Orange City Council
November 15, 2022

167 North Little Main Street
Orange, California

Determination of Historic Eligibility

Prepared by:

IS Architecture
5645 La Jolla Boulevard
San Diego, CA 92026

July 2021

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

Summary of Findings
This determination of eligibility evaluates the single -family residence at 167 North Little Main Street in the City of Orange, California. The report concludes that 167 North Little Main Street is significant at the local level of the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for the themes of community planning and social history. Specifically for community planning for being associated with the westward expansion of the City of Orange, and for social history for being associated with prominent businessmen of Orange, including William O. Hart. The property is also significant at the local level of significance under the themes of architecture under Criterion C for its rate and intact Tudor Revival architecture within the City of Orange.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

Table of Contents
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Figures .............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

List of Tables ............................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1. Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Research Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 4

3. Resource Description .................................................................................................................................... 4

4. Historical Overview and Thematic Contexts ............................................................................................ 8

5. Resource Significance and Character-Defining Features ....................................................................... 16 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criteria .......................................................................... 16 California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Criteria ............................................................... 17

5.1 Resource Eligibility .............................................................................................................................. 17

5.1.4 Criteria Considerations ................................................................................................................. 20

5.1.5 Integrity of the Resource .............................................................................................................. 20

6.3 Eligibility Summary ............................................................................................................................... 22

7. Findings and Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix A- Bibliography ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix B- Preparer’s Qualifications .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix C- Supplemental Attachments ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix D- DPR Forms ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

1. Project Description

IS Architecture conducted a Determination of Eligibility (DOE) for a single-family residence located at 167 North Little Main Street, Orange, Orange County, California. This assessment included archival research, a field survey, and this report. The subject property is developed with a single-family residence and a detached garage.

The report aims to determine and provide documentation to the City of Orange, whether the resource rises to a level of State or National Significance. IS Architecture conducted historical background research and carried out an intensive-level field survey to identify and evaluate the home.

2. Research Methods
This report was prepared by Kelsey Kaline, Historic Preservation Specialist at IS Architecture. Report support and supervision were provided by Ione Stiegler, FAIA, and Principal Architect at IS Architecture. Both Ms. Kaline and Ms. Stiegler exceed the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History.

The report was compiled through a mixture of background research on the property and its surroundings and a site visit completed in March of 2021. This research included background and resource -specific research done through a review of previous studies and archival research focused upon the location of the resource and its occupants. The most relevant sources are listed below, and a comprehensive list of materials consulted is provided in Appendix A.

Archival research was undertaken utilizing resources from the following locations:

- Genealogy Bank (historic newspapers)
- www.historicaerials.com (historic aerial photography) - National Register of Historic Places database
- California State Archives (Sacramento, CA)
- City of Orange Public Library
o Online Photo Archives
o In-person research at the Local History Collection

Research also included the recognized sources of information about historical resources in California. IS Architecture reviewed the NRHP and the Office of Historic 'Preservation's (OHP) California Inventory of Historic Resources and California Historical Landmarks to identify any other resources located near the subject property.

The completed research supports the identification of the following themes:
• Growth and Westward Expansion of the City of Orange
• The Business Development of Orange
• The Mission Gardens Subdivision Development
• Residential Styles of Orange
• The Batchelder Tile Company

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

3. Resource Description

Address: 167 North Little Main Street, Orange CA 92868 Owner: Michael Knight, Jerrica Knight
APN: 039-041-03
Year Built: 1923-24
Sq Ft: 1,666 sq ft
Lat/Long: 33.78914, -117.86622
Legal Description:

Lot 7, Tract 515, Mission Gardens, in the City of Orange, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 18, Page 19 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Said County.

Summary of Construction:

The resource property was constructed in the "Old-English" style now known as Tudor Revival style between 1923-1924 and was one of the first homes built in the Mission Gardens tract. 1 No exact date was rec orded or discovered though tax assessor records indicate it was constructed by the end of 1924. Newspaper articles indicate that a fire damaged a portion of the interior in July of 1924. The damage was repaired and did not affect the exterior of the home. The home features a clipped gable roofline and focal arched windows and has a front entry courtyard.

An original detached garage is located on the property.

Undated Changes:

At some point during the home's history, the front door was moved. The original front door can still be read as a historic opening through the use of a full-length window and side-lites.

A second-story rear addition was completed, most likely post 1970s. The addition is a partially projecting, partial width, second story addition on t he rear. The siding and window types are differentiated from the rest of the historic fabric. The addition is not visible from any public right-of-way.

Ownership History:

The house was constructed in 1923. The home was sold to William and Elsie Hart in January of 1924. One of 'Orange's founding fathers, 167 North Little Main Street , was the first home William owned in Orange. In 1928, the home was sold to Walter Smith, who rented it to CC Bonebrake, the City Planner for Orange. He and his family lived there for eight years and regularly made the society pages, including his daughter's wedding at the home in 1933. The home was sold in 1938 to Elmer Swift, owner of the Orange Pharmacy. He and his young family lived at the resource property for six years before selling the home. The Schroeder family purchased the

1 “Old English” is referenced in advertisements for the resource, along with other City of Orange documentation. 167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
home and lived there for eight years before selling to the Manells . The Manells kept the home in the family for over 50 years.

1. 1923-1928: William and Elsie Hart

2. 1929-1937: Occupants: Casey and Cecil Bonebrake

3. 1938-1944: Elmer and Blenda Swift

4. 1945-1953: Carl and Lydia Schroeder

5. 1954-1965+: Melvin and Georgia Manell
Architectural Description:
167 North Little Main was built in 1923 in the Tudor Revival architectural style. Located in the Mission Gardens Subdivision of Orange, California, this 1,666 square foot, 1 ½ story, single -family house faces west on a 6,050 square foot, rectangular lot. The lot is bound on the west b y Little Main Street and residential lots to the north, south, and east. Little Main Street runs north to south from West Chapman university, north until it intersects with North Main Street at the intersection of West Maple Avenue.

North Little Main Stree t is a residential street lined with mature trees and public sidewalks and dual -sided street parking. The surrounding neighborhood has similarly scaled, single-family residences in a variety of styles.

The building construction is a standard wood frame on a concrete foundation with a stucco siding finish. Overall, the condition is very good. The house demonstrates many character-defining features of the Tudor Revival style, including a two-story stucco-clad structure, a prominent front gable, a steeply pitched cross-gable main roof, along with clipped gable ends. There are decorative trim elements, elaborate arched windows, and a prominent stucco chimney.

The front of the house faces w est towards North Little Main, with a public sidewalk, curb, and gutter. From the public sidewalk, a gate provides egress onto the property. A Hollywood-style concrete driveway leads to the south of the house. A wide front lawn consists of a mature orange tree and planting areas. A low stucco patio wall with two curved steps and a wooden rail detail surrounds the front patio. The front patio is accessed via a curved concrete step.
167 North Little Main comprises numerous key Tudor Revival features: a steeply pitched side-gable main roof with clipped gable end, shingled roof, painted bargeboards, and fine-sand finish stucco. A detached garage with a clipped gable roof is located to the southeast of the house accessed by the Hollywood-style driveway. The garage features a wood-paneled sliding garage door on the west elevation. The north elevation features a door and double -hung window.

West (Main) Elevation
The western elevation of the dwelling faces Little Main Str eet with a cross-gabled roof. The front of the gable is clipped. The main entrance is accessed via the front patio surrounded by stucco walls. A curved concrete step leads to the concrete patio. The patio is set into the ""L"" of the 'dwelling's cross-gabled structure. A stucco chimney is located near the intersection of the gables and is visible projecting from the roofline. The dwelling has a fine-sand 167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
stucco finish and a projecting roofline. The elevation visually consists of three bays, the northern gab le end, the central side gable, and the projecting south bay.

The northernmost bay is the focal point of the elevation with a prominent clipped gable roof, dormer vent, and tripartite, divided lite, arched wooden windows with putty glazing. The windows hav e painted trim. The main entrance is located on the south side of the front gable end. The front door consists of a solid wood door with speakeasy and art deco style metal hardware, a metal security door, and 5-light divided wooden sidelights. A metal light fixture is affixed to the west of the sidelights.

The southern bay projects aproximately five feet from the main wall of the side gable facade. Two 6-lite, wooden casement windows are located on the west end of the projection. A single six -lite, wooden casement window is located on either side of the projection (north, south). The windows have painted wooden trim.

North Elevation
The north elevation is the clipped gable end of the crossed gable roofline. It is composed of fine sand finish stucco.

The side of the projecting front gable has a 10 lite, wooden casement window with protruding sill.

The elevation is dominated by four original, double-hung, six-over-one lite, wood windows. All the windows have wood sills, wood sashes and lugs, and exterior wooden stops.

East (Rear) Elevation
The long side-gable elevation visually dominates the rear elevation. The clipped gables on the north and south elevations are visible. A projecting wooden framed shed porch roof extends from the first level.

The second level of the elevation features two dormers. The southern dormer extends from the second level and features two wooden, six -lite awning windows. The dormer has thin wood siding. The northern dormer was an addition. It protrudes further than the previous bay an d features three single lite wooden windows. The dormer features a slight pitch, at less of an angle than the other dormer. A single -lite window is also located on the south elevation of the dormer.

The first level has mirrored bays. The south bay has a wooden 8 -lite casement window with protruding sill.

Centered in the bay is a wooden door with an 8-lite inset and modern security hardware. A single concrete step and pad lead to the door. A square 9 -lite casement window with protruding sill is located directly north of this.

The second bay is a mirror of this, featuring the square 9 -lite casement, then the door, and the larger rectangular casement window.

South Elevation
The concrete Hollywood style driveway flanks the south elevation of the home. The south elevation is the clipped gable end of the primary cross gable of the 'home's massing. The south elevation features a centered second-story window opening consisting of two, wooden, double-hung, 6-over-1 windows with decorative lugs and sill. An attic vent is located above these windows. Two larger vertical, louvered vents are located to each side of the second- story window between the first and second-story levels.

The first level of the south elevation is split into three bays that are split by the central side entrance. The first bay, located to the west, has a single 6-lite, wooden casement window with sill. This window is set into the slope of the 167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
gable. The second bay features a set of two, wooden, four-over-1, double-hung windows with decorative lugs and sill. A metal security light hangs centered over the central side door, a wooden door with a louvered panel. The third bay features two sets of dual, wooden, 6-lite casement windows. The modern utility box and metal pipes are also located on this façade.

Site Features:

The front of the property is partially obscured by a hedge wall and a mechanized, wood and iron, gate that provides egress to the driveway. A wide front yard spans the full length of the property. A mature orange tree is located to the north of the main focal windows. The dwelling transitions from interior to exterior space with an exterior concrete flooring. The rear garden features a large grass area.

A detached two garage sits on the southwest corner of the property. The structure features a clipped gable roof with asphalt shingles and stucco siding. The garage doors are sliding wood paneled doors. A security light is secured to the center of the west elevation of the garage. The n orth elevation of the garage features a wood door with painted trim, and a double-hung wooden window with decorative lugs and painted trim.

The home features a Batchelder Tile Company fireplace. The tile pattern uses a variety of muted colors with geometric patterns. An inset center panel features birds and a floral pattern.

4. Historical Overview and Thematic Contexts
This overview begins with a general, but brief, historical introduction, then narrows to a discussion of topics directly related to the typology and design of the resources being evaluated. Please refer to Section 5 for a discussion of the conclusions of this report.

The following historic contexts were developed and used during the determination of this property:
• Growth and Westward Expansion of the City of Orange
• The Business Development of Orange
• Residential Styles of Orange
• The Mission Gardens Subdivision Development
• The Batchelder Tile Company
The history and development of Orange are well‐documented, and several good summaries of its history have been prepared and are readily available. The following narrative contains consolidated sections of a history authored by notable local/regional historian Phil Brigandi for the Orange Public Library (2011). To read it in its entirety and with accompanying photographs, visit http://www.cityoforange.org/938/Introduction.

4.1 Growth and Westward Expansion of the City of Orange The City of Orange was founded in 1871 on a portion of the old Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. For generations, the land had been a cattle ranch, owned by the Yorba and Peralta families. In 1868, the rancho was divided among the many heirs and claimants, and towns and farms began to appear.

Two Los Angeles attorneys, Alfred Chapman and Andrews Glassell, bought up thousands of acres in the area, and received additional land in return for legal services during the partition of the rancho. In 1870, Chapman had his 167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
lands subdivided and began construction of an irrigation ditch down from the Santa Ana River. In 1871, a townsite was laid out. Since it was going to be a farm ing community, the new town was named Richland. Chapman and Glassell were busy with their law practice, so 'Glassell's brother, Captain William T. Glassell, was sent down to serve as tract agent. He surveyed the townsite, supervised work on the irrigation ditch, planted crops, and advertised and sold land.

