSC), including Huddleson Ranch. They added Patterson Ranch and land owned by the Latter-day Saints Church that
had come up in the interim. SOM began the feasibility study of the sites with a target completion date of mid-July. The SOM report and recommendations ended up being presented at the August 2, 1967 Board meeting. SOM recommended disqualification of the Huddleson Ranch site because of an apparent active earthquake fault which they claimed ran through the most buildable area of the site. SOM recommended consideration of the remaining sites in the following order: the Durham site as first alternate choice and then the Church of Latter-day Saints and Patterson Ranch sites equally. Thus, SOM had vetoed the top choice of the SSC. Several members of the audience, including SSC members, expressed continued interest in the Huddleson and Durham sites. The Board delayed additional discussion of site selection until the August 30, 1967 meeting in order to further study the architects report and to allow further consideration by the public. Trustees requested that a SOM representative attend the August 30, 1967 meeting. At the August 30, 1967 Board meeting SOM brought Donald Clark of Cooper-Clark and Associates to report on the geological concerns with the Huddleson Ranch site. Cooper-Clark had conducted a study of southeast Fremont several years before. The area studied included the Huddleson Ranch property. The report found the area to be highly susceptible to earthquakes and not recommended for building of facilities such as a junior college. Audience members, including SSC members, continued to back the Huddleson Ranch site and questioned the emphasis on the earthquake hazards. The Mission San Jose Chamber of Commerce was an ardent supporter of Huddleson Ranch as the college site. They would later characterize the Cooper-Clark report as “superficial” and not a comprehensive view of the site. The Board directed staff to ask all former Site Selection Committee members to review all reports and materials from SOM and the engineers. They scheduled a work session with the Committee for mid-September. The SCC was back in action. In late September the Board met in a joint work session with the SSC. At a Board meeting a week later, Dr. William Vandenburgh, SSC Chair, reported that the committee had four suggestions to the Board regarding the site selection process: 1) Ask the architects to survey the District for other available sites; 2) Conduct another geological study to determine what the consequences of the fault on the Huddleson site might be; 3) Request commitment from the city of Fremont on future road plans in the vicinity of proposed sites; and 4) Hold meetings of the committee members, Board members and architects to discuss the architects’ report. The Board asked SOM to submit a proposal for conducting a study of the entire District to determine any other good sites that might exist. They also agreed that the Site Selection Committee be directly involved in all future discussions regarding the site selection process.
After a month of study during October, at the November 1, 1967 Board meeting, SOM recommended three additional sites. The Board rejected these sites and proceeded to approve Huddleson Ranch, Patterson Pass and a site off Washington Boulevard as the final three choices. On Saturday November 11 Board members and District staff, accompanied by members of the Site Selection Committee (SSC) and Fremont Planning Department personnel, toured the three sites. At the November 15 Board meeting, Dr. Vandenburgh reported that the consensus of the SCC was to reaffirm the Huddleson Ranch site as its first choice and to recommend the Patterson Ranch site as its second choice. After deliberation, the Board agreed unanimously to identify Huddleson Ranch as its first choice for a permanent college site, subject to required local and State approvals and against the advice of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill Architects. The Board directed the administration to obtain recommendations from the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California for geological engineering firms qualified to conduct a seismological investigation of the Huddleson Ranch site. Five firms were recommended and asked to submit proposals for the work. On December 13 the Board selected Woodward, Clyde, Sherard and Associates to conduct a geological and soil study of the Huddleson Ranch. The purpose was to provide information to the Board and the State Department of Education that a safe and economical campus could be built on the Huddleson Ranch site. As 1968 began, Trustees and administration set their sight on placing a bond measure in the June 4, 1968 election. During the six months between January and June, the Board met 14 times in both regular and special sessions. Four meetings were held in March as the bond decision and campaign were being developed; and four meetings were held in June to plan moving forward on implementing the bond. The Board identified their first choice, but the site had not been cleared by the State Department of Education as meeting Education Code requirements for seismic safety. Given their experience in the 1966 election, theBoard wanted to have a fully approved site to campaign on. Without that they felt their chances were diminished. They also needed to meet county deadlines for placing a measure on the ballot and determine the amount of the bond measure. The study of the Huddleson Ranch site was expensive. When the Woodward, Clyde and Sherard (WCS) contract came up for final approval in January 1968 the Board insisted it contain a clause that they be kept informed of progress regularly and that the study be halted if at any point evidence indicated the site might not be safe. The chief engineer for the study was Mr. Lloyd Cluff. With the WCS study underway the preparations for a bond campaign began. Dr. Holger Rasmussen of Fremont, who had chaired both the formation campaign in 1965 and the Measure H campaign in 1966, and Walter Aylward of Newark were selected as co-chairs were. In the 1970s Mr. Aylward would be elected to the District Board of Trustees.
