Attachment No. 3 – Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report & Attachments 6-4-2025 — City Council / Housing Authority, August 4, 2025

DEV ELO P MENT S ERV ICES | PLANNING DIV IS ION
Staff Report
City of Pomona Historic Preservation Commission

C I T Y O F P O M O N A
5 0 5 S O U T H G A R E Y A V E N U E , P O M O N A , C A 9 1 7 6 6 9 0 9 . 6 2 0 . 2 1 9 1
w w w . p o m o n a c a . g o v
June 4, 2025
FILE NO: DHS-000357-2025
A request for a Determination of Historic Significance for four structures at 1060 W. Mission Boulevard.

ADDRESS: 1060 W Mission Boulevard
APPLICANT: Milad B. Oueijan
PROJECT PLANNER: Alina Barron, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Determine that Residential Structure 1 located at 1060 W. Mission Boulevard (File No. DHS000357-2025) is historic and Residential Structures 2, 3, and 4 are not historic and adopt Resolution No. 25-018 (Attachment No. 1).

Property Background:

In April of 2024, Milad B. Oueijan, submitted a request to determine the historic significance of four residential structures located at 1060 W. Mission Boulevard.

Fig.1.1. Site Plan
June 4, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report DHS-000357-2025
P A G E 2 O F 11 DEV ELO P MENT S ERV ICES | PLANNING DIV IS ION Critical Issues:
 Staff determination that Residential Structure 1 is historic.  Staff determination that Residential Structure 2 was relocated to this site and has been altered beyond restoration repair and is not historic.

Discussion of Critical Issues:

1. Based on required findings, Residential Structure 1 meets City of Pomona Landmark Designation Criteria Nos. 1, 3, and 7.

2. Though Residential Structure 2 is unique in architectural style and one of the only remaining in the City, the structure does not satisfy any findings required for a historic landmark. The builder is unknown, the structure is not associated with any events in history, and the structure has been altered beyond restoration.

Architectural Style:

1. Residential Structure 1 – Colonial Revival Bungalow

2. Residential Structure 2 – Victorian Vernacular

3. Residential Structure 3 – Victorian Vernacular

4. Residential Structure 4 – Postwar Tract
Architectural Description:

The property located in the southwest quadrant of the City along Mission Boulevard, east of Hamilton Boulevard and west of White Avenue on a site that is approximately 2.01 acres. The surrounding area is characterized by commercial businesses and homes in varying style. The site has been developed with four residential dwelling structures (Attachment No. 2).

Residential Structure 1(One-Story Dwelling Unit)
Residential Structure 1 is the only structure listed in the 1993 Citywide Historic Resources Survey. The Survey included the property in the Southwest Quadrant as a potential City
landmark. The property was categorized as commercial noting a Colonial Revival architectural style and listed the structure in “good” condition with 1906 estimated date of construction.

Based on a visual survey of the structure today, the structure is in good condition and currently has a shed addition on the west elevation. This addition is not fully attached to the structure and has left the river-rock foundation and wood siding intact at the location of the addition.

Fig.2.1. Residential Structure 1
June 4, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report DHS-000357-2025
P A G E 3 O F 11 DEV ELO P MENT S ERV ICES | PLANNING DIV IS ION Residential Structure 2 (One-Story Dwelling Unit)
Residential Structure 2 is located southeast of Residential 1.

According to Building & Safety Division records this
structure was moved from 540 South Gibbs Street (360 E
Mission Blvd.) in 1949. In staff’s assessment this structure was built in the Victorian Vernacular architectural style or “Folk Victorian”. The structure is characterized by its asymmetrical front façade, decorative trusses on gable ends, bargeboards, and large porch. Based on a visual survey of the structure today, the structure though in good condition along the front north elevation, the rear east, west, and south
elevations have significantly been altered. These additions have been integrated into the structure and though they are distinguishable, they do not appear to be removable.

Residential Structure 3 (Two-Story Dwelling Unit)
Residential Structure 3 is located southwest of Residential 1.

There are no building and permit records for the structure, but in staff’s assessment this structure likely originally served as a carriage house to Residential Structure 2. The carriage loft presently is used for storage and is not habitable. The lower level of the structure has been enclosed and converted into a living space and has undergone multiple additions and alterations. This structure is characterized by its visible Aframed loft and vernacular style.

Residential Structure 4 (Single-Story Duplex)
Residential Structure 4 is located directly south Residential Structure 2. Based on Chapter 2 of the Pomona Guide to
Historic Preservation, the structure would be classified as an early post-war tract architecture. This style is defined by the single-story development with stucco exterior, gabled roof, small porch, and minimal exterior detailing. After World War II, the demand for housing was high and developers began creating tracts of homes with similar plans and elevations with minimal exterior detailing, this included plans for multifamily dwelling units including duplex, triplexes, and fourplexes.

Character-Defining Features:

Residential Structure 1

1. Doric columns

2. Centered Gable

3. One-story

4. Exposed Rafters
Fig.2.2. Residential Structure 2
Fig.2.3. Residential Structure 3
Fig.2.4. Residential Structure 4
June 4, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report DHS-000357-2025
P A G E 4 O F 11 DEV ELO P MENT S ERV ICES | PLANNING DIV IS ION

5. River-rock foundation

6. Wood Siding

7. Large Porch
Residential Structure 2

1. Gable-On-Hip Roof

2. Wood Siding

3. Wrapped Porch

4. Decorative Trusses
Residential Structure 3

1. Vertical and Horizontal Wood Siding

2. Two-story
Residential Structure 4

1. Stucco

2. Cross Gable Roof

3. Single-Hung Windows
HISTORY:

Though much of the property’s history is unknown, staff utilized the historic aerial images, limited Building & Safety Division records, the 1993 Citywide Historic Resources Survey, and the Library of Congress – Sanborn Maps archive, to piece together the assumed timeline of the property’s history and significance to Pomona.

Historic Context Statement:

The property primarily falls under three themes of the Citywide Historic Context Statement as the construction and relocation of the structures took place during different time periods.

Residential Structure 1 falls under the Residential Theme of an Established City (1900-1919) section of the Citywide Historic Context Statement. The attached pages from the Historic Context Statement identify criteria and integrity standards in order to be considered historic (Attachment No. 3).

Residential Structures 2, 3, 4, are categorized under the Residential Theme of Postwar Growth, Diversification, and Redevelopment (1946-1980) section of the Citywide Historic Context Statement. The attached pages from the Historic Context Statement identify criteria and integrity standards in order to be considered historic (Attachment No. 4).

The relocation of Residential Structure 2 is evidently apart of the Commercial Theme of Postwar Growth, Diversification, and Redevelopment. This structure was relocated from East Mission Boulevard to West Mission Boulevard in 1949 and in 1952, a commercial structure was established in its place. This commercial structure today is occupied by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services at 360 E. Mission Boulevard. The attached pages from the Historic Context Statement identify criteria and integrity standards in order to be considered historic (Attachment No. 5).

Survey Information:

During our 1993 Citywide Historic Resources Survey properties 50 years or older were surveyed from the public right-of-way, meaning only Residential Structure 1 was visible from Mission Blvd. thus was the only structure June 4, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report DHS-000357-2025
P A G E 5 O F 11 DEV ELO P MENT S ERV ICES | PLANNING DIV IS ION surveyed on this property. The property was identified as a commercial use, colonial revival, in good condition, with an estimated date of construction as 1906 (Attachment No. 6).

City Directories:

The property does not appear in the City Directories under 1062 W. Mission Blvd. or 1062 W.5th Street. Building Permits for the structures were obtained by a Clifford Halstead.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps:

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were originally designed to assist with the assessment of structures for fire insurance liability purposes. These maps provided details on properties including, general boundaries, building location, construction material, and other pertinent information.

The Library of Congress maintains records of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of Pomona from 1885 – 1906 while the City’s Building & Safety Division has a copy of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps that have been partially maintained since the late 1920s.

The subject property does not appear in any Sanborn Maps until 1928; thus, the original use and location of structures is incomplete.

Residential Structure 1
The Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, show Residential Structure 1, 1062 facing Mission Blvd. (Previously 5th Street) in its existing location, though there are no building permit records, this structure is estimated to have been constructed in 1906 according to the 1993 Historic Resources Survey. Staff is not able to conclude where the estimated date of construction was derived from.

Residential Structure 2
Building & Safety Division building permit records show that Residential Structure 2, which does not appear on the City of Pomona Sanborn Map, was relocated to 1062 W. Mission Blvd. in 1949 from 540 S. Gibbs Street (360 E Mission). While there are no original building permits for Residential Structure 2, this structure is visible as early as 1895 on the Sanborn Maps on the corner of 5th Avenue (Mission Blvd. and Gibbs Street).

Residential Structure 3
Similarly to other structures on-site, there are no original building permit records for Residential Structure 3, 1062 ½ on the map. Staff has concluded that the Residential Structure 3 was likely built between 1906 and 1947 as the map does not reflect Residential Structure 2, which was relocated to the property in 1949.

Residential Structure 4
This map also shows, Residential Structure 4, 1060 and 1064, a single-story Duplex at the rear of the site. According to Building & Safety Division building permit records Residential Structure 4 was constructed in 1947.

Fig.3.1. City of Pomona Sanborn Map -
1062 W. 5th Street
June 4, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report DHS-000357-2025
P A G E 6 O F 11 DEV ELO P MENT S ERV ICES | PLANNING DIV IS ION Significance:

W. Mission Boulevard is not characterized by any uniform building type and varies in architectural styles as it was part of the postwar commercial development that occurred in the 1950s in order to provide needed services to the growing suburban community in Pomona. Though a majority of W. Mission Boulevard are commercial serving structures, a select few single-family dwellings remain. Many of these dwellings have undergone major alterations and are not identified on the list of potential historic landmarks with exception to 1060 W. Mission Blvd., which maintains a nearly intact 1906 Colonial Revival Bungalow.

The subject property was identified as potential historic landmark in the 1993 Citywide Historic Resource Survey as it is one of the few remaining residential structures without significant modification likely associated with agriculture on W. Mission Boulevard. Though there is no historical record of an orchard at this property, historic aerials depict an orchard on the rear half of the site as late as 2005 making this property an example of agriculture and residential growth at the turn of the 20th century.

Designation Criteria:

Staff reviewed the National Register, California Register, and local designation criteria to determine whether the property is historic.

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CRITERIA

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history (Criterion A).