The original townsite was just eight city blocks, stretching from Almond to Maple avenues, between Grand and Lemon streets, with a public plaza in the center. Around the townsite were 10 -acre farm lots. I n 1872 a school district was formed. 1873 saw the first general store, the first church (now the First United Methodist Church of Orange), and a post office. The citrus industry was only in its infancy in those days, but the name fit well with Southern 'California's image, and even then, there was already talk of creating a separate Orange County. At the time, the big crops in the area were grain and raisin grapes. The first orange grove here was planted around 1873, and the first local packing house opened in 1881.

The Southern Pacific built the first railroad through the area in 1877 but missed Orange by several miles. In 1887, the Santa Fe arrived, touching off a frantic real estate boom. Farmland was subdivided into residential lots, and several new town s were laid out around Orange. El Modena and Olive survived, but St. James and McPherson soon faded.

A circular park was laid out in the center of the Plaza Square to beautify the town, and the women raised the money for an elegant fountain (now located ou tside the Orange Public Library & History Center). In 1888, the City of Orange was incorporated, with a population of about 1,500. A year later, Orange County was formed out of the southern end of Los Angeles County. But by then, the real estate boom was w inding down, and making matters worse, a blight destroyed many of the local vineyards.

It was only then that oranges began to dominate the local economy. The railroads allowed fresh fruit to be shipped throughout the country. Local growers banded together to form cooperative packing houses, and the cooperatives formed the Southern California Fruit Exchange (now known as Sunkist Growers) to market their crop. By the 1920s, about a third of 'Orange's labor force worked in the citrus industry, and there were a dozen packing houses in the area. The Santiago Orange Growers Association was the largest Valencia packing house in the world then.

Their old packing house was later taken over by Villa Park Orchards and operated until 2006 – the last citrus packing house to close in Orange County.

Downtown Orange still reflects the success of the citrus industry in the early 1900s. Many of the business blocks around the Plaza were built between 1905 and 1930. There are also more than 1,400 pre -1940 homes in Orange, representing a wealth of architectural styles from Victorian to Streamline Moderne. Much of old downtown Orange is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Depression of the 1930s, and the world war that followed, brought many challenges to Orange. The community struggled to take care of its own until Federal relief programs began. Government work programs such as the WPA also built several projects in town, including much of the original construction at the Orange City Park (now W.O. Har t Park). During World War II, hundreds of young men and women served in the Armed Forces, while hundreds more worked in manufacturing plants, purchased war bonds, and saved stamps to support the war effort.

After the war, Southern 'California's population began to surge. It took a few years for the growth to reach Orange.

The first large -scale subdivision (98 homes) was built in 1950. The first freeway (SR 55) came through town in 1962. Between 1950 and 1970, 'Orange's population jumped from 10,000 to 77,000. 167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

4.2 The Development of Orange
Where denoted, the following information was informed by the City of Orange Historic Context Statement compiled by Chattel Preservation Planning.

The City of Orange was centered around what is now called Old Towne Orange through the early 1920s.

Early Settlement (circa 1870 –1920)
When the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana was subdivided in the late 1860s, a Los Angeles lawyer, Alfred B.

Chapman, represented several parties in the partition suit. He took about four thousand acres as payment for his fees. From this acreage, farm lots, ranging in size from ten to forty acres, were first surveyed in the fall of 1870 and divided in 1871, under the supervision of lawyer William T. Glassell. Eight lots in the center of newly subdivided blocks of land were set aside for use as a public square, now known as Plaza Square, or simply ""the Plaza"." This square was bounded by Walnut Street (now named Maple Avenue) to the north, Grape Street (now called Grand Street) to the east, Almond Street to the south, and Lemon Street to the west. The two main streets, which intersected at the public square, were named Chapman Avenue (running east -west) and Glassell Street (north - south).

Like most Southern California communities, Orange was strongly affected by the Great Boom of the 1880s, when new settlers flocked to the state. The cross-country expansion of the railroad system and its inexpensive fares made the balmy climate in southern California even more attractive and accessible to Americans nationwide. New settlers arrived in Orange via the Santa Fe Railroad (later called the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe), which entered the City about four blocks west of the Plaza (currently the site of Depot Park/Veterans Park) in August 1887. According to one source, ...touched off by the railroad rate war, the boom of the 80s was built mainly on speculation.

Landowners subdivided their ranches to sell individual lots, which speculators often bought. In and around Orange, dozens of new subdivisions and four new townsites were laid out in 1886 -1887. Promotional literature was sent out across the country extolling the virtues of Orange and its environs. Orange did its best to appear attractive, progressive, and promising to prospective buyers"." Two horse-drawn streetcar systems provided Transportation between neighboring communities: the Orange, McPherson & Modena and the Santa Ana, Orange & Tustin lines.

Growing Up (1900-1920)
Orange's economy expanded rapidly in the early 20th Century, and downtown grew with it. Most of the landmark buildings around the Plaza were built during this period, and residential construction increa sed, spreading further and further out from the center of town. Instead of single-store buildings, downtown businessmen and investors built "blocks" of connected storefronts, with the upper floors often reserved for apartments or meeting rooms.

Among the major buildings that survive from this era are the Edwards Block and Cuddeback Building (both 1905), the Ainsworth Block (1907), which incorporated the 1888 Armor Building, the Ehlen and Grote Block (1908), Campbell's Opera House (1912), the Smith and Grote Building (1914), and the Kogler-Franzen Block (1916).

As downtown Orange grew up, residents no longer needed to go to Santa Ana or Anaheim for significant shopping.

Saturday nights, the streets around the Plaza would be crowded with people, doing their shopping for the week.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
Growing Out (1920–1950)
After World War I, businesses began moving further and further west from downtown. State Highway 101 came down West Chapman as far as Main Street, before turning south toward Santa Ana. A little business district developed at the corner. Since it was midwa y between Orange and Santa Ana, it was dubbed ""Orana"." Orange also began to develop an industrial strip along either side of the Santa Fe railroad tracks. Local packing houses had always been close to the railroad, but now they were joined by several ma nufacturing plants, most notably Anaconda Wire & Cable.

In the late 1920s, 'Orange's first Planning Commission proposed that all of downtown should be done over in the then‐popular Mission Revival style. The buildings on the south side of the first block of East Chapman Avenue were remodeled in that style in 1928, complete with red tile and stucco arches, but the coming of the Depression put an end to that project.

Residential development continued in the downtown area. New homes were built, filling in the vacant lots on many blocks, and the last few downtown subdivisions were laid out in the 1920s

4.3 Residential Development and Styles of Orange
The development of Orange's early residential neighborhoods mirrored the growth of downtown in many ways.

The earliest homes in Orange were built on the original eight-block town site or were scattered across the outlying farm lots. It was not until the mid -1880s that the farm lots surrounding the townsite began to be subdivided for residential development. During the brief real estate "boom" of 1886-88, more than a dozen subdivisions were laid out downtown, but many of the lots were simply held for speculation, and when the boom died down, returned to agricultural use.

It was not until after 1900, when the citrus in dustry began to drive the local economy, that the downtown neighborhoods began to fill out. New tracts were subdivided, and old 1880s lots re -surveyed. Homes began appearing further and further from the Plaza, especially to the east, and to the south, wher e the new Nutwood Place tract near the Santiago Creek (1906) became a desirable place to live.

By the mid-1920s, almost all the land we now think of as Old Towne Orange had been subdivided, and residential neighborhoods were growing up more and more to the west, towards Main Street. Neighborhoods began to fill in, creating interesting assortment of styles on a single block. A two -story Victorian farmhouse on the corner might be surrounded by a mix of Bungalows and Mediterranean style homes, with a few Classical Revivals, or perhaps a Tudor-style home tossed in here and there. As late as the 1970s, new homes were still being built on the few remaining vacant lots downtown.

Orange's historic residential districts reflect the economic life of the community. The area was very middle class, with individual ranchers working 10-20 acres, and local businessmen making up the backbone of the local economy.

So instead of a few grand m ansions, Orange has block after block of middle -class homes. More than 1,200 pre - 1940 homes still survive in the downtown area.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
Tudor Revival Style Architecture for Residences
Tudor style architecture was a dominant style in many suburban neighborhoods during the early twentieth century.

It was particularly popular during the 1920s and early 1930s, but fell out of fashion by the late 1930s. Early Tudor style houses from the late nineteenth century tended to be high styled and architect designed, but in t he early twentieth century these high-style designs became more muted with steep gables and half -timbering. These early models tended to have walls clad in stucco, weatherboard or shingles rather than customary solid masonry. From the 1920s and 1930s, brick veneering techniques became widely used and allowed for even the most modest Tudor houses to mimic the masonry exteriors found on English prototypes.

Residential Styles of Orange
In the days before tract homes, residential architecture in Orange and broa der southern California showed great variety. Here are some broad categories; most had many variations and styles. Some homes combine elements from various styles, a reflection of the owner's tastes, or the builder's whims. Part of what gives these homes their charm is their individuality.

Settlement (Mostly Before 1910)
Simple in form and detail, these were some of the earliest homes in Orange. The smaller homes were often built with vertical board and batten walls. Sometimes there was a porch. Larger, two-story farmhouses might have a few Victorian details and clapboard siding. Most originally stood alone among orchards and fields.

Victorian (Popular, 1870-1900)
Known for their picturesque woodwork, steep rooflines, and ornate details, several Victorian styles were popular here, including Eastlake, with its tall, vertical lines, and especially the Queen Anne, with its many decorative elements. Victorians demonstrated the increasing prosperity of the community. Many were large, but the style could also be adapted to smaller cottages.

Classical Revival (Most Popular, 1900-1910)
With their flowing lines, and columns borrowed from ancient Greek architecture, these homes became popular with the start of the new century. Many in Orange can be found on corners, with their curved porches wrapping around two sides. But they were soon passed in popularity by the Bungalow.

Bungalow (Most Popular, 1910-1920)
The first true California style, Bungalows grew out of the Arts and Crafts movement of the early 20th Century.

The emphasis was on natural materials, simple woodwork, and sometimes stone pillars or porches. Most bungalows featured horizontal lines, and porches across the front. Inside was more woodwork, with built -in cabinets and hutches. Most were smaller, middle-class homes. Plans, and even pre-cut kits could be bought through mail order houses such as Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
Craftsman (Popular in the 1920s and 1930s)
This style shares many of the naturalistic qualities of the Bungalows, but were larger, usually two stories, with expansive eaves and other details. Sometimes shingles replaced clapboards. They also displayed more individuality; there were no kits for Craftsmen home.

Mediterranean (Popular in the 1920s and 1930s)
Another style first popularized in California, the various Mediterranean styles took their inspiration from the state's Spanish and Mexican past. They could range from simple stucco homes accented with a little tile, to grand hillside mansions with glazed brickwor k and arches. Some variations were briefly popular in the 1920s, include the flat - roofed Pueblo style, and the Prairie style, with its horizontal eaves. The Mediterranean style survives today in a modern form in the stucco and tile of many tract homes.

Period Revivals (Most Popular in the 1920s)
Along with Mediterraneans, a variety of Old World and colonial styles were constructed after World War I. These included Colonial Revival, English Tudor, Cotswald Cottage, Dutch Revival, French Provincial, and whims ical storybook cottages.

4.4 Mission Gardens Subdivision
The Mission Gardens neighborhood, also called the H.M Gail Tract was created in 1923 according to Map No. 25955 filed at the County.

The H.M Gail Tract, otherwise known as Mission Gardens, is Tract N o. 515. The owners of the subdivision included Harry M. Gail and Edith M.T Gail, W.E Jewell and his wife Myrtle, along with Walter Herrington and his wife Mary. Although this part of Orange was annexed just prior to its development, it was still sort of ""out on the fringes"" and does not show up in early Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. In the early years, that area was more closely related to Orana or West Orange communities than with the City of Orange proper. The subdividers speculated that the community of Orange would necessitate development westward to accommodate growth and subdivided the Mission Gardens tract.

The Mission Gardens subdivision tract, planned for newly annexed land was approved by Orange City Council in July of 1923. By September of 1923, the first lots for sale were announced. Some homes of ""Spanish"" and ""Old- English"" styles were to be built on some of the lots by the subdivider. In October of 1923, the tract map (seen above) was filed with the County of Orange. Assessment records for 1923 do not provide conclusive evidence as to whether the first house was constructed by the end of that year.