The Board also worked to finalize the process of having the bond measure put on the June 1968 ballot. As usual, there were several hiccups along the way. The first was concern they would not be able to meet the timeline and deadlines required by the county for placing measures on the ballot. Initial communication from the Registrar of Voters seemed to say the District had missed the chance for the June election. However, this was later clarified and the deadlines seemed feasible. The second stumbling block involved the calculation of the actual dollar amount of the bond measure. Some Trustees and the administration preferred using State Department of Education formulas for estimating construction costs based on projected student enrollment over time. Others felt this was too vague and wanted more specific budgets laid out. This latter opinion was mainly a response to criticism during the 1966 bond election that the $10 million bond amount was, “pulled out of a hat.� Eventually all the Trustees felt comfortable using the state guidelines. The third point of contention involved the scope of the construction project and its impact on cost. One faction favored construction of a comprehensive campus, including a gymnasium and athletic fields. Another group felt the campus should be built in phases with the gym and fields, which one Trustee referred to as nonacademic, coming later under another bond measure. Again the latter view was due to sensitivity to the 1966 election and the concern about tax rates. In the end the Board voted 6-1 to construct a comprehensive facility with physical education and athletic facilities and fields. The one dissenting Trustee made it a point to pledge complete support for the bond passage. With these matters addressed the Board on March 6, 1968 approved Resolution 30/67-68 authorizing a bond measure in the amount of $11,135,000. And on March 20, even though the WCS study was not complete, the Board finalized the request to the county that the bond measure be placed on the June 4, 1968 ballot. It would become Measure F. One can speculate that there was enough information from Mr. Cluff to indicate the site was going to be found safe. On April 5 Mr. Cluff stated the study was done and the report being written. His comments to the press indicated the report would contain nothing that would disqualify the Huddleson Ranch site. Shortly after this pre-report announcement, both the Fremont and Newark Chambers of Commerce overwhelmingly endorsed the bond. Both bodies also committed to help campaign for its passage. The Newark Chamber gave specific reasons for their support: The bond would provide educational, cultural and recreational facilities; the tax rate would be reduced from 25 cents to 18 cents three years after the successful passage of the bond and completion of permanent buildings; a portion of the bond funds would provide the junior college district with matching funds for a state grant of $563,000, which would not be available if the measure were to fail; funds from bond sales would provide adequate classrooms and laboratories for the projected student enrollment of 5,000 by 1972; and the bond would provide the college district the necessary funds while at the same time serve as a tax relief to citizens.