Fig.4.1. City of Pomona Aerial - 2005
June 4, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report DHS-000357-2025
P A G E 7 O F 11 DEV ELO P MENT S ERV ICES | PLANNING DIV IS ION Through our research, there have been no events identified that occurred on this property that would have made a significant contribution to National, California, or Pomona’s history. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion.

2. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past (Criterion B).

None of the persons associated with this property have been found to be significant in the history of the Nation, California, or Pomona. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion.

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion C).

Residential Structure 1 embodies distinctive characteristics of a Colonial Revival Bungalow from the early 1900s and though the builder is unknown the structure does represent architecture during the prewar period and marked the beginning of revivalism in Southern California.

Residential Structures 2, 3, and 4 on the property do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

Residential Structure 2 and 3 have been significantly altered beyond restoration repair. Residential Structure 4, though in original condition is one of many tract homes in Pomona and is not distinctive from others in the region. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion.

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory (Criterion D).

This criterion relates to archaeological resources and there is no information that this site was could have been important to Native American tribes in the area. Therefore, the property is not likely to yield any information and, does not meet this criterion.

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES

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 (Criterion 1).

Through our research, there have been no events identified that occurred on this property that would have made a significant contribution to National, California, or Pomona’s history. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion.

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

None of the persons associated with this property have been found to be significant in the history of the Nation, California, or Pomona. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion.

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

June 4, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report DHS-000357-2025
P A G E 8 O F 11 DEV ELO P MENT S ERV ICES | PLANNING DIV IS ION Residential Structure 1 embodies distinctive characteristics of a Colonial Revival Bungalow from the early 1900s and though the builder is unknown the structure does represent architecture during the prewar period and marked the beginning of revivalism in Southern California.

Residential Structures 2, 3, and 4 on the property do not reflect any special elements of Pomona’s history.

Staff’s research has not identified anything special regarding these structures that would make them historic under this criterion. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion.

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

CITY OF POMONA LANDMARK DESIGNATION CRITERIA
Architecture / Physical Features

1. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship (Criterion 3 in previous ordinance).

2. It is the work of a notable builder, designer, landscape designer or architect (Criterion 5 in previous ordinance).

None of the persons associated with this property have been found to be significant in the history of the Nation, California, or Pomona. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion.

3. It embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation (Criterion 7 in previous ordinance).

June 4, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report DHS-000357-2025
P A G E 9 O F 11 DEV ELO P MENT S ERV ICES | PLANNING DIV IS ION Residential Structure 1 embodies distinctive characteristics of a Colonial Revival Bungalow from the early 1900s and though the builder is unknown the structure does represent architecture during the prewar period and marked the beginning of revivalism in Southern California.

4. It is similar to other distinctive properties, sites, areas, or objects based on an historic, cultural, or architectural motif (Criterion 8 in previous ordinance).

This property does not have features that would make it similar to other distinctive properties, nor is there a common motif linking this property to others. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion.

5. It has a unique location or singular physical characteristics or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the city of Pomona (Criterion 6 in previous ordinance).

There is nothing on this property that would make is a unique location, or that has a singular physical characteristic, or a view or vista that represents an established and familiar visual feature of the surround neighborhood. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion.

6. It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning (Criterion 9 in previous ordinance).

While the property is representative of the postwar commercial growth the structure associated with this era, Structure 2, no longer embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation as it has been significantly altered. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion.

7. It is one of the few remaining examples in the city of Pomona, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen (Criterion 10 in previous ordinance).

Residential Structure 1, a Colonial Revival Bungalow from the early 1900s does represent architecture during the prewar period and marked the beginning of revivalism in Southern California. Additionally, it is one of the few remaining residential structures without significant modification likely associated with agriculture on W. Mission Boulevard. Though there is no historical record of an orchard at this property, historic aerials depict an orchard on the rear half of the site as late as 2005 making this property an example of agriculture and residential growth at the turn of the 20th century.

June 4, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report DHS-000357-2025
P A G E 10 O F 11 DEV ELO P MENT S ERV ICES | PLANNING DIV IS ION Residential Structures 2 and 3 on the property have no integrity to convey that they are the remaining examples of any architectural type as they have been significantly altered beyond restoration repair.

Residential Structure 4, though in original condition is one of many tract homes in Pomona and is not distinctive from others in the region.

Person(s) and Events Important in Our History

1. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history (Criterion 2 in previous ordinance).

None of the persons associated with this property have been found to be significant in the history of the Nation, California, or Pomona. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion.

2. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City of Pomona's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history (Criterion 1 in previous ordinance).

Residential Structure 1 exemplifies Colonial Revival Bungalow from the early 1900s and reflects architecture during the prewar period and marked the beginning of revivalism in Southern California. Additionally, it is one of the few remaining residential structures without significant modification likely associated with agriculture on W. Mission Boulevard. Though there is no historical record of an orchard at this property, historic aerials depict an orchard on the rear half of the site as late as 2005 making this property an example of agriculture and residential growth at the turn of the 20th century.

Structures 2, 3, and 4 on the property do not reflect any special elements of Pomona’s history as there are multiple tracts of homes that were developed in the 1940s and 1950s. Staff’s research has not identified anything special regarding this property that would make it historic under this criterion.

Archaeology

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

Integrity:

The property was identified as a Colonial Revival Bungalow in the 1993 Historic Resources Survey has maintained sufficient character defining features to convey its significance as a Colonial Revival Bungalow and exemplifies architecture during the prewar period. The Colonial Revival bungalow has very few alterations and retains its architectural integrity. Additionally, it is one of the few remaining residential structures without significant modification likely associated with agriculture on W. Mission Boulevard. Though there is no historical record of an orchard at this property, historic aerials depict an orchard on the rear half of the site as late as 2005 making this property an example of agriculture and residential growth at the turn of the 20th century. The remaining structures June 4, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report DHS-000357-2025
P A G E 11 O F 11 DEV ELO P MENT S ERV ICES | PLANNING DIV IS ION (2, 3, and 4) all have major alterations and additions and do not retain any architectural integrity. In addition, the additions have altered the structures to a point which removal of the additions would compromise the original structures and make restoring them difficult, if not impossible.

Conclusion:

Based on research on the subject property Staff has concluded that the Colonial Revival Bungalow, Residential Structure 1, located at 1060 W. Mission Blvd. meets the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and the City of Pomona designation criteria as contained in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, and therefore, is historic.

The remaining structures do not meet the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, nor the City of Pomona designation criteria as contained in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, and therefore, are not historic.

Attachments:

1. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 25-018

2. Site Photographs

3. Residential Theme of an Established City (1900-1919)

4. Residential Theme of Postwar Growth, Diversification, and Redevelopment (1946-1980)

5. Commercial Theme of Postwar Growth, Diversification, and Redevelopment (1946-1980)

6. 1993 Citywide Historic Resources Survey
HPC RESOLUTION NO. 25-018

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF POMONA HISTORIC

PRESERVATION COMMISSION, DETERMINING THAT
ONE STRUCTURE (RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE 1)
LOCATED AT 1060 W. MISSION BOULEVARD, IS

HISTORIC

THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMONA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the applicant, Milad B. Oueijan, submitted an application for Determination of Historic Significance (DHS-000357-2025) to determine the historic significance of the property located at 1060 W. Mission Blvd.;
WHEREAS, the structures are estimated to have been constructed between 1906 – 1947; WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission must make findings as described in Section .800.C.(9) of the Pomona Zoning & Development Code to make a Determination of Historic Significance;
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Pomona, has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public meeting on June 4, 2025, concerning the requested Determination of Historic Significance (DHS-000357-2025); and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case presented at the public hearing.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Pomona, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. Based on the policies contained in the Pomona General Plan and Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Historic Preservation Commission concludes as follows:

1. Preserving Pomona’s diverse architectural styles reflecting phases of the City of Pomona's history and encouraging complementary contemporary development inspires a more livable urban environment;

2. Pomona’s historic places should be preserved to build civic pride by promoting the understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment of the city's rich heritage and cultural resources;

3. Preserving Pomona’s historic places enhances property values and increase economic and financial benefits to the City;

4. Preserving Pomona’s historic places enhances the City of Pomona for residents, tourists and Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 25-018
File No. DHS-000357-2025
June 4, 2025

Page 2 ends

visitors thereby stimulating business and industry; and

5. Preserving Pomona’s historic places conserves valuable material and energy resources by fostering ongoing use and maintenance of the existing built environment.

SECTION 2. In view of all of the evidence and based on the designation criteria contained in the staff report, the Historic Preservation Commission concludes as follows:

The Colonial Revival Bungalow located at the front of the property located at 1060 W. Mission Blvd. does meet the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and/or the City of Pomona designation criteria as contained in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, and therefore, is historic. The remaining structures do not meet the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and/or the City of Pomona designation criteria as contained in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, and therefore, are not historic.

SECTION 3. All documents described in Section 1 of Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 25-018 are deemed incorporated by reference as set forth at length.

SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and forward the original to the City Clerk.

APPROVED AND PASSED THIS 4
TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025.
____________________________________

ANGELA KELLER

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
___________________________________
GEOFFREY STARNS, AICP, AIA, LEED AP BD+C

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

SECRETARY
Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 25-018
File No. DHS-000357-2025
June 4, 2025

Page 3 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)

CITY OF POMONA)
AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Pursuant to Resolution No. 76-258 of the City of Pomona, the time in which judicial review of this action must be sought is governed by Sec. 1094.6 C.C.P.

18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
9 10 8
14 13 12
11 15
16 17
18 19
Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 97 Theme: Residential Development
By the turn of the 20th century, residential growth had picked up speed in Pomona. Partially due to the introduction of increased public transportation, residences reached ever further north and south, and the subdivision of land for residential developments accelerated. Table 3 at the conclusion of this section lists several early housing developments that are now located within the City limits. Details about select early tracts in Pomona are included in Appendix A.