Reportedly, 167 North Little Main was the first house constructed within the tract. On January 16, 1924, M.E Jewell sold Lots 1-14 to Harry M. & Edith Gail. Gail, who was involved in the regional real estate industry, would go on to become the main promoter of lot sales. (Deeds 505/130). Marketing for the subdivision promoted ""home site beautiful lots and attractive homes "" (Orange Daily News, 19 23). The tract offices were advertised was being ""always open"" with Ray Sherwood being the sales manager. By 1925 advertisements for the tract included ""complete with lawn, shrubs, sprinkling system, and double garage "". "To those contemplating buying a New Home, it will pay to investigate the charming home just completed in this choice subdivision at the Western 167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
Gateway of Orange on Chapman avenue…An opportunity, don't wait. Drive out and investigate immediately…Watch Orange Grow West". (Orange Daily News, 1925).

Newspaper articles from 1923 reveal that the original subdivision owners fought to preserve the trees that lined the lots and streets. "’Woodman, spare that tree’ this plea, theoretically, was made before the city council late yesterday afternoon in the matter of laying sidewalks on ‘Little Main’ in the newly opened Mission Gardens tract, when Harry Gail, who with W.A Jewell, Los Angeles, is opening the subdivision, appeared before the city in an effort to save a row of beautiful walnut trees bordering the tract. A fight to win the ability to keep the trees for his tract was waged by the local subdivider who plans to utilize their overspreading grandeur to enhance the beauty of the homesites”- Orange Daily News. 1927 saw a newspaper article claiming that the Mission Gardens lots had “future profits assured in Orange’s new line of development”.

Correspondence with the Orange County Tax Asses sor’s office revealed the following information about the lot on record with the County:

Lot History:
• 1924 Jan 16 -- Harry M. & Edith Gail sell Lot 7 to W.O. & Elsie M. Hart (Deeds 505/131) • 1924 Jul—A fire partially damages the interior of the home. • 1924 Dec -- Assessment records show that the house is already on the property. ($1750 improvement) (OCA 1924 12/211)
• 1925 -- W. O. Hart lives at this address (Then called 167 N. Main) • 1927 Dec 22 -- Hart sells to [Walter G. &] Clara M. Smith (OR 118/139) • 1928-1930 -- C. C. Bonebrake gives this as his address. • 1938 Apr 21 -- Smith sells to Elmer N. & Blenda J. Swift (OR 936/256) • 1939 Feb 24 -- Alice K. Whitsell files a notice (OR 983/195) • 1944 Mar 29 -- Elmer N. Swift sells his interest in the property to Blenda J. Swift (OR 1241/357) • 1945 Nov 29 -- Blenda J. (Swift) McNamara sells to Kirschner & Elsie De Loge (OR 1372/130) • 1946 Sept 3 -- De Loge sells to Carl E. & Lydia C. Schroeder (OR 1447/303) [Undoubtedly an investment property, as the Schroeders did not live there] • 1953 Dec 15 -- Schroeder sells to Melvin & Georgia L. Manell (OR 2633/~275) • 1965 Apr 12 -- The Manells still own the property.
• 1977 May 9 -- Melvin Manell sells his interest in the lot to Georgia L. Manell (OR 12194/109) • 1981 Jan 1 -- Georgia Manell still seems to own the lot. • 1997 Feb 27 -- Judith Butler and possibly Sunny Woodard give this as their address. • 2014 Aug 14 -- Sold.
• 2018 Nov 16 -- Sold.

4.5 Batchelder Tile Company
Ernest Allan Batchelder was born in Francistown, New Hamp shire in 1876. After the death of his mother in his childhood, he was sent to live with his uncle in the small industrial City of Nashua. His uncle was a carpenter and school him in the art of craftsmanship. When he reached college age, Ernest raised enoug h money to enter the 167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
Massachusetts Normal Art Institute in Boston , where he studied to become a teacher of drawing and manual training in the public schools.

After graduation in 1899, Batchelder was employed in the Boston area and , in 1901, was picked by Denman W.

Ross, a professor of art at Harvard, to be an instructor in Ross’s Harvard Summer School of Design. Ross was an enormous influence on Batchelder’s intellectual development and seemed to have stimulated his ambition, for that same year, he moved to California, eventually settling in Pasadena, where he got a job at the Throop Polytechnic Institute teaching design and manual training.

During his eight years at Throop, Batchelder established his reputation in the field of Arts and Crafts. Always ambitious, he looked to activities that would promote his interests outside the confines of Southern California.

Concerned that the Arts and Crafts movement in the southwestern United States was not going to be represented at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition i n St. Louis in 1904 he organized an exhibit of the work of California and Native American craftsmen. He also broadened his knowledge of the work of British and European craftsman by going on two European tours. IN the summers he was a mainstay of the summe r school of the Handicraft Guild in Minneapolis and at the same time began writing articles for Gustav Stickley’s The Craftsman and for other journals. This writing formed the background for two books, The Principles of Design (1908), and Design in Theory and Practice (1910), both of which were based on the “pure design” theory of Denman Ross. In 1909 he bought property on Pasadena’s Arroyo Seco and built a house and studio where he and a few students from Throop would found a school of handicrafts.

As early as 1910, the school became a shop to produce decorative tile. Precisely what made Batchelder turn from general manual training to a specialization in tiles is not known. His only avowed source of inspiration was Henry Mercer’s Moravian tile, although he never adopted Mercer’s high glazes or his sometimes -bizarre ornament.

Batchelder chose more subtle, controlled imagery.

Batchelder’s own decorative vocabulary often involved designs based on the illustrations in his two books- Viking ships, medieval castles, musicians, paired birds, and abstractions. The tiles were cast into key molds from which production molds were made. In the early years, the clay was hand-pressed into the molds and then air-dried. Some were bisque -fired then hand -colored and refired. Others were colored first and then fired. These were the trademark Batchelder tiles with the characteristic’s matte or engobe finish, the understated look appropriate for Craftsman architecture.

After 1920 with the coming of the Spanish Revival and the ch ange in taste, Batchelder’s color palette would pick up with the use of glazes and bright colors, largely due to the expertise of Ivan Branham, a graduate in ceramic engineering from the University of Illinois, whom he employed in 1922. Batchelder also liked Branham’s ventures in Spanish-Moresque designs and Mayan glyphs; he even added Art Deco tiles to Batchelder’s inventory.

There were other hands besides Branham’s in the design of the tiles- almost from the beginning. For example, one of his early students, Anne Harnett, was chiefly responsible for the wonderful panels of scenes from Holland that were once the pride of the Dutch Chocolate Shop (1914) on Sixth Street in downtown Los Angeles. Undoubtedly there were others.

In the early years of his tile ma king, Batchelder bought bags of already mixed clay. Later his chief source was in the Alberhill-Corona area of Southern California. In the twenties he bought raw materials from the Lincoln Clay Products Company in Placer County and a small amount from Sant a Monica. Bentonite came from near Amboy 167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
in San Bernardino County. Probably the finest display of Batchelder’s tiles is in the lobby of the Fine Arts Building (1925) on Seventh Street in Downtown Los Angeles, but there are many competitors for this title. His largest commission was for the interior of the chapel at the College of St. Catherine’s (1923) in St. Paul, Minnesota. Indeed, Batchelder’s popularity extended far beyond Southern California. His fountains, fireplaces, bathrooms, swimming pools, and other installations can be found across the United States.

Batchelder never developed a strong talent for business. Presumably, that is why he took on Frederick L. Brown in 1912 and Lucian H. Wilson in 1920 as partners. Since Batchelder’s factory records ha ve never been found, we do not really know what their duties were, but they seem not to have had any part in the design process or in the actual production of the tiles.

After his business failed in 1932, Batchelder applied himself to many civic duties in Pasadena. In 1938, as the Depression was ebbing, Batchelder, under the influence of a former employee, William Manker, turned to the making of slip -cast ware. Although su ccessful at this totally different ceramic enterprise, Batchelder’s greatest accomplishments were in tile making. He designed and produced vast amounts of tiles, employing at the height of production, almost 175 workers. The tiles value lies in the fact th at they brought beauty to so many American houses and institutions.

5. Resource Significance and Character-Defining Features The City of Orange has criteria for evaluating historic districts, but not for evaluating individual resources, such as the resource property. While there is potential for this resource to contribute to a Mission Gardens Historic District if the City deems that feasible in the future, this report focuses on the individual significance of the property. Therefore, no further consideration of the City’s criteria is provided in this report.

To establish the significance of the home, the National Register of Historic Places, and California Register of Historical Resources criteria can be applied.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criteria
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess at least one of the following:

A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

National Register District Considerations
A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. • A district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a wide variety of resources. The identity of a distinct results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties. For example, a distinct can reflect one principal activity, such as a mill or a 167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
ranch, or it can encompass several interrelated activities, such as an area that includes industrial, residential, or commercial buildings, sites, structures, or objects. A district can also be a grouping of archeological sites related primarily by their common components; these types of districts often will not visually represent a specific historic environment

California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Criteria

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

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

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

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

For the purposes of this report, the evaluation of significance under NRHP and CRHR are combined. This is denoted as A/1, B/2, C/3, and D/4.

The question of integrity is another factor that must be addressed when determining the eligibility of a resource for listing in a historic register. The Secretary of the Interior describes integrity as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” A property must retain certain intact physical features in order to convey its significance under one or more of the applicable criteria.

Integrity is judged on seven aspects; location, design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association. If a particular resource meets one of the A/1 through D/4 criteria and retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance, it is considered as an eligible “historic property” for listing in the NRHP/CRHR. Additionally, unless exceptionally significant, a property must be at least 50 years old to be eligible for listing.

5.1 Resource Eligibility
The following is a summary of the significance and integrity of the home, for evaluation. Further, see the appended DPR 523 forms (Appendix C).

5.1.1 Significance Evaluation
The resource was evaluated under the NRHP/CRHR significance criteria A/1–D/4/ as follows:

Criterion A/1: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B/2: Associated with the lives of significant persons in our past Criterion C/3: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

Criterion D/4: Have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
In summary, the resource property consists of a single parcel developed in 1923-1924 with a single-family residence in the Tudor-revival style. The property was one of, if not the first, property developed in the new Mission Gardens subdivision, which was a speculative development west of developed Orange at the time. The first owner of the resource property was William O. Hart, notable Orange citizen and newspaper magnet. Future owners C.C Bonebrake and Elmer Swift were also noteworthy business owners in Orange.

Criterion A/1: Historic Contexts: Growth of Orange, Mission Gardens, Orange Business Development (William O. Hart, CC Bonebrake, Elmer Swift).

Under Criterion A/1, this building was constructed in the early part of the 20th century during the transition between “growing up” and “growing out”. After World War I, businesses began moving further and further west from downtown. State Highway 101 came down West Chapman as far as Main Street, before turning south towards Santa Ana. This corner is where subdivision developers focused their Mission Gardens neighborhood at.

Since this was midway between Orange and Santa Ana, it was dubbed “Orana”. In the early part of the 20th century, the resource property and surrounding lands were mostly developed with groves. Aerial photography shows that the subdivision was developed on the edge of numerous acres of orange groves. Historic aerial photographs from 1946 show that there was a residence, an outbuilding, and groves in the project area and nearby properties were similarly developed (County of Orange var.). An aerial photograph from 1960 confirm the fast westward expansion of Orange, and also shows that considerable development had taken place on the surrounding properties.

As the first completed house in the Mission Gardens subdivision, this resource is indicative of a historically significant event in Orange, the westward expansion of the original business and residential district. As a residence constructed with a timely style and craftsmanship, draws a link between the early success of businesses in Orange, and the need for westward expansion and growth.

Further, this resource is tied to significant business owners within the City of Orange.

William O. Hart
Born in Iowa, William Ord Hart in 1885, Hart would become one of Orange’s most revered residents. The publisher of the Orange News and the postmaster of the town, Hart arrived in Orange from Berkeley in 1910 and would go on to marry Elsie M. Clough. They would have five children together, all of whom lived in the resource property. Hart purchased the home for 167 North Little Main from Harry Gail, one of the subdivision developers, who had been advertising his Mission Gardens development in Hart’s newspaper. The house was built in 1923 and the family moved in shortly thereafter.