At the May 6, 1968 Board meeting Mr. Cluff presented the results of the WCS seismic study of the Huddleson Ranch site. The report stated the site did not have any geological or seismic dangers that would prevent the location of a college campus there. Their bottom line was the site was no more dangerous than any other part of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Shortly after, Dr. Lehman of the State Department of Education announced the Department’s approval of the site. Lehman, who had previous reservations about the site, was quoted in the Argus as stating the WCS study of the Huddleson Ranch was, “…without a doubt the most thorough that has been submitted to me for review.” To this day, there are those who believe the campus should never have been built on the Huddleson Ranch site because of earthquake faults and inevitable disaster. The bond was strongly supported by college groups including the Associated Students of Ohlone College, the Ohlone College Faculty Association, and the Ohlone College Chapter No. 490, of the CSEA. The Argus newspaper was an enthusiastic supporter of the initial efforts to form the local junior college district and firmly endorsed the December 1965 ballot measure to create the district. However, just prior to the first bond measure in November 1966 the paper published an editorial opposing the bond, stating it was rushed and ill-conceived. After an arduous and sometimes controversial year and a half site selection process, the Argus first endorsed Huddleson Ranch as the permanent site for the college and then endorsed the bond. Their May 23, 1968 editorial, “Yes on Ohlone Bond” (A-166) gives strong support for Measure J. The paper continued its supportive coverage of the bond measure by publishing a decidedly pro-Ohlone College and pro-bond special series the week before the election. The California General Election took place on Tuesday, June 4, 1968. The report on June 5 that the Ohlone Measure F bond was passing at a 70% margin was overshadowed by the shocking news that Robert F. Kennedy had been gunned down the previous evening while campaigning in Los Angeles. As the June 5, 1968 Board meeting was getting underway, Senator Kennedy was still hanging on to life. Under the “Hearing of Citizens” at the beginning of the meeting, audience member Mr. James Bray asked for a moment of silent prayer for Senator Kennedy. Kennedy would die about six hours later, around 2:00 am on June 6, 1968. During the meeting, Dr. Epler gave a report on the outcome of the bond measure the previous day: Yes – 19,616 (73%); No – 7,315 (27%). After the election victory, the Board set about to contract with an architectural firm to work on master planning for the campus. Beginning when Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) vetoed the Site Selection Committee’s first choice of Huddleson Ranch, members of the Committee and others were not shy in voicing their dissatisfaction with the firm. The selection of an architect for master planning was on the June 26, 1968 Board meeting for discussion. At that meeting the Board received a letter from Walter Costa, of SOM, requesting the name of his firm be deleted from the list of candidate architectural firms for master planning the
Ohlone campus. The letter cited, “lack of community unity� in the site selection studies as precluding it from rendering a professional service to the District. In July 1968 the Trustees selected Ernest J. Kump Associates, a Palo Alto architectural firm to plan the permanent campus for Ohlone College. Kump was noted for master planning Foothill College in Los Altos, De Anza College in Cupertino and the College of the Virgin Islands in Saint Thomas. Kump Associates was in the running when SOM was selected for the pre-bond master planning and site selection. On September 26, 1968 the District finalized the purchase of the Huddleson Ranch site for $1.9 million. The sale was negotiated privately so outside condemnation proceedings (eminent domain) were not required. During the bond campaign, it became clear that the Huddleson Ranch site would not be suitable for the location of portables for offering classes during construction. In April the Board approved the lease extension of the Serra Center for the period July 1, 1968 through June 30, 1971, plus the option to renew for one additional year. In May 1968 sketches for planned temporary buildings, parking lot, playing field, and improvements to leased property were reviewed. Mr. Peter Jacobsohn, a local architect, was selected to plan the layout of the portable buildings. The bid for the lease-purchase of the portables was awarded to Speedspace, Inc. In late September Speedspace, Inc. delivered 10 portable buildings to the Serra Campus. The buildings arrived aboard flatbed trailers and a large crane placed them on their quick setting concrete foundations. The start of the fall quarter was delayed one week in order for the buildings and furnishings to be ready for an October 7, 1968 start. Trustees hoped some if not all of these buildings would be able to be moved to the Huddleson Ranch site at some point. It would be another six years before the college moved to the permanent site during the summer of 1974. Only one of the Serra Center portables made it to the new campus. The building used for theater productions was moved to the new campus and was used for nearly 20 years before the Smith Center for Fine and Performing Arts opened in 1994.