Between 1907 and 1909, it was estimated that approximately 300 acres were bought by various syndicates and subdivided into town lots “in order to make room for the increasing homes that have been demanded by the newcomers who have flocked to [the] city from all parts of the globe.”221
One of the largest tract subdivisions was the Ganesha Park Tract, which subdivided 80 acres of orange groves into approximately 300 residential lots. As recorded in a 1909 advertisement for the Ganesha Park Tract in the Pomona Daily Review:

The subdivision of lands through the demand of the home builders has transformed the aspect of things in Pomona in the past five years. The visitor must see the city each year in order to maintain any adequate idea of the community as it really is, for the changes are rapid, although with a fundamental strength in the growth which means stability for all time… There is a standing building restriction on the property which provides that any bungalow erected in the subdivision cost at least $1,800, and those build in the more ambitious form of residences must not fall below the $3,000 mark.222
Different neighborhoods of Pomona were advertised for their relative wealth and exclusionary practices (such as the required spending amounts in the Ganesha Park Tract) versus those areas that were accessible for lower income residents (such as the area southeast of downtown). In 1910, the Pomona Progress noted, “the east side of Pomona south of the railroad tracks …offers the moderate wage earner the chance for a home at prices now within reach of his earning and saving possibilities… thousands of homes have been bought and paid for…on the easy payment plan.”223
Several other large tract developments during this period included Crabb’s Subdivision (1903); Alvarado Court Tract (1906); Kenoak Drive (1907); Antonio Heights (1909); Lincoln Park (1910); Monte Vista (1910); Palomares Heights (1911); and Naranja Val-Vista (1918). 221 Morris H. Wilson, “The Real Estate Situation in Pomona,” Pomona Daily Review, October 27, 1909. 222 “The Rapidly Growing Ganesha Park Tract,” Pomona Daily Review, March 20, 1909. 223 “Opening New Residence Tract,” Pomona Progress, May 10, 1910.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 98 TABLE 3: SELECTED TRACT DEVELOPMENTS IN EARLY 20TH CENTURY POMONA

NAME DATE DEVELOPER
Crabb’s Subdivision 1903 Palmer & Dewey
Alvarado Court Tract 1906 Mark H. Potter
Kenoak Drive Tract 1907 Mark H. Potter
Ganesha Park Tract 1908 Morris H. Wilson; Pacific Electric Land Co.

Antonio Heights Tract 1909 Lee Pitzer, Fred E. Graham, Grant Pitzer, Mark H. Potter, and Pomona Investment Company
Lincoln Park Tract 1910 Mark H. Potter; Pomona Investment Company Monte Vista Tract 1910 Walter A. Lewis and Hutchings & Squires Palomares Heights Tract 1911 Morris H. Wilson
Naranja-Val Vista Tract 1918 Lorseer Bros. Co; Frank E. Adams; S. M. Fulton This period of development continued to be substantially characterized by single-family homes, although some multi-family homes were also constructed. Popular architectural styles included Craftsman, Victorian Vernacular, transitional Victorian, Queen Anne, and Dutch Colonial Revival styles. Other less common styles included the American Foursquare and American Colonial Revival styles. There are several historic districts in Pomona that were developed during this period: the Lincoln Park Historic District; Wilton Heights Historic District; and Hacienda Park Historic District.

From the 1900s to the 1920s, the Craftsman bungalow became a favorite architectural style for residences in Pomona. As recorded in the Pomona Daily Review in 1909, “there have been numerous attractive bungalows erected in Pomona and vicinity, and this popular style of architecture continues to entice homemakers.”224
Residences in Ganesha Park Tract, 1909. Pomona Daily Review. 224 “A Glimpse at Our Bungalowland,” Pomona Daily Review, March 20, 1909.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 99 In his book, The California Bungalow, author and architectural historian Robert Winter discusses the perfect storm that was the favorable climate, relatively low cost of land, and the economy of materials and building costs that made the bungalow attractive to waves of migrants from the east seeking to purchase “their own piece of the sunshine.”225 Plans for bungalows were widely published in national magazines. Bungalow books proliferated.

Additionally, a new technology, the “kit home,” was perfectly suited to bungalow construction.

Catalogs for pre-cut and shipped housing construction kits became wildly popular. Pre-cut lumber, roofing materials, kitchen and bathroom equipment for each home was loaded on a boxcar and delivered to the site owner, who could either use the plans and instructions to build it himself, or to hire a contractor to do. The Aladdin Company, based in Bay City. Michigan specialized in prefabricated bungalows and larger homes. Aladdin even had a model called “The Pomona.” Other important local purveyors of kit homes included the California Ready-Cut Bungalow Company and the Pacific Ready-Cut Company.

Kit home catalogs featured a variety of styles for the buyer to choose from with photographs of just what to expect the finished product to look like. Styles changed with the changing times, but Craftsman-style designs were extremely popular in the early 20th century. However, there were also designs for Mission-style bungalows and Spanish Colonia Revival-style bungalows as the decades advanced.

The “Pomona” Bungalow by Aladdin Company, 1919. University of California, San Diego. 225 Robert Winter, The California Bungalow, (Santa Fe, NM: Hennessey and Ingalls, 1980), 23.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 100

ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS
Summary Statement of Significance
This period saw the introduction of tract development in Pomona, as some agricultural fields gave way to residential construction. Boosterism also influenced the development, as many people traveling from the East settled in Pomona. Residences from this period span outwards from the earlier downtown area, and more consistently have planned subdivision infrastructure, such as curbing, wide streets, and sidewalks. Resources significant under this theme include single- and multi-family residences constructed from the turn of the century in 1900 to 1919.

Properties evaluated under this theme may be significant as a collection of residences associated with a notable tract development (as a potential historic district), as an excellent example of a rare multi-family residence, or for an association with an ethnic or cultural group or a person important in local, state, or national history. Individual residences are typically eligible for representing an important development pattern as part of a historic district; individual examples typically must represent an important catalyst or have a proven association with influencing development during a particular period, or be the last remaining example illustrating a significant development period or pattern. Properties may also be significant as an example of a style or type; architectural styles in Pomona are discussed in the Architecture and Design Section.

Period of Significance 1900-1919
Period of Significance Justification Broadly covers the period of early tract residential development in Pomona from the
turn of the century to 1919.

Geographic Location Many early tract developments were located north and southeast of the historic downtown
core.

Associated Property Types Residential: Single Family Residence, MultiFamily Residence, Tract Features/Amenity, Historic District.

Property Type Description Significant property types are those representing important periods of residential
development in Pomona, including single-family
residences, tract features and amenities
including street trees, significant landscape
features, and streetlights. These properties can
be single-family or multi-family residences and
may collectively form a historic district.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 101 Criterion A/1/1,9 (Events/Patterns of Development)
Individual residential properties that are eligible under this criterion may be significant:
• As the site of an event important in history; or
• For exemplifying an important trend or pattern of development; or • As a rare remaining example of a residential building type (ex. multi-family residence).

Note that in order to be individually eligible for designation for representing a pattern of development, the property must be the first of its type, a rare remnant example of a significant period of development, or a catalyst for development in the city or neighborhood.

Merely dating from a specific period is typically not enough to qualify for designation.

Residences that are eligible for an association with a trend or pattern of development from this period may be more appropriately evaluated as part of a historic district.

A collection of residential properties that are eligible under this criterion as a historic district may be significant:
• For representing an important pattern or trend in residential development, such as the establishment of a notable tract.
• As an intact collection of residences that represent the growth of Pomona in the early 20th century.

Note that some residential tract development may span several themes or periods of development. Local designation for historic districts includes Criteria 4, 6, and 8.

Integrity Considerations:

In order to be eligible for designation under this criterion, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance.
• Residential properties from this period should retain integrity of location,226 design, workmanship, feeling, and association, at a minimum, in order to convey their significance.
• An individual property that is eligible for a historic association must retain the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with an event or historical pattern. • A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation.
• The setting may have changed (surrounding buildings and land uses). 226 Unless the property was moved during the period of significance.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 102 • Note that some properties that may not retain sufficient integrity for listing in the National Register may remain eligible for listing at the state and local levels.

For historic districts:
• The majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole.
o The historic district must retain a majority of contributors that date from the period of significance.
o A contributing property must retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association to adequately convey the significance of the historic district.
o Some alterations to individual buildings, such as replacement of roof materials, replacement garage doors, and replacement of windows within original openings may be acceptable as long as the district as a whole continues to convey its significance.
o Original tract features may also be contributing features.

Registration Requirements:

To be eligible under this criterion, an individual property must:
• Date from the period of significance; and
• Have a proven association with an event important in history; or • Represent an important catalyst for a pattern or trend in residential development; or • Display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and • Retain the essential aspects of historic integrity.

To be eligible under this criterion, a historic district must:
• Retain a majority of contributing buildings from the period of significance; and • Retain significant character-defining features from the period of significance, including any important landscape or hardscape features; and
• Retain the original layout, reflecting planning and design principles from the period; and
• Retain the essential aspects of historic integrity.

Criterion B/2/2 (Important Persons)
Individual residential properties eligible under this criterion may be significant:
• For an association with persons significant in our past; or Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 103 • For a proven association with a specific significant ethnic or cultural group that made a demonstrable impact on the community.

Note that according to National Park Service guidance, persons significant in our past refers to individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, state, or national historic context. A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned or used by a person who is a member of an identifiable profession, class, or social or ethnic group. In addition, the property must be associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance.

Integrity Considerations:

In order to be eligible for designation under this criterion, a property must retain sufficient integrity from the period of significance to convey its association with the important person. • Residential properties from this period should retain integrity of design, workmanship, feeling, and association, at a minimum, in order to convey the property’s association with the significant person’s productive period.
• A general rule is that the property must be recognizable to contemporaries of the person with which it is associated.

Registration Requirements:

To be eligible under this criterion a property must:
• Have a proven association with the productive period of a person important to local, state, or national history; and
• Display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style from the period of significance (i.e., the period when the property was associated with the important person); and
• Retain the essential aspects of integrity.

Criterion C/3/3,5,7 (Architecture and Design)
Individual residential properties that are eligible under this criterion may be significant as:
• A good/excellent or rare example of an architectural style, property type, or method of construction; or
• A distinctive work by a noted architect, landscape architect, builder, or designer.

Integrity Considerations:

In order to be eligible for designation under this criterion, a property must retain sufficient integrity from the period of significance to convey its architecture. • Residential properties significant under this criterion should retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling, at a minimum.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 104 • A property that is eligible for designation as a good/excellent or rare example of its style or type retains most - though not necessarily all - of the character-defining features of the style.
• A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique. A property can be eligible if it has lost some historic materials or details but retains the majority of the essential features from the period of significance. These features illustrate the style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. • A property is not eligible if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

Registration Requirements:

To be eligible under this criterion a property must:
• Date from the period of significance; and
• Represent a good/excellent or rare example of a style or type; and • Represent quality of design and distinctive details; and • Display most of the character-defining features of the style or type; and • Retain the essential aspects of integrity.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 198 Theme: Residential Development
Across the United States, as GIs returned from the frontlines and began to settle back into civilian life, the nationwide demand for housing dramatically increased. The GI Bill provided significant economic benefits to returning veterans, including reasonable loan terms for home purchases, and credit for college tuition.382 To address the housing shortage, developers responded with tracts of mass-produced single-family homes built quickly and cheaply. The first and most influential planned community in the United States was Levittown, New York.