Casey and Cecil Bonebrake
Casey (C.C) Bonebrake and his family moved into the resource property in 1929, but his connection with Little Main goes back to its origins. The city planner for both Santa Ana and Orange, Bonebrake’s signature can be found on the original tract drawings for Mission Gardens as the City Engineer. While CC was an important figure at City Hall, his wife Cecil, was the president of the Women’s Club and active in society events. They raised three children and would see their daughter Margaret get married at the resource property. The family rented the home at 167 North Little Main from Clara and Walter Smith, and a cancelled check found in the resource property attic, shows that in 1930, the cost to rent the home was $35/month.

Elmer Swift
167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
The owner of Orange Pharmacy, Elmer Swift purchased 167 North Little Main in April 1938 with his wife Blenda. The family appears in the newspapers for minor injuries to their children during their residency.

Orange Pharmacy was originally located at 106 North Glassel Street (extant).

167 North Little Main Street is significant on the local level of significance for its association with the growth of Orange, and for its association with the development of Orange’s business affiliations.

Criterion B/2: Not significant. Although William O. Hart and C.C Bonebrake, along with Elmer Smith were all prominent Orange businessmen, their association falls under Criterion A.

Criterion C/3: Historic Contexts: Residential Development/Styles of Orange, Batchelder Tile Company

167 North Little Main is significant on the local level of significance for its unique and rare Tudor revival style and for its associated craftsmanship as seen through the use of Batchelder tiles.

The subject property at 167 North Little Main is a 1 ½ story single family home constructed in 1923 in the Tudor Revival style and features a front facing gable with wing, one of the subsections of Tudor Revival according to Virginia McAlester.2 The residence features steeply pitched cross-gable roofs; stucco over wood frame construction; a primary focal window; and a concrete foundation. The residence also features a stucco chimney with interior fireplace ornamentation.

The main façade prominently features a prominent front-facing clipped gable that is steeply pitched. The southern façade is dominated by a gable end, also steeply pitched and clipped. The entry porch features a solid wood door. Fenestration of the primary façade consists primarily of arched, wooden frame and sash, divided light windows, along with casement windows. Modifications to the resource are minimal and consist of the replacement of a southern façade entry door, the alteration of location of the front door, and a small dormer addition on the rear façade. There was also the application of a top-coat of fine sand finish stucco across all surfaces in a historically appropriate finish.3
The Tudor Revival style of architecture rose to prominence in the early 20th century. It was a dominant style of domestic building for a wide range of American cities.4 Popular in Orange in the 1920s and 1930s, Tudor Revival architecture is loosely based on a variety of late Medieval English styles and influences, but unlike some English prototypes, Tudor Revival style houses exhibit steeply pitched gable roofs that dominate the facades.

Other character defining features include the use of stucco as well as wood cladding and veneer, along with tall wood windows. Decorative half-timbering is only present in about 1/3 of Tudor examples.5 The style is defined by its decorative use of multiple materials – including brick, stone, and/or stucco – as well as its use of casement windows, irregular massing, and the use of the Tudor arch.6 The style’s flexibility allows for great variation of expression and the individualization of each house’s plan and decor to the builder or owner.7

2 Virginia McAlester, 458
3 Verified through original stucco sample.
4 Mcalester, 454
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid. 466.
167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
In its current appearance, 167 North Little Main features several character defining features that support the Tudor Revival style of architecture. These include two-story stucco-clad structure, a prominent front gable, a steeply pitched cross gable main roof, and the arched focal windows on the front facade. The clipped gable ends are also character defining, along with the arched front perimeter wall. The resource also retains its original wooden windows, including the arched windows that exists on the main façade. According to Virginia McAlester, American Tudor homes commonly use a combination of casement and double-hung windows, and typically had one or more groupings of these wooden or metal windows. Focal windows, such as what is seen on the main elevation of this residence, were a typical elaboration. All of these elements showcase that 167 North Little Main is an good, intact example of Tudor Revival style architecture remaining in the City of Orange.

Criterion D/4: The resource was constructed using common materials and methods for the time. No evidence was found that suggested the property may yield important information in prehistory or history. 167 North Little Main is not significant under Criterion D with the current research and knowledge.

5.1.4 Criteria Considerations
The resource is well over 50 years of age and is a privately owned single-family residence. Therefore, no criteria considerations apply.

5.1.5 Integrity of the Resource
To be eligible for listing under any criteria, a potential historic resource must retain integrity. According to the National Park Service (NPS), the integrity of a resource is determined by the ability of that resource to convey its significance. There is no hard-and-fast rule about how many of the seven aspects of integrity a resource must retain to convey its significance, since each aspect of integrity applies differently to each of the four significance criteria. NPS guidance does state, however, that a property that retains only the Feeling and Association aspects of integrity cannot be eligible due to these aspects’ higher level of subjectivity.

What follows is an evaluation of integrity only; see the preceding section for an evaluation of significance and the following section for a final eligibility conclusion.

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of location to convey its significan ce. 167 North Little Main was constructed in the Mission Gardens subdivision. The house has not been moved since its construction, retaining integrity of location.

Setting: The physical environment of a historic property. 167 North Little Main has been sited on the same parcel its original construction in 1923. Although the surrounding areas were originally orange groves, the single -family residence setting of the property has not changed.

The house’s setting within the p hysical environment of Orange and the surrounding single -family residence neighborhood in the Mission Gardens subdivision remains intact. Some homes in the neighborhood have been constructed or remodeled since 1923, which does not adversely impact the sett ing. The surrounding areas have been developed since the construction of the home - which does degrade the integrity of the broader setting but not the immediate setting.
167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
Design: Design is defined as the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of design to convey its significance. The Tudor Revival house retains integrity of design as it contains elements distinctive to the Tudor Revival style. Character-defining features such as steeply pitched roofs with a dominating clipped front gable, multi -pane windows, stucco, and focal arched windows are present on this house. These character-defining elements, coupled with the general form, plan and massing of the Tudor Revival style, display the integrity needed to support designation under Criterion C.

Having been modified very little since the time of construction, the residence expresses a high degree of design integrity and demonstrates eligibility for designatio n under Criterion C – Architecture for embodying the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style, type and period. No large additions have been made to the original building and the only addition was an addition to an original dormer.

The changes that were made, such as the replacement of the front door, side door, and new rear door follow the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation by being made in-kind and are reversible. These changes do not impact the integrity of design, as they do not impact the form, plan, space, structure, or Tudor Revival Style. The modifications, summarized in the construction history, follow the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The property is able to continue to convey the original design to those observing it, and remains eligible for designation under Criterion C.

Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a pattern or configuration or form a historic property.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of materials to convey its significance. The vast majority of the fabric appears original throughout the house. The house retains all original wood windows, it retains it’s original front door, and original chimney. The alterations to materials that were made complement the original structure with in-kind or compatible materials. The wooden windows have been repaired and are in good condition. The skim coat of stucco was done in the historically accurate finish- also improving the integrity of materials. Overall, the structure demonstrates a level of integrity that strongly supports designation under Criterion C.

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

The house does retain sufficient integrity of workmanship to convey its significance. The high integrity of workmanship is demonstrated in the high standard of construction. Original construction designs, fabrication, and finishing details, such as the front elevation focal windows and clipped gable e nds, support integrity of workmanship and designation under Criterion C.

Feeling: The property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of feeling to convey its significanc e. The property still reflects the aesthetic design and the setting of the original design and location. Additionally, since few modifications have been made, the house retains and expresses integrity of feeling and supports designation under Criterion C.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of association to convey its significance. The property has not been 167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
significantly altered, retaining the original designed elements.

5.3 Eligibility Summary
167 North Little Main Street is significant at the local level of the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A in the themes of community planning and social history for being associated with the westward expansion of the City of Orange, along with being associated with prominent businessmen of Orange, including William O. Hart. The property is also significant at the local level of significance with themes of architecture under Criterion C for its rare and intact Tudor Revival architecture within the City of Orange. 167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

6. Findings and Conclusions
This Determination of Eligibility finds that 167 North Little Main Street is significant at the local level of the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A in the themes of community planning and social history for being associated with the westward expansion of the City of Orange, along with being associated with prominent businessmen of Orange, including William O. Hart. The property is also significant at the local level of significance with themes of architecture under Criterion C for its rare and intact Tudor Revival architecture within the City of Orange.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
Appendix A- Bibliography

American Institute of Architects. Historical Directory of American Architects Accessed December 2019.

Ancestry.com. United States Federal Census, 1900-1940 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2004. Accessed March 2021.

Ancestry.com. U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Accessed March 2021.

California Title Search Company. 167 North Little Main Chain of Title Report. April 2021.

City of Orange. Planning Department. Survey of Orange [PDF on-line]. Accessed March 2021.

City of Orange. Planning Department. Digitized Permit Records. Accessed March 2021.

County of Orange, Office of the Recorder, Plat Maps. Accessed April 2021.

GoogleMaps. Accessed March-July 2021.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Orange , CA. Sanborn.umi.com, Accessed March 2021.

Union Title Insurance and Trust Company, Catalog of Recorded Plats in Orange County. California.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
Appendix B- Preparer’s Qualifications

Ione R. Stiegler, FAIA
Principal Architect
IS Architecture
Ione R. Stiegler, FAIA is the Principal Architect for IS Architecture. Ms. Stiegler has considerable experience in the numerous issues distinctly associated with historic projects. Historic Preservation involves exhaustive studies and reports that determine the historic signifi cance and optimal approach for each project. Ms. Stiegler has successfully prepared such reports for more than 70 structures, including historic register designations, building condition assessments, reconnaissance surveys, and HABS documentation. In addit ion, the firm possesses an expertise in the technical, aesthetic, building code, Americans with Disability Act (ADA), structural and agency review aspects of architectural design for historic structures. Ms. Stiegler’s qualifications exceed the requirement s established by the National Park Service, for History, Architectural History, Architecture, and Historic Architecture, as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61.

Kelsey Kaline, MHC/MPL
Historic Preservation Specialist/Architectural Historian IS Architecture
Kelsey Kaline, MHC/MPL is a Historic Preservation Specialist and Architectural Historian at IS Architecture. Ms.

Kaline has project experience ranging from National Register of Historic Places nominations , cultural landscape documentations and historic context statements, to determinations of eligibility on individual resources, and local nominations. Ms. Kaline holds Master of Heritage Conservation and Master of Planning degrees from the University of Sou thern California and exceeds the requirements established by the National Park Service for History and Architectural History as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
Appendix C- Supplemental Information Attachments

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

ATTACHMENT A
Building Development Information

A.1 Historic Aerials
A.2

Site Plan with Building Footprint

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

A.1 – Historic Aerials (1946)

1946 Aerial showing West Chapman Avenue on the south. The image shows that Mission Gardens subdivision was still relatively “westward” expansion of Orange, surrounded by agriculture land. Courtesy of Historic Aerials.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
A.1 – Historic Aerials (1963)

1963 Aerial showing West Chapman Avenue on the south and West Maple in the center. The rapid development of Main Street, leading to the renaming of Main Street to Little Main Street is shown. Courtesy of Historic Aerials.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
A.2 – Site Plan with Building Footprint

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

ATTACHMENT B
Ownership and Occupant Information

B.1 Chain of Title
B.2 City Directory Listing of Occupants
B.3 Deed from Time of Construction

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

B.1 – Chain of Title

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
B.2 – City Directory Listing of Occupants

Year Name(s)
1923-1928 William O. Hart, Elsie M. Hart
1929-1937 Casey Bonebrake, Cecil Bonebrake
1928-1944 Elmer N. Swift, Blenda J. Swift

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
B.3 – Deed From Time of Construction

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
B.3 – Hart Family Acquisition Deed

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

ATTACHMENT C
Maps

C.1 USGS Maps
1896
1932
1949
C.2 Subdivision Map (1,2)

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
C.1 – USGS Map (1896)

Courtesy of USGS.gov
167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
C.1 – USGS Map (1932)

Courtesy of USGS.gov
167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
C.2 – USGS Map (1949)

Courtesy of USGS.gov
167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
C.3 – Subdivision Map (Sheet 1 of 2)

C.3 – Subdivision Map (Sheet 2 of 2)

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

ATTACHMENT D
Photographs

D.1 Current Photographs – West (Main) Elevation
D.2 Current Photographs – North Elevation
D.3 Current Photographs – East (Rear) Elevation
D.4 Current Photographs – South Elevation
D.5 Current Photographs – Site Features
D.6 Current Photographs – Interior Features

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)

D.1-1. Main Elevation Context View Looking East, Real Estate Listing 2018.

D.1-2. Main Elevation, Front View looking Northeast. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information

D.1-3. Main Elevation, Focal Window. IS Architecture, 2021.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)

D.1-4. Main Elevation, Front Door and Patio. Real Estate Listing, 2018.