Developers of Levittown constructed thousands of homogenous tract homes in response to the housing crisis, a model which was repeated across the country and ultimately transformed suburbia.383
Like so many Southern California cities, Pomona’s population density increased during the immediate postwar period. Communities with large agricultural parcels, such as those in the Pomona Valley, offered the room necessary for residential expansion and the development of large-scale postwar tracts. Large developers like Weber-Burns and Kaiser Community Homes adopted similar models of quick, cheap tract home construction in communities throughout the region. Although these large housing developments typically featured Ranch-style homes, some developers also partnered with architects to offer homes that leveraged modern architectural ideas and elements to distinguish their products. Custom, single-family residences designed by architects appear to be rare in Pomona. Unlike some communities that have a substantial number of individual Modern residential designs, the emphasis in Pomona during the postwar period was clearly on tract housing development.

There were approximately 400 residential tracts recorded in Pomona between 1945 and 1980, significantly expanding the footprint of the city. This section provides an overview of residential subdivisions in Pomona. Table 5 at the conclusion of this section lists the largest postwar housing developments that are now located within the city limits. Details about select postwar tracts in Pomona are included in Appendix A.

POSTWAR SUBURBANIZATION IN POMONA
One of the earliest and largest postwar tract developments in the Pomona area was Pomona Homes, first developed in 1946.384 Spearheaded by builders C.T. and W.P. Stover, Edwin A.

Tomlin and Company, and R. J. Daum Construction Co., the new development was located on 475 acres of the former ranch lands of S. W. Beasley, southwest of present-day Mission Boulevard and S. Dudley Street.385 The planned community comprised 2,500 homes developed in conjunction with FHA guidelines with plans to sell to veterans. 382 Though as with many other government programs, the GI Bill primarily benefitted white veterans, and the “wide disparity in the bill’s implementation ended up helping drive growing gaps in wealth, education and civil rights between white and Black Americans.” Erin Blakemore, “How the GI Bill’s Promise was Denied to a Million Black WWII Veterans,” https://www.history.com/news/gi-billblack-wwii-veterans-benefits (accessed April 2022). 383 Levittown also had restrictive covenants that prevented non-white residents to own or rent property in the development. 384 At the time it was subdivided, the tract was located outside of the City limits; it was later annexed by the City of Pomona. 385 Beasley and his wife had donated land to the Seventh Day Adventist College of Medical Evangelists in 1944.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 199 Pomona Homes was a large and early example of the mass production of tract houses. Its construction was delayed until the fall of 1946 as the developers worked to compile the needed construction materials that had been scarce during the war. Once the necessary materials were obtained, the development adopted many of the efficiencies used during the war effort, including establishing a production assembly line for the prefabricated housing components.386 To aid construction, the project established a five-acre warehouse containing 2.8 million feet of lumber, 15 carloads of cedar shingles, 2,000 doors, and large quantities of plumbing, electrical, and other building supplies.387 Pomona Homes also established a concrete plant west of the stockpiles so they could quickly pour the foundations for up to four to five residences each day.

Residences in the development were planned by Long Beach-based architect Hugh Gibbs so that no two houses of the same design and color on the same block. The three-bedroom houses consisted of twenty-two different styles on four different concrete pad configurations, and with 64 different color schemes. The slightly curving streets were named after early Pomona pioneers: McComas, Buffington, Fleming, and Vejar, among others. By January of 1947, there were 490 homes for sale at Pomona Homes.388
Pomona Homes ushered in a wave of new subdivisions in Pomona. The development of Pomona Homes, along with the establishment of the Convair industrial plant, spurred the creation of some of Pomona’s largest residential tracts in what is now the western part of the city, adjacent to the Kellogg Arabian Horse Farm. These included Kellogg Park Units 1 and 2 (1952) by the Liberty Building Co.; Kellogg Park Units 3 and 4 (1953) by George and Robert Alexander; Pomona Estates (1954) by Weber-Burns; Valwood Estates (1954-1956) by WeberBurns; and Parkview Pomona (1954-1955) by Mark Taper’s Biltmore Homes.

During and immediately after the war, the architectural community began to experiment with new technologies and building techniques that would influence residential subdivisions for decades. The influential Case Study House program was the creation of John Entenza, the Southern California-based editor of Arts & Architecture magazine. During the war, Entenza, along with a number of other architects, discussed new ideas in residential design and construction that could only be talked about because of wartime service and restrictions.389 Among them were Ralph Rapson, John Rex, Richard Neutra, Charles Eames, J.R. Davidson, Whitney Smith, and Thornton Abell. The program announcement stated that each “house must be capable of duplication and in no sense be an individual 'performance'... It is important that the best material available be used in the best possible way in order to arrive at a ‘good’ solution of each problem, which in the overall program will be general enough to be of practical assistance to the average American in search of a home in which he can afford to live.”390 386 Another early tract to employ the assembly line method of construction was the Towne House development in southeast Pomona.

Here, the 120-man Curlett-Harwood Co. crew (plus 40 other building trades) constructed all walls and partitions in the project yard and trucked them to the home sites for assembly.
387 “90 Units Started in Pomona Homes Housing Project,” Pomona Progress Bulletin, November 8, 1946, 1. 388 “90 Units Started in Pomona Homes Housing Project,” Pomona Progress Bulletin, November 8, 1946, 1. 389 David Travers, “Case Study House Program: Introduction,” http://www.artsandarchitecture.com/case.houses/index.html (accessed April 2022).
390 Travers, “Case Study House Program: Introduction.”
Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 200 Over the course of the program, which lasted from 1945 until 1962, over 30 projects were designed by many of Southern California’s most renowned Modernists. The real impact of the program was the national attention that it brought to modern design in California. “Publication in Arts & Architecture became a door to national and international renown for West Coast architects. Reyner Banham said that ‘Arts and Architecture changed the itinerary of the Grand Tour pilgrimage for European architects and students: America replaced Italy and Los Angeles replaced Florence.’”391
Many prominent developers in the postwar era commissioned architects to help layout their subdivisions and provide residential designs, further amplifying the tenets of the Case Study program and other experiments in low-cost housing. In Pomona, numerous residential subdivisions were designed by noted architects and designers. Marshall Tilden’s Cliff May Homes development was designed by Cliff May and Chris Choate. Valwood Estates was designed by Palmer & Krisel, AIA; College Grove Ranchos was designed by Roland Logan Russell, AIA; Pomona Rancho Village was designed by Roy M. Watkins. Val Vista was designed by L. C. Major & Associates.
391 David Travers, “About Arts and Architecture,” http://www.artsandarchitecture.com/about.html (accessed April 2022).

College Grove Ranchos, photographed by Julius Shulman in 1956. Photos by Julius Shulman. © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 201 One of the first postwar developments in Pomona with architect-designed residences was Westmont Homes, designed by architect Arthur Lawrence Miller. Westmont Homes was developed by the same group as Pomona Homes and sited immediately to its west.392 The subdivision was an early example of total design, including the planning and execution of a community center, school, and commercial/retail stores. By 1949, 550 three-bedroom homes were built within the former walnut grove.393
The Los Angeles Times declared Westmont Homes to be the first Mid-century Modern style tract development in Pomona and one of the first in the Los Angeles area.394 Miller’s Midcentury Modern designs for the residences included clerestory windows to provide views of the surrounding hills, a wall of glass leading out to the patio, and an open plan. Miller used carports, storage units, and fences to create a unique architectural cadence not found in most tract home construction. The more typical practice to achieve this type of cadence was to vary the rooflines, which was much more costly than Miller’s approach. The three residential plans were paired on angled on the lots to create a thoughtful approach to the siting and create a varied streetscape.

Renderings of Westmont Homes. Arts & Architecture, May 1950.

In 1950, Westmont Homes was featured in Arts & Architecture magazine as an exemplar of tract home design—specifically calling out the superior plan design and siting on exceptionally narrow lots as “…much better than on the conventional tract plan layout of lots 10 to 15 feet wider.”395 The tract was designed with three different plans, each with three variations in the treatment of the primary façade. The initial price point of $8,500 and the availability of FHA financing made the design achievement even more noteworthy. Westmont Homes were featured in Life magazine in 1954.
392 Tract maps from 1947 through 1952 indicate the formation of seven new tracts with different combinations of investors. 393 “Ground is Broken for Westmont Area Shopping Center,” Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1949, E9. 394 Edith McCall Head, “Contemporary Gets Down to Business,” Los Angeles Times, July 15, 1951, F4. 395 “New Tract Houses,” Art & Architecture, May 1950, 33.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 202 Site Plan for Westmont Homes. Arts & Architecture, May 1950.

By 1957, the pending freeway infrastructure made outlying areas such as Pomona viable “suburbs” for those who worked in downtown Los Angeles. This spurred investment in residential tract development in the northern part of the city, including new subdivisions both north and south of La Verne Avenue.396 The Pomona Valley was heavily marketed to Angelenos, although many tract developments within the city limits were frequently described as in neighboring communities of Claremont or Upland rather than Pomona.397 In the mid-1950s, Pomona tract developers coordinated to create a marketing campaign for the Pomona Valley, employing the slogan “Live, Work and Play in Pomona Valley.”398 Also known as the “Move to Pomona Valley” campaign, this marketing effort targeted veterans and nonveterans alike, encouraging them to purchase homes in one of six residential communities.399 According to historian Genevieve Carpio, “developers underscored career opportunities in the valley’s growing industrial plants, appealing to young families who sought proximity to employment and a suburban ideal of open space, safety, and shopping.” In early 1957, the Los Angeles Times reported that some 35,000 people toured the model homes of five Pomona Valley residential developments.400
In addition to the large regional development firms that built in the area, there were several local developers of note. In 1957, Robert A. Olin (1914-1973) established Olin Construction Co. in Claremont. After the war, Olin started as a general contractor in Chicago. After moving to the Pomona Valley, Olin built many civic and commercial buildings. By 1953, he was building tract homes in Covina. As president of the Home Builders Council, Inc. in the early 1960s, Olin was one of the original five signers to the petition to repeal the Rumford Act.401 Ralph Lewis was another influential local developer in the Pomona Valley. Lewis partnered with Robert Olin to develop Claremont Highlands before founding Lewis Homes with his wife and sons. The Lewises were Jewish developers, a minority which was increasingly recognized as 396 The largest of these was Parkview Pomona by Biltmore Homes, Inc., with 374 units. 397 This may have been an ongoing repercussion of the redlining labels assigned to Pomona back in the 1930s. 398 “Developers Sponsor Campaign in Pomona,” Los Angeles Times, March 24, 1957, F9. 399 Genevieve Carpio, “From Citrus Belt to Inland Empire, 1945-1970” in Collisions at the Crossroads: How Place and Mobility Make Race (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2019), 190. 400 “Thousands View New Pomona Dwellings,” Los Angeles Times, February 3, 1957, F10. 401 “Builders Will Discuss Rumford Housing Issue,” Los Angeles Times, March 1, 1964, Q24.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 203 white in postwar California. According to Carpio, “as the racial category of ‘white’ shifted to include previously excluded minorities in the postwar period, so too did residential patterns.”402 The Lewis family adopted a racially inclusive strategy of residential development in the Pomona Valley.

Gee Builders, Inc. Land Subdividers and Developers was a Chinese American-owned company.

Gee Builders were responsible for the development of West Pomona Manors.403 Roy Chan, one of the owners of West Pomona Manors, received a degree in architectural engineering from California State Polytechnic College. Gee Builders also hired J. Thomas Wilner, a tract home designer, for the plans and elevations for West Pomona Manors.404 During the 1960s, Pomona led all San Gabriel Valley cities in the number of dwelling units authorized. Between 1960 and 1963, 74 tracts comprising 1,993 lots were developed. Between 1964 and 1967, another 25 subdivisions were recorded.405 Through the 1960s and 1970s, it was standard practice for developers to establish Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that included restrictions on the sale of residences within these newly-established residential communities to people of color and members of the Jewish faith. However, according to historian Gloria Ricci Lothrop, developers over saturated the housing market in Pomona and cutbacks from a declining defense industry forced the VA and the FHA to repossess homes.

Vacancies abounded and many local realtors, eager to do business, signed non-discrimination policies and announced the availability of the repossessed homes to people of color. As a result, by 1977, a special state Census conducted in Pomona revealed that 52% of all Pomona residents had lived in the city for three years or less.406
With the onset of the economic recession in the early 1970s, residential development in Pomona stalled. As described in the Los Angeles Times, “…new housing construction was virtually unknown” in Pomona from 1974 to 1976.407 In 1976, there was just one single-family residence constructed in the city.408
As economic conditions improved in the latter part of the decade, construction activities resumed accordingly. In Pomona, one of the largest developments from this period was the redevelopment of the 2,241-acre Phillips Ranch into new residential communities. The former ranch land was purchased in the 1960s by Westmore Development Co., led by Al Lesser. Lesser embarked on a comprehensive master plan for the community which included 260 acres of land reserved for open space and a network of pedestrian and biking trails. No construction was undertaken until the late 1970s, when Lesser began selling tracts to other developers to create residential subdivisions. There were ultimately seven different subdivisions within the former 402 Carpio, 191-192.
403 Prior to developing West Pomona Manors, Gee Builders constructed the Planz Park development in Bakersfield. 404 It is currently unknown whether Gee Builders placed any restrictive covenants on West Pomona Manors. 405 Ricci Lothrop, 115.
406 Ricci Lothrop, 117.
407 “Pomona Development Accent on the Positive,” Los Angeles Times, June 22, 1986, J1. 408 “Pomona Development Accent on the Positive,” Los Angeles Times, June 22, 1986, J1.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 204 Phillips Ranch, allowing for a wide variety of single-family homes at various price points.409 An emphasis on “country living” combined with trends in architecture of the period resulted in most of Phillips Ranch being designed in a rustic contemporary style in accordance with strict standards of design and construction.410 Most of the developments were only partially completed by 1980—with thousands of homes still to be built in the following decade. By 1980, however, buyers had purchased some $60 million in new homes in Phillips Ranch.411

Hearthstone Homes, one of seven new subdivisions on the former Phillips Ranch, photographed by Julius Shulman in 1980. Photo by Julius Shulman. © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10) However, a lack of funds and community opposition led to the abandonment of several other redevelopment projects in the city. This included a project that involved the City acquiring the Paretti Tract of 350 homes via eminent domain for commercial development. The project was opposed by protesting homeowners, many of whom were African American, Latino, and elderly white residents; the project ultimately failed. Another redevelopment project that never came to fruition was the Pomona Trade Center, a planned 12-story office, hotel, and retail complex. The center failed to secure sufficient funding and was abandoned by investors. 409 The seven developments within the former Phillips Ranch were Country Wood, by Kaufman & Broad; Diamond View Homes, by Criterion Development, Inc. and the John Martin Co.; Hearthstone, by W & A Builders; Falcon Ridge, by Griffin/Fletcher; Marlborough Country, by Marlborough Development; Meadow Ridge Homes, by Bauer Development Co.; and Sunnyslope, by Pacesetter Homes. 410 “Display Ad 149,” Los Angeles Times, March 25, 1979, I6. 411 “Move-Ins Start Hub of Activity at Philips Ranch Neighborhood,” Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1980, I8.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 205 TABLE 5: SELECTED TRACT DEVELOPMENTS IN POSTWAR POMONA

NAME DATE DEVELOPER
TR 13124 (Town House
Tract)
c. 1947 Rogert Titus Smith, et. al.

TR 14197 c. 1947 A. Harold Wilkins/ Percy E. Wilkins
Pomona Homes 1947 Pomona Homes (Edwin Tomlin, et. al.)
Towne House 1947 Roger Titus Smith, Rufus Rountree, et. al.412 Homes of Tomorrow, Inc. 1947 Jack G. Booth, Booth Brothers and Pomona Homes, Inc.

Westmont Homes 1947-53 Edwin Tomlin, et. al.

TR 14792 c. 1947 Arthur H. Lichte
TR 17877 c. 1952 Capital Company/ Nate Bershon and David Bershon TR 17386 c. 1952 Magnolia Downs
TR 18090 c. 1952 Edwin Saville
TR 16662 c. 1952 C. Douglass Ferry and Merle W. Ferry
Kellogg Park Unit 1 and 2 1952 Liberty Building Co./ Samuel Firks and Norman Feintech Pomona Rancho Village 1952-53 Booth Brothers + H. Frank Nelson Co.

Hacienda Gardens (#1) 1952-55 Covina Park Homes Corporation/ Jack G. Booth et. al.

Prudential Homes 1952-54 Harry L. Scholer/Equitable Homes Palmgrove Park 1953-54 Bershon Construction Co./Nate Bershon, David Bershon et. al.

Cary Lane Homes 1953 Allan-Williams Corporation
President Manor 1953 Braemar Homes of Pomona
Kellogg Park Unit 3 and 4 1953 George Estates/Reseda Homes Inc., a.k.a., George and Robert Alexander
Pomona Estates 1954 Arthur B. Weber and Associates/ Lee S. Burns, a.k.a., Weber-Burns
Parkview Pomona 1954-55 Biltmore Homes/S. Mark Taper
Valwood Estates 1954-56 Arthur B. Weber and Associates/ Lee S. Burns, a.k.a., Weber-Burns
Mayfair Homes 1954-55 Mayfair Homes Construction Co./Paul J. Wiener and Wade J. Howells
Cliff May Homes 1955-56 Marshall Tilden
TR 21183 c. 1955-
56 Gary Development Company/Arthur and Gilbert Katz
TR 21678 c. 1955-
56 Emerald Development Corp./ David Young et. al.

Cliff May Homes 1955-56 Phil Hunter and Joe Green
Crown Homes 1956 Curtis Mc Fadden/Campus Village Builders West Pomona Manors 1956-57 Pomona Manors/Jasmine Gee and Roy Chan with Gee Builders, Inc.

Fairlane Park 1956-57 Fairlane Builders/Walter Smith and Paul E. Cooper 412Although Jack G. Booth is not listed on the tract map, some newspaper accounts document that Booth Brothers was also an early investor in this development.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 206

NAME DATE DEVELOPER
Northgrove Homes 1956-61 Palmgrove Park Co./ Nate Bershon and David Bershon Cinderella Homes 1956 Olin & Lewis/Claremont Highland Homes TR 21309 c. 1956 Albert C. Johnson and Freda P. Johnson Linda Lee Homes 1956-57 D & E Corporation
College Grove Ranchos 1956-58 Cherry-Hadley/Ray K. Cherry and John Hadley, et. al.

Garey Gardens 1957-60 Garey Gardens/ Hadley-Cherry; Ray R. Cherry and Max B. Elliot
Cinderella Royalty Homes 1960-61 Cinderella Land Co./Olin Construction Co./Robert A.

Olin and John M. Watkins
Hacienda Gardens (#2) 1961-63 Hacienda Gardens Development Co./Jack Wagoner and John Barker
Benito Gardens 1962 Boyce Built Homes/ W. H. Boyce et. al.

Val Vista 1962-63 Forman Development Co./ Maston T. Noice County Fair Homes 1963 Monarc Estates, Inc./ John C. Wilcox and Lawrence E.

Cook
Carriage Homes 1963 Carriage Homes, Inc./ Olin Construction Co./Robert A.