D.1-5. Main Elevation, Front Façade, Patio, and Perimeter Wall. Real Estate Listing, 2018.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)

D.1-6. Main Elevation, Front Door Detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)

D.2-5. Main Elevation, Central Windows Detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.2– Current Photographs (North Elevation)

D.2-1. North Elevation, Looking West. IS Architecture, 2021

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.2– Current Photographs (North Elevation)

D.2-1. North Elevation, Looking East. IS Architecture, 2021

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.3 – Current Photographs (East (Rear) Elevation)

D.3.1. Rear Elevation, Looking West. Dormer addition visible. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.3.2. Rear Elevation, Looking Southwest. Dormer addition and garage visible. 2018.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.3 – Current Photographs (East (Rear) Elevation)

D.3-3. Rear Elevation window detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.3 – Current Photographs (North Elevation)

D.3-4. Rear Elevation Overview. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.3-5. Rear Elevation Original Dormer vs Addition. IS Architecture, 2021.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.3 – Current Photographs (East (Rear) Elevation)

D.3-6. Rear Elevation window detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.4 – Current Photographs (South Elevation)

D.4-1. South Elevation Overview. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.4-2. South Elevation Context. IS Architecture, 2021.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.4 – Current Photographs (South Elevation)

D.4-3. South Elevation Window Detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.4-4. South Elevation Second Level Window Detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.5 – Current Photographs (Site Features)

D.5.1. Looking southeast to garage. Real Estate Listing 2018.

D.5-2. Garage side entry detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.5 – Current Photographs (Site Features)

D.5.3. Public Right of Way and Driveway Gate. Real Estate Listing 2018.

D.5-4. Public Right of Way and Driveway Gate. Real Estate Listing 2018.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.5 – Current Photographs (Site Features)

D.5-5. Secondary Wooden Driveway Gate. IS Architecture, 2021.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.6 – Current Photographs (Interior Features)

D.6.1. Original Batchelder Tile Fireplace. Real Estate Listing 2018.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
D.6 – Current Photographs (Interior Features)

D.6.2. Original Batchelder Tile Fireplace Detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

1 ATTACHMENT E
Supplemental Documentation

E.1 Criterion A Documentation

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

2 E.1 Criterion A Documentation

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

3 E.1 Criterion A Documentation

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

4 E.2 Criterion B Documentation

E 2-1. Photo of William Hart.

167 North Little Main Street- Determination of Eligibility

5 Appendix D- DPR Forms (Attached)

1 State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 5S1
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P1. Other Identifier: N/A
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted *a. County: Orange *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Orange Date: 1923
c. Address: 167 North Little Main City: Orange Zip: 92868 d. UTM: Zone 33; 78914 mE/ -117.86622 mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data:

*P3a. Description:

*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2 - Single family property *P4. Resources Present: ☒Building ☐Structure ☐Object ☐Site ☐District ☐Element of District ☐Other (Isolates, etc.)

P5b. Description of Photo:

Main Elevation, Looking
Northeast.

Real Estate Listing 2020.

*P6. Date Constructed/Age: ☒
Historic ☐Prehistoric ☐Both
1923

*P7. Owner and Address:

Michael and Jerrica Knight
167 North Little Main
Orange, CA 92868

*P8. Recorded by:

IS Architecture
5645 La Jolla Boulevard
La Jolla, California 92037

P9. Date Recorded:

May 2021
*P10. Survey Type:

Intensive/pedestrian
*P11. Report Citation: None.
*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): Supplemental Attachments P5a. Photo or Drawing

APN: 039-041-03
Legal Description: Lot 7, Tract 515, Mission Gardens, in the City of Orange, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 18, page 19, of miscellaneous maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county.
167 North Little Main was built in 1923 in the Tudor Revival architectural style. Located in the Mission Gardens Subdivision of Orange, California, this 1,666 square foot, 1 ½ story, single-family house, faces west on a 6,050 square foot, rectangular lot. The lot is bound on the west by Little Main Street, and residential lots to the north, south, and east. Little Main Street runs north to south from West Chapman university, north until it intersects with North Main Street at the intersection of West Maple Avenue. (Continued Pg. 3)

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House *NRHP Status Code: 5S1

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
B1. Historic Name: N/A
B2. Common Name: N/A
B3. Original Use: Single Family Residence B4. Present Use: Single Family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Tudor Revival
*B6. Construction History:

*B7. Moved? ☒No ☐Yes ☐Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: N/A

B9a. Architect: Unknown. b. Builder: Unknown.

*B10. Significance Theme: Community Development, Residential Architecture Area: City of Orange

Period of Significance: 1923-1944 Property Type: HP2 - Single family property Applicable Criteria: A/1,C/3

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

N/A

*B12. References: See endnotes and Attachment F.

B13. Remarks: None.

*B14. Evaluator: IS Architecture

*Date of Evaluation: May 2021

(This space reserved for official comments.)
The resource property was constructed in the “Old -English” style now known as Tudor Revival style between 1923 - 1924 and was one of the first homes built in the Mission Gardens tract. No exact date was recorded or discovered though tax assessor records. Newspaper articles indicate that a fire damaged a portion of the interior in July of 1924.

This was repaired and did not damage the exterior of the home. (Continued Pg. 5)

167 North Little Main Street is significant at the local level of the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A in the themes of community planning and social history for being associated with the westward expansion of the City of Orange, along with being associated with prominent businessmen of Orange, including William O. Hart. The property is also significant at the local level of significance with themes of architecture under Criterion C for its rare and intact Tudor Revival architecture within the City of Orange. (Continued Pg. 6) N

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

P3a. Description: Continued
North Little Main Street is a residential street, lined with mature trees and public sidewalks, along with dual sided street parking. The surrounding neighborhood has similarly scaled, single-family residences in a variety of styles.

The building construction is a standard wood frame on a concrete foundation, with stucco siding finish.1 Overall, the condition is very good. The house demonstrates many character defining features of the Tudor Revival style including two-story stucco-clad structure, a prominent front gable, a steeply pitched cross gable main roof, along with clipped gable ends. There are decorative trim elements, elaborate arched windows, and a prominent stucco chimney.2 The front of the house faces west towards North Little Main, with a public sidewalk, curb, and gutter. From the public sidewalk, a gate provides egress onto the property. A Hollywood style concrete driveway leads to the south of the house. A wide front lawn consists of a mature orange tree and planting areas. A low stucco patio wall with two curved steps and a wooden rail detail surrounds the front patio. The front patio is accessed via a curved concrete step.
167 North Little Main is composed of numerous key Tudor Revival features: a steeply pitched side-gable main roof with clipped gable end, shingled roof, painted bargeboards, and fine-sand finish stucco. A detached garage with clipped gable roof is located to the southeast of the house accessed by the Hollywood-style driveway. The garage features a wood paneled sliding garage door on the west elevation. The north elevation features a door and double- hung window.

West (Main) Elevation
The western elevation of the dwelling faces Little Main Street with a cross-gabled roof. The front of the gable is clipped. The main entrance is accessed via the front patio surrounded by stucco walls. A curved concrete step leads to the concrete patio. The patio is set into the “L” of the dwelling’s cross-gabled structure. A stucco chimney is located near the intersection of the gables and is visible projecting from the roofline. The dwelling has a fine-sand stucco finish and projecting roofline. The elevation visually consists of three bays, the northern gable end, the central side gable, and the projecting south bay.

The northernmost bay is the focal point of the elevation with a prominent clipped gable roof, dormer vent, and tripartite, divided lite, arched wooden windows with putty glazing. The windows have painted trim. The main entrance is located on the south side of the front gable end. The front door consists of a solid wood door with speakeasy and art deco style metal hardware, a metal security door, and 5-light divided wooden sidelights. A metal light fixture is affixed to the west of the sidelights.

The southern bay projects about five feet from the main wall of the side gable. Two 6-lite, wooden, casement windows are located on the west end of the projection. A single six-lite, wooden, casement window is located on

1 Visual observation of 167 North Little Main Street by IS Architecture. 2 Although there is no half timbering on this Tudor-revival structure, that is true of 2/3 of all Tudor Revival architecture (McAlester p449)

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

either side of the projection (north, south). The windows have painted wooden trim.

North Elevation
The north elevation is the clipped gable end of the crossed gable roofline. It is composed of fine sand finish stucco.

The side of the projecting front gable has a 10 lite, wooden, casement window with protruding sill.

The elevation is dominated by four original, double-hung, six-over-one lite, wood windows. All the windows have wood sills, wood sashes and lugs, and exterior wooden stops.

East (Rear) Elevation
The rear elevation is visually dominated by the long side-gable elevation. The clipped gables on the north and south elevations are visible. A projecting wooden framed shed porch roof extends from the first level.

The second level of the elevation features two dormers. The southern dormer extends from the second level and features two wooden, six-lite, awning windows. The dormer has thin wood siding. The northern dormer was an addition. It protrudes further than the previous bay and features three, single lite, wooden windows. The dormer features a slight pitch, at less of an angle than the other dormer. A single-lite window is also located on the south elevation of the dormer.

The first level has mirrored bays. The south bay has a wooden 8-lite casement window with protruding sill. Centered in the bay is a wooden door with 8-lite inset and modern security hardware. A single concrete step and pad lead to the door. A square 9-lite casement window with protruding sill is located directly north of this. The second bay is a mirror of this, featuring the square 9-lite casement, then the door, and then the larger rectangular casement window.

South Elevation
The south elevation of the home is flanked by the concrete Hollywood style driveway. The south elevation is the clipped gable end of the primary cross gable of the home’s massing. The south elevation features a centered second story window opening which consists of two, wooden, double-hung, 6-over-1 windows with decorative lugs and sill.

An attic vent is located above these windows. Two larger vertical, louvered, vents are located to each side of the second story window between the first and second story levels.

The first level of the south elevation is split into three bays that are split by the central side entrance. The first bay, located to the west has a single 6-lite, wooden casement window with sill. This window is set into the slope of the gable. The second bay features a set of two, wooden, four-over-1, double hung windows with decorative lugs and sill.

A metal security light hangs centered over the central side door, which is a wooden door with louvered panel. The third bay features two sets of dual, wooden, 6-lite casement windows. The modern utility box and metal pipes are also located on this façade.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

Site Features:

Front Yard
The front of the property is partially obscured by a hedge wall and a mechanized, wood and iron, gate that provides egress to the driveway. A wide front yard spans the full length of the property. A mature orange tree is located to the north of the main focal windows.

Rear Yard
The dwelling transitions from interior to exterior space with an exterior concrete flooring. The rear garden features a large grass area.

Garage
A detached two garage sits on the southwest corner of the property. The structure features a clipped gable roo f with asphalt shingles and stucco siding. The garage doors are sliding wood paneled doors. A security light is secured to the center of the west elevation of the garage. The north elevation of the garage features a wood door with painted trim, and a double-hung wooden window with decorative lugs and painted trim.

Interior Features
The home features a Batchelder Tile Company fireplace. The tile pattern uses a variety of muted colors with geometric patterns. An inset center panel features birds and a floral pattern.

*B6. Construction History: Continued
The home features a clipped gable roofline and focal arched windows and has a front entry courtyard. An original detached garage is located on the property.

Undated Changes:

At some point during the home’s history, the front door was moved. Although this change occurred, the original front door can still be read as a historic opening through the use of a full-length window and side-lites.

A second story rear dormer addition was completed, most likely post 1970s. The addition is a partially projecting, partial width, second story addition on the rear. The siding and window types are differentiated from the rest of the historic fabric. The addition is not visible from any public right-of-way.

Other small changes include adding modern security screens to doors, and the addition of a second rear entrance door on the east elevation.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

*B10. Significance: Continued

HISTORIC CONTEXT
The history and development of Orange is well-documented and several good summaries of its history have been prepared and are readily available. The following narrative contains consolidated sections of a history authored by notable local/regional historian Phil Brigandi for the Orange Public Library (2011). To read it in its entirety and with accompanying photographs, visit http://www.cityoforange.org/938/Introduction.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ORANGE
The City of Orange was founded in 1871 on part of the old Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. For generations, the land had been a cattle ranch, owned by the Yorba and Peralta families. In 1868, the rancho was divided among the many heirs and claimants, and towns and farms began to appear.