Olin and John M. Watkins
Meadow Ridge Homes 1978-79 Bauer Development Co./George A. Campbell Marlborough Country 1978-80 Marlborough Development/ Ronald S. Lushing Diamond View Estates 1979-80 Criterion Development, Inc. and John Martin Co./ Donald E. Boucher and Frank L. Fehse
Sunnyslope 1979-80 Pacesetter Homes
Country Wood 1979-80 Kaufman & Broad
Falcon Ridge 1979-80 Griffin/Fletcher
Hearthstone Homes 1979-80 W & A Builders
Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 207

POSTWAR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Trailer and Mobile Home Parks
Trailer and mobile home parks were largely a post-World War II phenomenon, though they have their roots in prewar America. Growth in automobile ownership, combined with a post-World War I restlessness led to the rise of family camping trips as a popular past time during the mid1920s. Enterprising car campers began building their own canvas tent trailers on wooden singleaxle platforms. The idea caught on and soon several manufacturers were making recreational tent trailers; these were called “travel trailers” or “trailer coaches” by the nascent industry. Soon manufacturers began building larger trailers and adding amenities such as camp stoves, coldwater storage, and fold down bathroom fixtures.413 The Great Depression proved a boom for the travel trailer industry as thousands of migrants from the Dust Bowl made their way to California—many in modified travel trailers. With housing for the new migrants scarce, many turned to travel trailers as full-time living accommodations.414 Campgrounds that accepted the trailers were referred to as “trailer parks” and their more urban concrete counterparts became known as “trailer courts.” By 1938, the American Automobile Association calculated the number of travel trailers at 300,000 and estimated ten percent of them were used for extended full-time living, not recreational travel.415 Trailer Display on Second Street in Pomona, 1960. Pomona Public Library. 413 John Grissim, The Complete Buyers Guide to Manufactured Homes and Land, (Sequim, WA: Rainshadow Publications, 2003), 15. 414 Grissim, The Complete Buyers Guide to Manufactured Homes and Land, 15. 415 Grissim, The Complete Buyers Guide to Manufactured Homes and Land, 15.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 208 Some citizens reacted to these new trailer parks as unsightly and argued they were occupied by people of questionable character. In response, many cities passed zoning ordinances designed to keep the trailer villages out: banishing them from the city limits, prohibiting the use of such trailers for living, or require that they be moved every few days. However, the dire need for housing in many communities changed the perceptions of trailer living after World War II.416 Most of the trailer parks in Pomona were established after World War II in response to the city’s housing shortage.

The Orange Blossom Trailer Court and Motel (1437 W. Holt Avenue) appears to be Pomona’s oldest trailer park, dating back to at least 1944 and possibly earlier. This hybrid motel and auto court has generous landscaped areas as well as a motel along its eastern flank. The Vagabond Trailer Court (present-day Thunderbird Mobile Home Park) located at 1761 E. Mission Boulevard is another early trailer park. Newspaper accounts first mention the Vagabond in 1946. Another court dating to this period is the Gypsy Trailer Park, which relocated from 1627 W. Holt Boulevard to 1737 W. Holt Boulevard.417
Thunderbird Mobile Home Park (previously the Vagabond Trailer Court), 2022. HRG. 1950s-1960s Apartment Development
Postwar residential development in Pomona appears to have been primarily centered on the construction of single-family residences, as apartments and other multi-family types do not appear in the same numbers as in other communities in Southern California during this period.

This may be due in part to the zoning changes required for multi-family residential construction, 416 The industry responded quickly to the need for housing and designed the first true house trailer: a 22-foot long, eight-foot-wide trailer with a canvas top that included a kitchen and bathroom. 417 Other trailer parks from this period include Kottage Trailer Kourt (1446 E. Holt Boulevard, not extant); Gold Star Trailer Park (4300 Holt Boulevard); 5th Avenue Motel and Trailer Park (1052 E. Mission Boulevard); Gypsy Trailer Park (1737 W. Holt Boulevard); Bordner’s Trailer Park (1829 W. Mission Boulevard, not extant); Big’s Trailer Park (1461 W. Mission Boulevard); and the Midway Trailer Park (5017 Holt Boulevard).

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 209 which were cumbersome and often met with resistance from nearby homeowners. However, some multi-family residences, apartment buildings, and condominiums were built in Pomona in the immediate postwar period. Examples from the 1950s include the Manning E. Roeder-designed 36-unit Berkeley Manor Apartments (1660 Berkeley Avenue) built in 1956, and the 30-unit Pomona Plaza Apartments (1675 Berkeley Avenue) by Rochlin & Baran, AIA from 1959. These garden apartments were laid out around a central courtyard, sometimes with pool and patio.

During the 1960s, the projects tended to be larger in scale. One interesting approach to multifamily residential development in the city was the 1962 Grand Terrace Duplexes by Boyce Built Homes. The Grand Terrace Duplexes comprised 25 modest, Minimal Traditional residences lining Penmar Lane and Elliott Court at Eleanor Street. The duplexes were advertised as “own your own” opportunities.418 Another large Pomona apartment development was Tahiti Village, built in 1963 and located on the northwest corner of 9th Street and Buena Vista Avenue and built in 1963.

The complex of 17 buildings contained a total of 73 one-bedroom units.

One of the largest and most architecturally significant of these developments was Key CoOperative Village (1500 E. San Bernardino Avenue), built in 1961 and designed by prominent South Pasadena-based architects Smith and Williams (Whitney R. Smith and Wayne R. Williams) with landscape architect Garrett Eckbo. The eight-acre, $1,500,000 development included 112 units arranged in triplexes located on the east and west sides of Benedict and Appleton Streets.419 The complex is dominated by six-unit buildings composed of two sets of three triplexes. Building facades include both a board-and-batten Ranch Style and a Modern Spanish-style with arches and cement plaster exterior wall cladding. A small open park area was set aside in the center of the complex. Golden Key Co-Operative Village was an early example of co-operative apartments in which residents were able to purchase their units instead of renting.420 Mount San Antonio Gardens (900 E. Harrison), a 276-unit senior housing project was designed by Kenneth Lind Associates for client Congregational Homes/Mount San Antonio Gardens, with financing from the FHA.421 The 14-acre site incorporated a variety of accommodations including cottages, one-bedroom apartments, efficiency units, suites and semi-suites, guest rooms, and staff quarters all in the Mid-century Modern architectural style. The three congregate buildings, at the center of the plan, featuring communal living, dining, and recreational spaces, were designed with circular wings surrounding an open patio. Glass was extensively used to provide a connection between indoor and outdoor space. Lind planned the project with the use of ramps instead of stairs. The first unit to be constructed was just east of San Antonio Avenue between Bonita and Harrison Avenues. A unit in the eastern portion of the project opened in 1963. In 1969, a new auditorium was constructed—an enlargement of the former assembly hall. The project was featured in Architectural Record and received an Honor Award for superior design from the FHA in February 1964.422
418 “Advertisement,” Pomona Progress Bulletin, June 12, 1962, 16. 419 “Planners Okay Zone Changes Despite Residents’ Protests,” Pomona Progress Bulletin, July 28, 1960, 13. 420 Boundaries of the complex to be confirmed through additional research. 421 The project was originally awarded to Smith and Williams; however, their design was not implemented. 422 “Pomona Development Given FHA Award,” Los Angeles Times, February 9, 1964, L10.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 210 Mount San Antonio Gardens, c. 1963. Mount San Antonio Gardens.

Condominiums and the Growth of Leisure
During the late 1960s and through the mid-1970s, several new real estate trends influenced the development of multi-family properties throughout Southern California. These include the widespread adoption of the condominium financing structure, and the introduction of extensive recreational facilities as amenities for residents in large-scale developments. These trends reflected a movement away from single-family residential ownership as empty nesters elected to downsize and eliminate responsibility for property maintenance.

The condominium movement was born out of the earlier co-op apartment trend. However, condominiums diverged from co-op apartment arrangements, like Golden Key, in that the residences were not technically owned collectively; each unit was owned individually but common areas were subject to collective ownership. Typically, homeowners’ associations were established, and monthly ownership dues funded maintenance of the common areas. A lack of financing for the new ownership concept, however, suppressed initial development of the concept. In 1961, the FHA was only authorized to insure mortgages on condos for 85 percent of the appraised value. It wasn’t until September 1963 that tax appraisal methods for condominiums were settled, and developers began building condominiums in earnest.423 The condominium craze was relatively subdued in Pomona, likely due to the overbuilt nature of housing in the city.

In the 1970s, multi-family residential development increasingly emphasized leisure activities.

Boating, golf, and tennis became popular sports and many complexes incorporated recreational facilities into their amenities. An example of this in Pomona is the Sonrisa Country Club Apartments (2261 Valley Boulevard), constructed in 1971 and designed by architect Gared N.

Smith. The complex included an extensive facility, along with volleyball courts, a swimming pool, gas barbecues, a recreation pavilion clubhouse, and separate men’s and women’s gymnasiums. 423 Dan Mac Masters, “Condominiums—The Most Exciting Housing Development in 15 Years,” Los Angeles Times, July 26, 1964, 44.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 211

ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS
Summary Statement of Significance
The 1960s and 1970s brought on the widespread development of the condominium. Individual properties or historic districts that are eligible under this theme may be significant as the site of an important event in history; for an association with an ethnic or cultural group or a person important in local, state, or national history; for exemplifying an important trend or pattern of development (typically, as contributors to historic districts). Resources significant under this theme may include single-family residences constructed in vast residential tracts recorded during the period immediately following World War II, and the multi-family residences that were increasingly popular by the late 1950s and early 1960s. Properties may also be significant as an example of a style or type; architectural styles in Pomona are discussed in the Architecture and Design Section.

Period of Significance 1946-1980
Period of Significance Justification Broadly covers post-World War II residential development in Pomona.

Geographic Location Citywide.

Associated Property Types Residential: Single Family Residence, MultiFamily Residence, Tract Features/Amenity, Historic District.

Property Type Description Significant property types are those representing important periods of residential
development in Pomona, including single-family
residences, multi-family residences, such as
mobile home/trailer parks and garden
apartments, and tract features and amenities,
including street trees/other significant
landscape features and streetlights. These
properties can be single-family or multi-family
residences and may collectively form a historic
district.

Criterion A/1/1,9 (Events/Patterns of Development)
Individual residential properties that are eligible under this criterion may be significant:
 As the site of an event important in history; or
 For exemplifying an important trend or pattern of residential development; or Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 212  As a rare remaining example of a residential development type (ex. trailer park/mobile home, garden apartment).

Merely dating from a specific period is typically not enough to qualify for designation. Tract homes are typically not eligible individually for representing a period of development, due to widespread residential development during this period. Residences that are eligible for an association with a trend or pattern of development from this period may be more appropriately evaluated as part of a historic district.

A collection of residential properties that are eligible under this criterion as a historic district may be significant:
 For representing an important pattern or trend in postwar residential development, such as the establishment of a notable postwar tract.
 As an intact collection of residences that represent the postwar growth of Pomona.

District boundaries may represent original tract boundaries, or they may comprise a portion of a tract or neighborhood. The district must be unified aesthetically by plan, physical development, and architectural quality. Historic districts representing post-World War II housing tracts will be eligible if they are excellent and intact examples of residential development representing the growth of the city during this period, for an association with an innovative type of housing development, or for other distinguishing characteristics that differentiate it from other subdivisions from the period. Residences from this period will be eligible as contributors to historic districts. Local designation for historic districts includes Criteria 4, 6, and 8.