Two Los Angeles attorneys, Alfred Chapman and Andrews Glassell, bought up thousands of ac res in the area, and received additional land in return for legal services during the partition of the rancho. In 1870, Chapman had his lands subdivided and began construction of an irrigation ditch down from the Santa Ana River. In 1871, a townsite was la id out. Since it was going to be a farming community, the new town was named Richland. Chapman and Glassell were busy with their law practice, so Glassell’s brother, Captain William T. Glassell, was sent down to serve as tract agent.

He surveyed the townsite, supervised work on the irrigation ditch, planted crops, and advertised and sold land.

The original townsite was just eight city blocks, stretching from Almond to Maple avenues, between Grand and Lemon streets, with a public plaza in the center. A round the townsite were 10 -acre farm lots. In 1872 a school district was formed. 1873 saw the first general store, the first church (now the First United Methodist Church of Orange), and a post office. The citrus industry was only in its infancy in those d ays, but the name fit well with Southern California’s image, and even then, there was already talk of creating a separate Orange County. At the time, the big crops in the area were grain and raisin grapes. The first orange grove here was planted around 187 3, and the first local packing house opened in 1881.

The Southern Pacific built the first railroad through the area in 1877 but missed Orange by several miles. In 1887, the Santa Fe arrived, touching off a frantic real estate boom. Farmland was subdivided into residential lots, and several new towns were laid out around Orange. El Modena and Olive survived, but St. James and McPherson soon faded.

To beautify the town, a circular park was laid out in the center of the Plaza Square, and the women raised the money for an elegant fountain (now located outside the Orange Public Library & History Center).

In 1888, the City of Orange was incorporated, with a population of about 1,500. A year later, Orange County was formed out of the southern end of Los Angeles County. But by then, the real estate boom was winding down, and to make matters worse, a blight destroyed many of the local vineyards.

It was only then that oranges began to dominate the local economy. The railroads allowed fresh fruit to be shipped throughout the country. Local growers banded together to form cooperative packing houses, and the cooperatives formed the Southern California Fruit Exchange (now known as Sunkist Growers) to market their crop. By the 1920s, about a third of Orange’s labor force worked in the citrus industry, and there were a dozen packing houses in the area.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

The Santiago Orange Growers Association was the largest Valencia packing house in the world then. Their old packing house was later taken over by Villa Park Orchards and operated until 2006 – the last citrus packing house to close in Orange County.

Downtown Orange still reflects the success of the citrus industry in the early 1900s. Many of the business blocks around the Plaza were built between 1905 and 1930. There are also more than 1,400 pre -1940 homes in Orange, representing a wealth of architectural styles from Victorian to Streamline Moderne. Much of old downtown Orange is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Depression of the 1930s, and the world war that followed, brought many challenges to Orange. The community struggled to take care of its own until Federal relief programs began. Government work programs such as the WPA also built several projects in town, including much of the original construction at the Orange City Park (now W.O. Hart Park). During World War II, hundreds of our young men and women served in the Armed Forces, while hundreds more worked in manufacturing plants, and purchased war bonds and saving stamps to support the war effort.

After the war, Southern California’s population began to surge. It took a few years for the growth to reach Orange.

The first large-scale subdivision (98 homes) was built in 1950. The first freeway (SR 55) came through town in 1962.

Between 1950 and 1970, Orange’s population jumped from 10,000 to 77,000. 3 Residential Development
The development of Orange's early residential neighborhoods mirrored the growth of downtown in many ways. The earliest homes in Orange were built on the original eight -block townsite or were scattered across the outlying farm lots. It was not until the mid-1880s that the farm lots surrounding the townsite began to be subdivided for residential development. During the brief real estate "boom" of 1886 -88, more than a dozen su bdivisions were laid out downtown, but many of the lots were simply held for speculation, and when the boom died down, returned to agricultural use.

It was not until after 1900, when the citrus industry began to drive the local economy, that the downtown neighborhoods began to fill out. New tracts were subdivided, and old 1880s lots re-surveyed. Homes began appearing further and further from the Plaza, especially to the east, and to the south, where the new Nutwood Place tract near the Santiago Creek (1906) became a desirable place to live.

By the mid -1920s, almost all the land we now think of as Old Towne Orange had been subdivided, and residential neighborhoods were growing up more and more to the west, towards Main Street. Neighborhoods began to fill in, creating interesting assortment of styles on a single block. A two -story Victorian farmhouse on the corner might be surrounded by a mix of Bungalows and Mediterranean style homes, with a few Classical Revivals, or perhaps a Tudor style home tossed in here and there. As late as the 1970s, new homes were still being built on the few remaining vacant lots downtown.

Orange's historic residential districts reflect the economic life of the community. The area was very middle class, with individual ranchers workin g 10-20 acres, and local businessmen making up the backbone of the local economy. So

3 A Brief History of Orange, The Plaza City

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

instead of a few grand mansions, Orange has block after block of middle- class homes. More than 1,200 pre-1940 homes still survive in the downtown area.4
Residential Styles
In the days before tract homes, residential architecture in Orange and broader southern California showed great variety. Here are some broad categories; most had many variations and styles. Some homes combine elements from various styles, a reflection of the owner's tastes, or the builder's whims. Part of what gives these homes their charm is their individuality.

Settlement (Mostly Before 1910)
Simple in form and detail, these were some of the earliest homes in Orange. The smaller homes were often built with vertical board and batten walls. Sometimes there was a porch. Larger, two-story farmhouses might have a few Victorian details and clapboard siding. Most originally stood alone among orchards and fields.

Victorian (Popular, 1870-1900)
Known for their picturesque woodwork, steep roof lines, and ornate details, several Victorian styles were popular here including Eastlake, with its tall, vertical lines, and especially the Queen Anne, with its many decorative elements.

Victorians demonstrated the increasing prosperity of the community. Many were large, but the style could also be adapted to smaller cottages.

Classical Revival (Most Popular, 1900-1910)
With their flowing lines, and columns borrowed from ancient Greek architecture, these homes became popular with the start of the new century. Many in Orange can be found on corners, with their curved porches wrapping around two sides. But they were soon passed in popularity by the Bungalow.

Bungalow (Most Popular, 1910-1920)
The first true California style, Bungalows grew out of the Arts and Crafts movement of the early 20th Century. The emphasis was on natural materials, simple woodwork, and sometimes stone pillars or porches. Most featured horizontal lines, and porches across the front. Inside was more woodwork, with built-in cabinets and hutches. Most were smaller, middle class homes. Plans, and even pre-cut kits could be bought through mail order houses such as Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward.

Craftsman (Popular in the 1920s and 1930s)
This style shares many of the naturalistic qualities of the Bungalows, but were larger, usually two stories, with expansive eaves and other details. Sometimes shingles replaced clapboards. They also displayed more individuality; there were no kits for Craftsmen home.

Mediterranean (Popular in the 1920s and 1930s)
Another style first popularized in California, the various Mediterranean styles took their inspiration from the state's

4 https://cityoforange.org/943/Residential-Development

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

Spanish and Mexican past. They could range from simple stucco homes accented with a little tile, to grand hillside mansions with glazed brickwork and arches. Some variations were briefly popular in the 1920s, include the flat- roofed Pueblo style, and the Prairie style, with its horizontal eaves. The Mediterranean style survives today in a modern form in the stucco and tile of many tract homes.

Period Revivals (Most Popular in the 1920s)
Along with Mediterraneans, a variety of Old World and colonial styles were constructed after World War I. These included Colonial Revival, English Tudor, Cotswald Cottage, Dutch Revival, French Provincial, and whimsical storybook cottages.

Mission Gardens Subdivision
The Mission Gardens neighborhood, also called the H.M Gail Tract was created in 1923 according to Map No. 25955 filed at the County.

The H.M Gail Tract, otherwise known as Mission Gardens, is Tract No. 515. The owners of the subdivision included Harry M. Gail and Edith M.T Gail, W.E Jewell and his wife Myrtle, along with Walter Herrington and his wife Mary.

Although this part of Orange was annexed just prior to its development, it was still sort of “out on the fringes” and does not show up in early Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. In the early years, that area was more closely related to the communities of Orana or West Orange than with the City of Orange proper. The subdividers speculated that the community of Orange would necessitate development westward to accommodate growth and subdivided the Mission Gardens tract.

The Mission Gardens subdivision tract, planned for newly annexed land was approved by Orange City Council in July of 1923. By September of 1923, the first lots for sale were announced. Some homes of “Spanish” and “Old-English” styles were to be built on some of the lots by the subdivider. In October of 1923, the tract map (seen above) was filed with the County of Orange. Assessment records for 1923 do not provide conclusive evidence as to whether the first house was constructed by the end of that year.

Reportedly, 167 North Little Main was the first house constructed within the tract. On January 16, 1924, M.E Jewell sold Lots 1-14 to Harry M. & Edith Gail. Gail, who was involved in the regional real estate industry, would go on to become the main promoter of lot sales. (Deeds 505/130). Marketing for the subdivision promoted “home site beautiful lots and attractive homes” (Orange Daily News, 1923). The tract offices were advertised was being “always open” with Ray Sherwood being the sales manager. By 1925 advertisements for the tract included “complete with lawn, shrubs, sprinkling system, and double garage”. “To those contemplating buying a New Home, it will pay to investigate the charming home just completed in this choice subdivision at the Western Gateway of Orange on Chapman avenue…An opportunity, don’t wait. Drive out and investigate immediately…Watch Orange Grow West”. (Orange Daily News, 1925).

Newspaper articles from 1923 reveal that the original subdivision owners fought to preserve the trees that lined the lots and streets. “’Woodman, spare that tree’ this plea, theoretically, was made before the city council late yesterday afternoon in the matter of laying sidewalks on ‘Little Main’ in the newly opened Mission Gardens tract, when Harry

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

Gail, who with W.A Jewell, Los Angeles, is opening the subdivision, appeared before the city solons in an effort to save a row of beautiful walnut trees bordering the tract. A fight to win the artistic value of the trees for his tract was waged by the local subdivider who plans to utilize their overspreading grandeur to enhance the beauty of the homesites”- Orange Daily News. 1927 saw a newspaper article claiming that the Mission Gardens lots had “future profits assured in Orange’s new line of development”.

Correspondence with the Orange County Tax Assessor’s office revealed the following information about the lot on record with the County:

Lot History:
• 1924 Jan 16 -- Harry M. & Edith Gail sell Lot 7 to W.O. & Elsie M. Hart (Deeds 505/131) • 1924 Jul—A fire partially damages the interior of the home. • 1924 Dec -- Assessment records show that the house is already on the property. ($1750 improvement) (OCA 1924 12/211)
• 1925 -- W. O. Hart lives at this address (Then called 167 N. Main) • 1927 Dec 22 -- Hart sells to [Walter G. &] Clara M. Smith (OR 118/139) • 1928-1930 -- C. C. Bonebrake gives this as his address. • 1938 Apr 21 -- Smith sells to Elmer N. & Blenda J. Swift (OR 936/256) • 1939 Feb 24 -- Alice K. Whitsell files a notice (OR 983/195) • 1944 Mar 29 -- Elmer N. Swift sells his interest in the property to Blenda J. Swift (OR 1241/357) • 1945 Nov 29 -- Blenda J. (Swift) McNamara sells to Kirschner & Elsie De Loge (OR 1372/130) • 1946 Sept 3 -- De Loge sells to Carl E. & Lydia C. Schroeder (OR 1447/303) [Undoubtedly an investment property, as the Schroeders did not live there]
• 1953 Dec 15 -- Schroeder sells to Melvin & Georgia L. Manell (OR 2633/~275) • 1965 Apr 12 -- The Manells still own the property.
• 1977 May 9 -- Melvin Manell sells his interest in the lot to Georgia L. Manell (OR 12194/109) • 1981 Jan 1 -- Georgia Manell still seems to own the lot. • 1997 Feb 27 -- Judith Butler and possibly Sunny Woodard give this as their address. • 2014 Aug 14 -- Sold.
• 2018 Nov 16 -- Sold.

The Development of Orange
Where denoted, the following information was informed by the City of Orange Historic Context Statement compiled by Chattel Preservation Planning.

The City of Orange was centered around what is now called Old Towne Orange through the early 1920s.

Early Settlement (circa 1870 –1920)
When the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana was subdivided in the late 1860s, a Los Angeles lawyer, Alfred B. Chapman, represented several parties in the partition suit. He took about four thousand acres as payment for his fees. From this acreage, farm lots, ranging in size from ten to forty acres, were first surveyed in the fall of 1870 and divided in

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

1871, under the supervision of lawyer William T. Glassell. Eight lots in the center of newly subdivided blocks of land were set aside for use as a public square, now known as Plaza Square, or simply “the Plaza.” This square was bounded by Walnut Street (now named Maple Avenue) to the north, Grape Street (now called Grand Street) to the east, Almond Street to the south, and Lemon Street to the west. The two main streets, which intersected at the public square, were named Chapman Avenue (running east-west) and Glassell Street (north-south).

Like most Southern California communities, Orange was strongly affected by the Great Boom of the 1880s, when new settlers flocked to the state. The cross-country expansion of the railroad system and its inexpensive fares made the balmy climate in southern California even more attractive and accessible to Americans nationwide. New settlers arrived in Orange via the Santa Fe Railroad (later called the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe), which entered the city about four blocks west of the Plaza (currently the site of Depot Park/Veterans Park) in August 1887. According to one source, ...touched off by the railroad rate war, the boom of the 80s was built largely on speculation. Landowners subdivided their ranches to sell individual lots, which were often bought by speculators. In and around Orange, dozens of new subdivisions and four new townsites were laid out in 1886-1887. Promotional literature was sent out across the country extolling the virtues of Orange and its environs. Orange did its best to appear attractive, progressive, and promising to prospective buyers.”2Transportation between neighboring communities was provided by two horse-drawn streetcar systems: the Orange, McPherson & Modena and the Santa Ana, Orange & Tustin lines.

Growing Up (1900-1920)
Orange's economy expanded rapidly in the early 20th Century, and downtown grew with it. Most of the landmark buildings around the Plaza were built during this period, and residential construction increased, spreading further and further out from the center of town. Instead of single store buildings, downtown businessmen and investors built "blocks" of connected storefronts, with the upper floors often reserved for apartments or meeting rooms.

Among the major buildings that survive from this era are the Edwards Block and Cuddeback Building (both 1905), the Ainsworth Block (1907), which incorporated the 1888 Armor Building, the Ehlen and Grote Block (1908), Campbell's Opera House (1912), the Smith and Grote Building (1914), and the Kogler-Franzen Block (1916).

As downtown Orange grew up, residents no longer needed to go to Santa Ana or Anaheim for major shopping.

Saturday nights, the streets around the Plaza would be crowded with people, doing their shopping for the week.

By the end of the First World War, most of the land around downtown Orange was subdivided for residential neighborhoods. After World War I, businesses began moving further and further west from downtown. State Highway 101 came down West Chapman as far as Main Street, before turning south towards Santa Ana. A little business district developed at the corner. Since it was midway between Orange and Santa Ana, it was dubbed "Orana."
Orange also began to develop an industrial strip along either side of the Santa Fe railroad tracks. Local packing houses had always been close to the railroad, but now they were joined by several manufacturing plants, most notably Anaconda Wire and Cable.

In the late 1920s Orange's first Planning Commission proposed that all of downtown should be done over in the then- popular Mission Revival style. The buildings on the south side of the first block of East Chapman Avenue were

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

remodeled in that style in 1928, complete with red tile and stucco arches, but the coming of the Depression put an end to that project.

Residential development continued in the downtown area. New homes were built, filling in the vacant lots on many blocks, and the last few downtown subdivisions were laid out in the 1920s Tudor Revival Style Architecture for Residences

Tudor style architecture was a dominant style in many suburban neighborhoods during the early twentieth century. It was particularly popular during the 1920s and early 1930s, but fell out of fashion by the late 1930s. Early Tudor style houses from the late nineteenth century tended to be high styled and architect designed, but in the early twentieth century these high-style designs became more muted with steep gables and half-timbering. These early models tended to have walls clad in stucco, weatherboard or shingles rather than customary solid masonry. From the 1920s and 1930s, brick veneering techniques became widely used and allowed for even the most modest Tudor houses to mimic the masonry exteriors found on English prototypes.

Batchelder Tile Company
Ernest Allan Batchelder was born in Francistown, New Hampshire in 1876. After the death of his mother in his childhood, he was sent to live with his uncle in the small industrial city of Nashua. His uncle was a carpenter and school him in the art of craftsmanship. When he reached college age, Ernest raised enough money to enter the Massachusetts Normal Art Institute in Boston where he studied to become a teacher of drawing and manual training in the public schools.

After graduation in 1899, Batchelder was employed in the Boston area and in 1901 was picked by Denman W. Ross, a professor of art at Harvard, to be an instructor in Ross’s Harvard Summer School of Design. Ross was an enormous influence on Batchelder’s intellectual development and seems to have stimulated his ambition, for that same year he moved to California, eventually settling in Pasadena where he got a job at the Throop Polytechnic Institute teaching design and manual training.

During his eight years at Throop, Batchelder established his reputation in the field of Arts and Crafts. Always ambitious, he looked to activities that would promote his interests outside the confines of Southern California.

Concerned that the Arts and Crafts movement in the southwestern United States was not going to be represented at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis in 1904 he organized an exhibit of the work of California and Native American craftsmen. He also broadened his knowledge of the work of British and European craftsman by going on two European tours. IN the summers he was a mainstay of the summer school of the Handicraft Guild in Minneapolis and at the same time began writing articles for Gustav Stickley’s The Craftsman and for other journals. This writing formed the background for two books, The Principles of Design (1908), and Design in Theory and Practice (1910), both of which were based on the “pure design” theory of Denman Ross. In 1909 he bought property on Pasadena’s Arroyo Seco and built a house and studio where he and a few students from Throop would found a school of handicrafts.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

As early as 1910, the school became a shop to produce decorative tile. Precisely what made Batchelder turn from general manual training to a specialization in tiles is not known. His only avowed source of inspiration was Henry Mercer’s Moravian tile, although he never adopted Mercer’s high glazes or his sometimes-bizarre ornament.

Batchelder chose more subtle, controlled imagery.

Batchelder’s own decorative vocabulary often involved designs based on the illustrations in his two books- Viking ships, medieval castles, musicians, paired birds, and abstractions. The tiles were cast into key molds from which production molds were made. In the early years, the clay was hand-pressed into the molds and then air-dried. Some were bisque-fired then hand-colored and refired. Others were colored first and then fired. These were the trademark Batchelder tiles with the characteristic’s matte or engobe finish, the understanded look appropriate for Craftsman architecture.

After 1920 with the coming of the Spanish Revival and the change in taste, Batchelder’s color palette would pick up with the use of glazes and bright colors, largely due to the expertise of Ivan Branham, a graduate in ceramic engineering from the University of Illinois, whom he employed in 1922. Batchelder also liked Branham’s ventures in Spanish-Moresque designs and Mayan glyphs; he even added Art Deco tiles to Batchelder’s inventory.

There were other hands besides Branham’s in the design of the tiles- almost from the beginning. One of his early students, Anne Harnett, for example, was chiefly responsible for the wonderful panels of scenes from Holland that were once the pride of the Dutch Chocolate Shop (1914) on Sixth Street in downtown Los Angeles. Undoubtedly there were others.

In the early years of his tile making, Batchelder bought bags of already mixed clay. Later his chief source was in the Alberhill-Corona area of Southern California. In the twenties he bought raw materials from the Lincoln Clay Products Company in Placer County and a small amount from Santa Monica. Bentonite came from near Amboy in San Bernardino County. Probably the finest display of Batchelder’s tiles is in the lobby of the Fine Arts Building (1925) on Seventh Street in Downtown Los Angeles, but there are many competitors for this title. His largest commission was for the interior of the chapel at the College of St. Catherine’s (1923) in St. Paul, Minnesota. Indeed, Batchelder’s popularity extended far beyond Southern California. His fountains, fireplaces, bathrooms, swimming pools, and other installations can be found across the United States.

Batchelder never developed a strong talent for business. Presumably, that is why he took on Frederick L. Brown in 1912 and Lucian H. Wilson in 1920 as partners. Since Batchelder’s factory records have bever been found, we do not really know what their duties were, but they seem not to have had any part in the design process or in the actual production of the tiles.

After his business failed in 1932, Batchelder applied himself to many civic duties in Pasadena. In 1938, as the Depression was ebbing, Batchelder, under the influence of a former employee, William Manker, turned to the making of slip-cast ware. Although successful at this totally different ceramic enterprise, Batchelder’s greatest accomplishments were in tile making. He designed and produced vast amounts of tiles, employing at the height of

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

production, almost 175 workers. The tiles value lies in the fact that they brought beauty to so many American houses and institutions.

Significance Analysis: National/State Level
The City of Orange has criteria for evaluating historic districts, but not for evaluating individual resources, such as buildings. While there is potential for this resource to contribute to a Mission Gardens Historic District if the City deems that feasible in the future, this report focuses on the individual significance of the property. Therefore, no further consideration of the City’s criteria is provided in this report.

To establish the significance of the home, the National Register of Historic Places, and California Register of Historical Resources criteria can be applied.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criteria
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess at least one of the following:

A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Criteria

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

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

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

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

For the purposes of this report, the evaluation of significance under NRHP and CRHR are combined. This is denoted as A/1, B/2, C/3, and D/4.

In summary, the resource property consists of a single parcel developed in 1923-1924 with a single-family residence in the Tudor-revival style. The property was one of, if not the first, property developed in the new Mission Gardens subdivision, which was a speculative development west of developed Orange at the time. The first owner of the resource property was William O. Hart, notable Orange citizen and newspaper magnet. Future owners C.C Bonebrake

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

and Elmer Swift were also noteworthy business owners in Orange.

Criterion A/1: Historic Contexts: Growth of Orange, Mission Gardens, Orange Business Development (William O. Hart, CC Bonebrake, Elmer Swift).

Under Criterion A/1, this building was constructed in the early part of the 20th century during the transition between “growing up” and “growing out”. After World War I, businesses began moving further and further west from downtown. State Highway 101 came down West Chapman as far as Main Street, before turning south towards Santa Ana. This corner is where subdivision developers focused their Mission Gardens neighborhood at. Since this was midway between Orange and Santa Ana, it was dubbed “Orana”. In the early part of the 20th century, the resource property and surrounding lands were mostly developed with groves. Aerial photography shows that the subdivision was developed on the edge of numerous acres of orange groves. Historic aerial photographs from 1946 show that there was a residence, an outbuilding, and groves in the project area and nearby properties were similarly developed (County of Orange var.). An aerial photograph from 1960 confirm the fast westward expansion of Orange, and also shows that considerable development had taken place on the surrounding properties.

As the first completed house in the Mission Gardens subdivision, this resource is indicative of a historically significant event in Orange, the westward expansion of the original business and residential district. As a residence constructed with a timely style and craftsmanship, draws a link between the early success of businesses in Orange, and the need for westward expansion and growth.

Further, this resource is tied to significant business owners within the City of Orange.

William O. Hart
Born in Iowa, William Ord Hart in 1885, Hart would become one of Orange’s most revered residents. The publisher of the Orange News and the postmaster of the town, Hart arrived in Orange from Berkeley in 1910 and would go on to marry Elsie M. Clough. They would have five children together, all of whom lived in the resource property. Hart purchased the home for 167 North Little Main from Harry Gail, one of the subdivision developers, who had been advertising his Mission Gardens development in Hart’s newspaper. The house was built in 1923 and the family moved in shortly thereafter.

Casey and Cecil Bonebrake
Casey (C.C) Bonebrake and his family moved into the resource property in 1929, but his connection with Little Main goes back to its origins. The city planner for both Santa Ana and Orange, Bonebrake’s signature can be found on the original tract drawings for Mission Gardens as the City Engineer. While CC was an important figure at City Hall, his wife Cecil, was the president of the Women’s Club and active in society events. They raised three children and would see their daughter Margaret get married at the resource property. The family rented the home at 167 North Little Main from Clara and Walter Smith, and a cancelled check found in the resource property attic, the rent was $35/month in 1930.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

Elmer Swift
The owner of Orange Pharmacy, Elmer Swift purchased 167 North Little Main in April 1938 with his wife Blenda. The family appears in the newspapers for minor injuries to their children during their residency.

Orange Pharmacy was originally located at 106 North Glassel Street (extant).

167 North Little Main Street is significant on the local level of significance for its association with the growth of Orange, and for its association with the development of Orange’s business affiliations.

Criterion B/2: Not significant. Although William O. Hart and C.C Bonebrake, along with Elmer Smith were all prominent Orange businessmen, their association falls under Criterion A.

Criterion C/3: Historic Contexts: Residential Development/Styles of Orange, Batchelder Tile Company

167 North Little Main is significant on the local level of significance for its unique and rare Tudor revival style and for its associated craftsmanship as seen through the use of Batchelder tiles.