Integrity Considerations:

In order to be eligible for designation under this criterion, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance.
 Residential properties from this period should retain integrity of location,424 design, material, setting, workmanship, feeling, and association in order to convey their significance.
 An individual property that is eligible for a historic association must retain the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with an event or historical pattern.  Note that some properties that may not retain sufficient integrity for listing in the National Register may remain eligible for listing at the state and local levels.

For historic districts:
424 Unless the property was moved during the period of significance.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 213  The majority of the components that add to the postwar district’s historic character must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. o The historic district must retain a majority of contributors that date from the period of significance.
o A contributing property must retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association to adequately convey the significance of the historic district.
o Some alterations to individual buildings, such as replacement of roof materials, replacement garage doors, and replacement of windows within original openings may be acceptable as long as the district as a whole continues to convey its significance.
o Original tract features may also be contributing features.

Registration Requirements:

To be eligible under this criterion, an individual property must:
 Date from the period of significance; and
 Have a proven association with an event important in history; or  Represent an important catalyst for a pattern or trend in postwar residential development; or
 Display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and  Retain the essential aspects of historic integrity.

A historic district eligible under this theme must:
 Retain a majority of contributing buildings from the period of significance; and  Retain significant character-defining features from the period of significance, including any important landscape or hardscape features; and  Retain the original layout, reflecting planning and design principles from the period; and
 Retain the essential aspects of historic integrity.

Criterion B/2/2 (Important Persons)
Individual residential properties eligible under this criterion may be significant:
 For an association with persons significant in our past; or  For a proven association with a specific significant ethnic or cultural group that made a demonstrable impact on the community in the postwar period, for example in the civil rights movement in Pomona.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 214 Note that according to National Park Service guidance, persons significant in our past refers to individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, state, or national historic context. A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned or used by a person who is a member of an identifiable profession, class, or social or ethnic group. In addition, the property must be associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance.

Integrity Considerations:

In order to be eligible for designation under this criterion, a property must retain sufficient integrity from the period of significance to convey its association with the important person.  Residential properties from this period should retain integrity of design, workmanship, feeling, and association, at a minimum, in order to convey the property’s association with the significant person’s productive period.
 A general rule is that the property must be recognizable to contemporaries of the person with which it is associated.

Registration Requirements:

To be eligible under this criterion a property must:
 Have a proven association with the productive period of a person important to local, state, or national history; and
 Display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style from the period of significance (i.e., the period when the property was associated with the important person); and
 Retain the essential aspects of integrity.

Criterion C/3/3,5,7 (Architecture and Design)
Individual residential properties that are eligible under this criterion may be significant as:
 An excellent or rare example of an architectural style, property type, or method of construction; or
 A distinctive work by a noted architect, landscape architect, builder, or designer.

Mid-Century Modern style tract homes are typically not eligible individually for architectural style. A collection of residential properties that are eligible under this criterion as a historic district may be significant:
 For an association with an important merchant builder or architect; or  As a collection of excellent Mid-century Modern architecture.

District boundaries may represent original tract boundaries, or they may comprise a portion of a tract or neighborhood. The district must be unified aesthetically by plan, physical development, and architectural quality. Residences from this period will be eligible as Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 215 contributors to historic districts. Local designation for historic districts includes Criteria 4, 6, and 8.

Integrity Considerations:

In order to be eligible for designation under this criterion, a property must retain sufficient integrity from the period of significance to convey its architecture.  Residential properties significant under this criterion should retain integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling, at a minimum.  A property that is eligible for designation as a good/excellent or rare example of its style or type retains most - though not necessarily all - of the character-defining features of the style.
 A property is not eligible if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

Registration Requirements:

To be eligible under this criterion a property must:
 Date from the period of significance; and
 Represent an excellent or rare example of a style or type; and  Represent quality of design and distinctive details; and  Display most of the character-defining features of the style or type; and  Retain the essential aspects of integrity.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 216 Theme: Commercial Development
Southern California’s postwar population boom and rise in consumer culture spurred retail and commercial development throughout the region. Pomona was no exception. Postwar commercial development was characterized in part by the modernization of existing commercial buildings in an effort to update downtown retail centers. One prominent example in Pomona was Ora-Addies, a women’s boutique established by Mrs. Ora Milner and Mrs. Adelade Tate at 163 W. 2nd Street.

The owners engaged Sumner Spaulding and John Rex to completely redesign the two-story interior of the original building to make it a showcase space. The ultra-modern design featured a floating staircase, mezzanine, and custom cabinetry. The design was featured in the December 1945 issue of Arts & Architecture.
425

Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10)
However, most commercial development during this period expanded outside of the original commercial core to provide much-needed services in proximity to the growing suburban communities. In Pomona, commercial growth was seen along Route 66 (present-day Arrow Highway), Garey Avenue, Mission Boulevard, Holt Avenue, Valley Boulevard, and Indian Hill Avenue.

Many of the commercial structures built after the war responded to both the growing middle class and suburban leisure culture, and the automobile: coffee shops, fast food establishments and restaurants, supermarkets, department stores, and specialty retailers all designed to appeal to the passing motorist and conveniently located away from downtown. Commercial development along Route 66 picked-up after World War II with the development of properties commonly associated with a tourist corridor: gas stations, motels, and restaurants.426 As a result, commercial activity in downtown Pomona declined—eventually forcing a large urban renewal project in an attempt to upgrade and revitalize the downtown area.

A more exuberant, expressive Modernism emerged in commercial design after the war, capturing both the zeitgeist and playful exuberance of the moment and appealing to the modern, automobile-oriented consumer. The style became known as Googie, after Googie’s Diner in Los 425 “Small Modern Shop,” Arts & Architecture, December 1945, 40-41. 426 Classified Ad, Pomona Progress Bulletin, March 12, 1948, 17.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 217 Angeles designed by John Lautner in 1949. The style has been described as Modernism for the masses. It was widely employed in roadside commercial architecture of the 1950s, including coffee shops, bowling alleys, and car washes. Henry’s Restaurant and Drive-In (not extant) was one of the premiere local examples of the Googie architectural style. It was located along Route 66, at Garey Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Henry’s was designed in 1957 by architect John Lautner as the fourth location of the Henry’s chain of restaurants. It featured a football-shaped plan, with one side arranged for indoor dining/cocktails and the other for carhop service. The roof had an expressionistic shape characteristic of Lautner’s architectural vocabulary. As described by author Alan Hess, Henry’s was “…a whale with a long dual backbone of laminated timbers arching long and low on doubled concrete columns…large glass walls set well within broad eaves, opened to the dining room.”427 The restaurant was later known as Tiffaney’s.

Henry’s Restaurant and Drive-In, designed by John Lautner, 1954. Lautner A-Z.

Perhaps because of its suburban development and reliance on the automobile, Pomona enjoys a wealth of roadside architecture that extended beyond Route 66. These expressive modern buildings, some more elaborately Googie than others, relied on structural expression, large expanses of glass, neon and kinetic signs both to display their goods and services and to lure in motorists. Pole signs often remain at some of Pomona’s roadside buildings that have been altered.

To support its burgeoning postwar population, greater Pomona was dotted with a number of fastfood restaurants and coffee shops. McDonald’s #8 (1057 Mission Boulevard), constructed in 1954, is the second oldest extant example of the iconic fast-food chain. 428 The McDonald brothers worked with architect Stanley C. Meston on the design. They provided a small rough sketch of two half circle arches, from which the architect refined the forms; he also designed the factory427 Alan Hess, Googie Redux: Ultramodern Roadside Architecture, (San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books, 2004), 73. 428 There is some disagreement between scholars as to whether this is store #7 or #8. The Azusa and Pomona locations were opened nearly simultaneously.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 218 like assembly line kitchen.429 Although altered, the hamburger stand and the large original roadside golden arches retain their essential form, although the building has now been repurposed to sell donuts.

Other early examples of iconic fast-food restaurants from the postwar period include Der Wienerschnitzel (500 E. Mission Boulevard) and Pioneer Chicken (2250 N. Garey Avenue). There is a 1950s Tastee Freeze (794 E. Mission), with its signature orange A-frame soft serve stand and sign, and a Donahoo’s Fried Chicken (1074 Garey Avenue), a Mid-century Modern building from 1966 with its original fiberglass chicken high atop a pole sign advertising “Golden Chicken boxed to go.” Two original Arby’s in Pomona (2250 N. Garey Avenue and 1175 E. Holt Avenue) with chuckwagon shapes were constructed in 1970.

Another early Googie-style restaurant was the Mission Family Restaurant (demolished). Opened in 1958 at 888 W. Mission Boulevard, the restaurant featured dimensional tilework by Pomona Tile and a “Jury Room,” which was used by jurors from the nearby courthouses for meal breaks.430 The Googie-style diner at 1280 E. Holt Avenue was originally built as a Breakfast at Carl’s.

Former McDonalds #8 (top left), Wienerschnitzel (top right), Former Arby’s (bottom left), and Former Breakfast at Carl’s (bottom right) in Pomona, 2022. HRG.

Mom and pop donut shops and coffee shops were a staple throughout Southern California in the 1950s and 1960s. These modest, freestanding, Mid-century Modern-style shops enjoyed large expanses of glass with plenty of parking. Taylor Maid Donuts (488 E. Mission Boulevard) is a rare 429 Hess, 152.
430 The restaurant was originally named the Hull House. It was destroyed in a fire in 2020.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 219 and intact example of one of these buildings. The 1958 Danny’s Donuts (2085 Holt Avenue, not extant) by the Googie specialists Armet & Davis did not survive. In 1969, on the southeast corner of Holt and East End Avenue, Van de Kamps built one of its iconic windmill-design coffee shops designed by architect Harold Bissner, Jr. (not extant). Another example of a postwar specialty retailer with a Mid-century Modern-style building is the 1960 Pollock’s Flowers (715 Garey Avenue).

Another significant commercial type from the postwar period was the auto showroom. As with other types of commercial development, automobile sales moved outside of downtown commercial centers where they had the space to design eye-catching glass and steel buildings to showcase their sleek, modern wares. In Pomona, Tate Motors (888 E. Holt Avenue), completed in 1957 offered a large, two-story glass rotunda for displaying the latest Cadillacs and Pontiacs.

Inside, four “Flying saucer-like hanging fixtures each 12 feet across provided dramatic lighting and added to the out-of-this world look.”431 Designed by Arthur Lawrence Miller and Ted Criley, Jr., the dealership also had a towering sign and a sidewalk garden of exotic plants.

Tate Motors, 1957. Photo by Julius Shulman. © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2004.R.10)
In addition to standalone development along commercial corridors, the postwar period was also the era of the shopping center – including both small community shopping centers and larger, more regional shopping malls. Especially popular given Southern California’s climate was the development of the open-air mall. Three open-air malls were developed in Los Angeles County in 1955: Los Altos Center in Long Beach, Whittier Downs Center in Santa Fe Springs, and the 431 Charles Phoenix, Cruising the Pomona Valley (Los Angeles, CA: Horn of Plenty Press, 1999), 112-113.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 220 Pomona Valley Center which straddled the Pomona-Montclair city limits. Pomona Valley Center was designed by Sterling Leach.432 Anchor stores included the F.C. Nash Department Store, Market Basket supermarket, and Sears.433 Rows of specialty retailers connected the anchor stores with landscaped pedestrian corridors and generous overhangs. Cars were relegated to the substantial parking areas around the shopping center. In 1967, the mall was extended to the west.

A renovation during the 1970s was followed by the enclosure of the mall in the early 1980s when it was renamed Indian Hill Village. The complex ultimately failed to compete with the more popular Montclair Plaza.

Rendering of the Pomona Valley Center, Sterling Leach, 1954. Los Angeles Times, November 12, 1954.

As in other Southern California communities, banks and savings and loan companies proliferated in Pomona in the postwar period as a result of the booming real estate industry. Financial institutions would often open branch locations in proximity to new residential subdivisions. These new bank buildings often represented significant community and architectural statements, projecting an image appropriate for a successful financial institution. New postwar bank buildings in Pomona include the 1950 First National Bank of Pomona (401 E. 2nd Street, not extant). In 1956, B.H. Anderson designed the main office for Pomona First Federal Savings (399 N. Garey Avenue), a two-story, Mid-century Modern building that cost $500,000 to construct. The lobby included a Millard Sheets mural434 which was later purchased by the American Museum of Ceramic Art.435 Pomona First Federal Savings was featured in Architectural Record in June of that year. In 1957, Anderson designed the First Western Bank and Trust (1095 Garey Avenue) which opened its doors in 1958. That same year, a branch of Bank of America (2475 N. Garey Avenue) was built in north Pomona, designed by architect F.K. Lesan. 432 “Further Development of New Pomona Valley Center Slated,” Los Angeles Times, November 12, 1954. 433 The original Sears at Pomona Valley Center was designed by Stiles O. Clements in 1954 with the red brick, cut green stone, and palm trees that identified the retailer.
434 In 1982, the bank built a new ATM carport and commissioned Denis O’Connor, an associate of Sheets, to create a mosaic for the carport.
435 “Article 20,” Los Angeles Times, March 4, 1956, F7.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 221

Left: Rendering of First Federal Savings, 399 N. Garey Avenue, 1956. Right: Interior mural by Millard Sheets, n.d.

Pomona Public Library.

In 1958, Anderson designed a branch building for Pomona First Federal Savings (originally 550 Alexander Avenue, now Indian Hill Boulevard), which was completed in 1960. The design included decorative patterned brickwork, a folded-plate roof, and electronic pole sign mounted on steel beams. On the south wall of the interior, the building contained a 78-foot-long and 7-foot-high mural by Millard Sheets entitled, “Panorama of the Pomona Valley.” At the time of its completion, it was the largest mural ever painted by Sheets.

Rendering of First Federal Savings, 550 Indian Hill Boulevard, 1958-60. Pomona Public Library

ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS
Summary Statement of Significance
In the post-World War II era, economic activity in the city expanded to serve a growing population. Redevelopment projects were also common during this period, as the City sought to enhance the downtown core. Resources that are eligible under this theme may be significant as an excellent example of post-war commercial development and expansion, as the site of a significant event, or for an association with an ethnic or cultural group or a person important in local, state, or national history. Properties may also be significant as an example of a style or type; architectural styles in Pomona are discussed in the Architecture and Design Section.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 222 Period of Significance 1946-1980
Period of Significance Justification Broadly covers the period of commercial development in Pomona from 1946 to 1980.

Geographic Location Citywide.

Associated Property Types Commercial: One-story Building; One-story Commercial Storefront Block; Mixed-use
Building; Mixed-use Commercial Block; Retail
store; Commercial Office; Bank; Restaurant;
Theater; Hotel; Recreational Facility; Historic
District.

Property Type Description Commercial property types include malls and shopping centers, department stores,
supermarkets, coffee shops, fast-food
restaurants, and automobile showrooms.

Criterion A/1/1,9 (Events/Patterns of Development)
Individual commercial properties that are eligible under this criterion may be significant:
 As the site of an event important in history; or
 For exemplifying an important trend or pattern commercial development, such as an iconic business within the community, a long term business, or community gathering place; or
 As an excellent and rare example of a commercial building type from the period (ex. malls, shopping centers, department stores, supermarkets, coffeeshops, fast-food restaurants).

A collection of commercial properties that are eligible under this criterion as a historic district may be significant:
 For representing an important pattern or trend in commercial development.  As an intact collection of businesses that represent the growth of Pomona during the period.

Note that some commercial development may span several themes or periods of development. Local designation for historic districts includes Criteria 4, 6, and 8.

Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 223 Integrity Considerations:

In order to be eligible for designation under this criterion, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance.
 Commercial properties from this period should retain integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, at a minimum, in order to convey their significance.
 An individual property that is eligible for a historic association must retain the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with an event or historical pattern.
 Note that some properties that may not retain sufficient integrity for listing in the National Register may remain eligible for listing at the state and local levels.

For historic districts:
 The majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole
o The historic district must retain a majority of contributors that date from the period of significance.
o A contributing property must retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association to adequately convey the significance of the historic district.
o Some alterations to individual buildings, such as replacement of roof materials and windows within original openings may be acceptable as long as the district as a whole continues to convey its significance.

Registration Requirements:

To be eligible under this criterion, an individual property must:
 Date from the period of significance; and
 Have a proven association with an event important in history; or  Represent an important catalyst for a pattern or trend in commercial development; or  Display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and  Retain the essential aspects of historic integrity.

To be eligible under this criterion, a historic district eligible under this theme must:
 Retain a majority of contributing buildings from the period of significance; and  Retain significant character-defining features from the period of significance, including any important landscape or hardscape features; and Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 224  Retain the original layout, reflecting planning and design principles from the period; and
 Retain the essential aspects of historic integrity.

Criterion B/2/2 (Important Persons)
Individual commercial properties eligible under this criterion may be significant:
 For an association with persons significant in our past; or  For a proven association with a specific significant ethnic or cultural group that made a demonstrable impact on the community.

Integrity Considerations:

In order to be eligible for designation under this criterion, a property must retain sufficient integrity from the period of significance to convey its association with the important person.  Commercial properties from this period should retain integrity of design, workmanship, feeling, and association, at a minimum, in order to convey the property’s association with the significant person’s productive period.
 A general rule is that the property must be recognizable to contemporaries of the person with which it is associated.

Registration Requirements:

Criterion C/3/3,5,7 (Architecture and Design)
Individual commercial properties that are eligible under this criterion may be significant as:
 A good/excellent or rare example of an architectural style, property type, or method of construction; or
Historic Resources Group Pomona Historic Context Statement 225  A distinctive work by a noted architect, landscape architect, builder, or designer.

Integrity Considerations:

In order to be eligible for designation under this criterion, a property must retain sufficient integrity from the period of significance to convey its architecture.  Commercial properties significant under this criterion should retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling, at a minimum.
 A property that is eligible for designation as a good/excellent or rare example of its style or type retains most - though not necessarily all - of the character-defining features of the style.
 A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique. A property can be eligible if it has lost some historic materials or details but retains the majority of the essential features from the period of significance. These features illustrate the style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation.  A property is not eligible if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.  Replacement of storefronts is a common and acceptable alteration.  Setting may have changed (surrounding buildings and land uses).

Registration Requirements:

To be eligible under this criterion a property must:
 Date from the period of significance; and
 Represent a good/excellent or rare example of a style or type; and  Display most of the character-defining features of the style or type; and  Represent quality of design and distinctive details; and  Retain the essential aspects of integrity.
57 SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
Potential City Landmarks Potential National Register Candidates 4088.00
1950 BaudinSt.__4Q3o.oo
566 W. Eleventh_St. --4025.02
612 W. Fourth St.
617 W. Fourth St.
836 W. Fourth St.^
995 W. Fourth St. —4025.01
1347 Fremont Dr.--4030.00
617 W. Fourth St.
995 W. Fourth St.
301 S. Garey Av. (side of Fox Theatre) (onN. R.) —4088.00 1427 S. Garey Av. —4030.00
1263 S. Hamilton Blvd71
1440 S. Hamilton BlvdJ 4025'02 1440 S. Hamilton Blvd.
101 S. Huntington BlvdJ 101 S. Huntington Blvd.
290 S. Huntington Blvd. C 4025.01
397 S. Huntington Blvd )
150-160 S. Main St.4088.00
4028.00
4088/00
4029.02
359 W. Mission Blvd. ~
604-608 W. Mission Blvd..
740-46 W. Mission Blvd.’
766 W. Mission Blvd.
780 W. Mission Blvd.
1060 W. Mission Blvd.
100 S. Parcels St. _4088.00
319 S. Park Av.
600 S. Park Av.
665 S. Park Av.
891 S. Park Av.
1331 S. Park Av. —4025.02
294 W. Phillips Av.
300 W. Phillips Av.
1071 S. PhiUips“Av:
1331 W. Phillips Av.f 4028.00
228-34 Pomona Mall West
301 Pomona Mall West 40M-00
402-04 Pomona Mall West
1242 Prospect Dr.
1296 Prospect Dr. k 4030
1330 Prospect Dr.
740-46 W. Mission Blvd.
(on N. R. as part of Edison District)
600 S. Park Av.
228-234 Pomona Mall West
301 Pomona Mall West
402-04 Pomona Mall West

City Council / Housing AuthorityAugust 4, 2025

City Council / Housing Authority
August 4, 2025