The subject property at 167 North Little Main is a 1 ½ story single family home constructed in 1923 in the Tudor Revival style and features a front facing gable with wing, one of the subsections of Tudor Revival according to Virginia McAlester.5 The residence features steeply pitched cross-gable roofs; stucco over wood frame construction; a primary focal window; and a concrete foundation. The residence also features a stucco chimney with interior fireplace ornamentation.

The main façade prominently features a prominent front-facing clipped gable that is steeply pitched. The southern façade is dominated by a gable end, also steeply pitched and clipped. The entry porch features a solid wood door.

Fenestration of the primary façade consists primarily of arched, wooden frame and sash, divided light windows, along with casement windows. Modifications to the resource are minimal and consist of the replacement of a southern façade entry door, the alteration of location of the front door, and a small dormer addition on the rear façade. There was also the application of a top-coat of fine sand finish stucco across all surfaces in a historically appropriate finish. 6 The Tudor Revival style of architecture rose to prominence in the early 20th century. It was a dominant style of domestic building for a wide range of American cities.7 Popular in Orange in the 1920s and 1930s, Tudor Revival architecture is loosely based on a variety of late Medieval English styles and influences, but unlike some English prototypes, Tudor Revival style houses exhibit steeply pitched gable roofs that dominate the facades. Other character defining features include the use of stucco as well as wood cladding and veneer, along with tall wood windows.

Decorative half-timbering is only present in about 1/3 of Tudor examples.8 The style is defined by its decorative use of multiple materials – including brick, stone, and/or stucco – as well as its use of casement windows, irregular massing, and the use of the Tudor arch.9 The style’s flexibility allows for great variation of expression and the

5 Virginia McAlester, 458
6 Verified through original stucco sample.
7 Mcalester, 454
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

individualization of each house’s plan and decor to the builder or owner.10

In its current appearance, 167 North Little Main features several character defining features that support the Tudor Revival style of architecture. These include two-story stucco-clad structure, a prominent front gable, a steeply pitched cross gable main roof, and the arched focal windows on the front facade. The clipped gable ends are also character defining, along with the arched front perimeter wall. The resource also retains its original wooden windows, including the arched windows that exists on the main façade. According to Virginia McAlester, American Tudor homes commonly use a combination of casement and double-hung windows, and typically had one or more groupings of these wooden or metal windows. Focal windows, such as what is seen on the main elevation of this residence, were a typical elaboration. All of these elements showcase that 167 North Little Main is an good, intact example of Tudor Revival style architecture remaining in the City of Orange.

Criterion D/4: The resource was constructed using common materials and methods for the time. No evidence was found that suggested the property may yield important information in prehistory or history. 167 North Little Main is not significant under Criterion D with the current research and knowledge.

Significance Statement: The house continues to convey the historic significance of custom ranch architecture by embodying the historic characteristics associated with the style, and for being associated with a Master Architect, Thomas Shepherd.

INTEGRITY EVALUATION
To be eligible for designation under any Significance Criteria, a resource must retain integrity. According to the National Park Service (NPS), the integrity of a resource is determined by “the ability of a resource to convey its significance.” In this case, the house is significant under Criteria A/1 and C/3 for its association with the westward expansion of Orange along with its business development, along with its rare Tudor Revival style, respectively . In the context of these areas of significance design, workmanship, and association should be considered closely.

What follows is an evaluation of integrity only; see the preceding section for an evaluation of significance and the following section for a final eligibility conclusion.

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of location to convey its significance. 167 North Little Main was constructed in the Mission Gardens subdivision . The house has not been moved since its construction, retaining integrity of location.

Setting: The physical environment of a historic property. 167 North Little Main has been sited on the same parcel its original construction in 19 23. Although the surrounding areas were originally orange groves, the single-family residence setting of the property has not changed.

10 Ibid. 466.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

The house’s setting within the physical environment o f Orange and the surrounding single-family residence neighborhood in the Mission Gardens subdivision remains intact. Some homes in the neighborhood have been constructed or remodeled since 1923, which does not adversely impact the setting. The surrounding areas have been developed since the construction of the home- which does degrade the integrity of the broader setting but not the immediate setting.

Design: Design is defined as the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, an d style of a property.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of design to convey its significance. The Tudor Revival house retains integrity of design as it contains elements distinctive to the Tudor Revival style. Character defining features such a s steeply pitched roofs with a dominating clipped front gable, multi -pane windows, stucco, and focal arched windows are present on this house. These character defining elements, coupled with the general form, plan and massing of the Tudor Revival style, display the integrity needed to support designation under Criterion C.

Having been modified very little since the tim e of construction, the residence expresses a high degree of design integrity and demonstrates eligibility for designation under Criterion C – Architecture for embodying the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style, type and period. No large additions have been made to the original building and the only addition was an addition to an original dormer.

The changes that were made, such as the replacement of the front door, side door, and new rear door follow the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation by being made in-kind and are reversible. These changes do not impact the integrity of design, as they do not impact the form, plan, space, structure, or Tudor Revival Style. The modifications, summarized in the construction history, follow the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The property is able to continue to convey the original design to those observing it, and remains eligible for designation under Criterion C.

Materials: The physical element s that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a pattern or configuration or form a historic property.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of materials to convey its significance. The vast majority of the fabric appears original throughout the house. The house retains all original wood windows , it retains it’s original front door, and original chimney. The alterations to materials that were made complement the original structure with in -kind or compatible materials. The w ooden windows have been repaired and are in good condition. The skim coat of stucco was done in the historically accurate finish- also improving the integrity of materials. Overall, the structure demonstrates a level of integrity that strongly supports designation under Criterion C.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

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

The house does retain sufficient integrity of workmanship to convey its significance. The high integrity of workmanship is demonstrated in the high standard of construction. Original construction designs, fabrication, and finishing details, such as the front elevation focal windows and clipped gable ends, support integrity of workmanship and designation under Criterion C.

Feeling: The property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of f eeling to convey its significance. The property still reflects the custom - ranch aesthetic design and the setting of the original design and location. Additionally, since few modifications have been made, the house retains and expresses integrity of feeling and supports designation under Criterion C.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

The house does retain sufficient integrity of association to convey its significance . The property has not been significantly altered, retaining the original designed elements.

Eligibility Conclusion:
167 North Little Main Street is significant at the local level of the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A in the themes of community planning and social history for being associated with the westward expansion of the City of Orange, along with being associated with prominent businessmen of Orange, including William O. Hart. The property is also significant at the local level of significance with themes of architecture under Criterion C for its rare and intact Tudor Revival architecture within the City of Orange.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

REFERENCES11:

Ancestry.com. United States Federal Census, 1900-1940 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2004. Accessed March 2021
Ancestry.com. U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Accessed March 2021.

City of Orange. Planning Department. Digitized Permit Records. Accessed March 2021.

County of Orange, Office of the Recorder, Plat Map Records.

GoogleMaps. Accessed March-July 2021.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Orange, CA. Sanborn.umi.com. Accessed April 2021.

11 For further references see Attachment F- Works Cited

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:

Page __21__ of _98____

ATTACHMENT A
Building Development Information

A.1 Historic Aerials
A.2

Site Plan with Building Footprint

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:

Page __22__ of _98____
A.1 – Historic Aerials (1946)

1946 Aerial showing West Chapman Avenue on the south. The image shows that Mission Gardens subdivision was still relatively “westward” expansion of Orange, surrounded by agriculture land. Courtesy of Historic Aerials.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

A.1 – Historic Aerials (1963)

1963 Aerial showing West Chapman Avenue on the south and West Maple in the center. The rapid development of Main Street, leading to the renaming of Main Street to Little Main Street is shown. Courtesy of Historic Aerials.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

A.2 – Site Plan with Building Footprint

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:

Page __25__ of _98____

ATTACHMENT B
Ownership and Occupant Information

B.1 Chain of Title
B.2 City Directory Listing of Occupants
B.3 Deed from Time of Construction

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

B.1 – Chain
of Title

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

B.2 – City Directory Listing of Occupants

Year Name(s)
1923-1928 William O. Hart, Elsie M. Hart
1929-1937 Casey Bonebrake, Cecil Bonebrake
1928-1944 Elmer N. Swift, Blenda J. Swift

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

B.3 – Deed From Time of Construction

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

B.3 – Hart Family Acquisition Deed

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:

Page __34__ of _98____

ATTACHMENT C
Maps

C.1 USGS Maps
1896
1932
1949
C.2 Subdivision Map (1,2)

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

C.1 – USGS Map (1896)

Courtesy of USGS.gov

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

C.1 – USGS Map (1932)

Courtesy of USGS.gov

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

C.2 – USGS Map (1949)

Courtesy of USGS.gov

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

C.3 – Subdivision Map (Sheet 1 of 2)

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

C.3 – Subdivision Map (Sheet 2 of 2)

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

ATTACHMENT D
Photographs

D.1 Current Photographs – West (Main) Elevation
D.2 Current Photographs – North Elevation
D.3 Current Photographs – East (Rear) Elevation
D.4 Current Photographs – South Elevation
D.5 Current Photographs – Site Features
D.6 Current Photographs – Interior Features

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)

D.1-1. Main Elevation Context View Looking East, Real Estate Listing 2018.

D.1-2. Main Elevation, Front View looking Northeast. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)

D.1-3. Main Elevation, Focal Window. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)

D.1-4. Main Elevation, Front Door and Patio. Real Estate Listing, 2018.

D.1-5. Main Elevation, Front Façade, Patio, and Perimeter Wall. Real Estate Listing, 2018.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)

D.1-6. Main Elevation, Front Door Detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.1 – Current Photographs (West (Main) Elevation)

D.2-5. Main Elevation, Central Windows Detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.2– Current Photographs (North Elevation)

D.2-1. North Elevation, Looking West. IS Architecture, 2021

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.2– Current Photographs (North Elevation)

D.2-1. North Elevation, Looking East. IS Architecture, 2021

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.3 – Current Photographs (East (Rear) Elevation)

D.3.1. Rear Elevation, Looking West. Dormer addition visible. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.3.2. Rear Elevation, Looking Southwest. Dormer addition and garage visible. 2018.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.3 – Current Photographs (East (Rear) Elevation)

D.3-3. Rear Elevation window detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.3 – Current Photographs (North Elevation)

D.3-4. Rear Elevation Overview. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.3-5. Rear Elevation Original Dormer vs Addition. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.3 – Current Photographs (East (Rear) Elevation)

D.3-6. Rear Elevation window detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.4 – Current Photographs (South Elevation)

D.4-1. South Elevation Overview. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.4-2. South Elevation Context. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.4 – Current Photographs (South Elevation)

D.4-3. South Elevation Window Detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

D.4-4. South Elevation Second Level Window Detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.5 – Current Photographs (Site Features)

D.5.1. Looking southeast to garage. Real Estate Listing 2018.

D.5-2. Garage side entry detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:

Page __55__ of _98____
D.5 – Current Photographs (Site Features)

D.5.3. Public Right of Way and Driveway Gate. Real Estate Listing 2018.

D.5-4. Public Right of Way and Driveway Gate. Real Estate Listing 2018.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.5 – Current Photographs (Site Features)

D.5-5. Secondary Wooden Driveway Gate. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.6 – Current Photographs (Interior Features)

D.6.1. Original Batchelder Tile Fireplace. Real Estate Listing 2018.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

D.6 – Current Photographs (Interior Features)

D.6.2. Original Batchelder Tile Fireplace Detail. IS Architecture, 2021.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name:

Page __59__ of _98____

ATTACHMENT E
Supplemental Documentation

E.1 Criterion A Documentation

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

E.1 Criterion A Documentation

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

E.1 Criterion A Documentation

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

E.2 Criterion B Documentation

E 2-1. Photo of William Hart.

DPR 523 (1/95) *Required information
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Mission Gardens Spec House/ William O. Hart House

ATTACHMENT F
Works Cited

American Institute of Architects. Historical Directory of American Architects Accessed December 2019.

Ancestry.com. United States Federal Census, 1900-1940 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2004. Accessed March 2021.

Ancestry.com. U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Accessed March 2021.

California Title Search Company. 167 North Little Main Chain of Title Report. April 2021.

City of Orange. Planning Department. Survey of Orange [PDF on-line]. Accessed March 2021.

City of Orange. Planning Department. Digitized Permit Records. Accessed March 2021.

County of Orange, Office of the Recorder, Plat Maps. Accessed April 2021.

GoogleMaps. Accessed March-July 2021.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Orange , CA. Sanborn.umi.com, Accessed March 2021.

Union Title Insurance and Trust Company, Catalog of Recorded Plats in Orange County. California.