HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/07/12 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY
JULY 12, 1995
7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call
Chairman Barker
Vice Chairman McNiel
Commissioner Lumpp
Commissioner Melcher
Commissioner Tolstoy
III. Announcements
IV. Approval of Minutes
May10,1995
V. Director's Reports
HISTORIC PROPERTY STATUS REVIEW AND DEMOLITION REQUF. ST -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to review the historical level
of significance of the Etivista Winery and the demolition of a portion thereof
(unreinforced masonry building), located at 12700 - 12752 Foothill Boulevard -
APN: 227-221-03.
Public Comments
This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be
discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VII. Commission Business
VIII. Adjournment
I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby
certi~ that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on.luly 12, 1995, at least
72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center
Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
VICINITY MAP
· · · .... · . ........ -.. ....... ..................... ...., · ............... .....-...... ................. :,:..-.. .............. ·
r.:.:.:.:.:.....-.-..............:........I::.'.:.'.'.'.':':': .........I..:...:.o
dr CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
tO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission
Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner
HISTORIC PROPERTY STATUS RI=VI!:W AND DEMOLITION REQUEST -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to review the historical level
of significance of the Etivista Winery and the demolition of a portion thereof
(unreinforced masonry building), located at 12700 - 12752 Foothill Boulevard
- APN: 227-221-03.
BACKGROUND:
This site was surveyed in 1990, along with 17 others, by a Historical Resources Consultant
hired to evaluate potential unreinforced masonry structures throughout the City. A copy
of the Historical Resources Survey, completed in 1990, is attached for reference. In
reviewing the last completed survey, staff notes the following:
The original consultant's recommendation was that the structure was of insufficient
value to list as Potential Historic Landmark.
The subject survey was not complete, in that the site is composed of several
structures, built over several years (1917, 1936, 1946, and 1952), not just one
structure. A copy of photos taken by staff in May 1995 are attached for reference.
When the Histodc Preservation Commission reviewed this site February 1, 1990, the item
was tabled for one month since the Commission was deadlocked 3-4 over the level of
significance. On March 1, 1990, the Commission voted 6-0 to list the site as a Potential
Local Landmark. Copies of the subject minutes are attached for reference.
ANALYSIS:
A. Architectural Significance and Building Conditions:
Recent site visits by staff clearly indicate the Etivista Winery site is much more
complex than shown in the 1990 Survey. The winery is composed of three main
structures, attached by enclosed breezeways (see Exhibit B for site locations). The
ITEM A
HPC STAFF REPORT
DEMO. REQUEST REVIEW- ETIVISTA WINERY
July 12, 1995
Page 2
only portion that is unreinforced masonry is Building No. 2, built in 1936. This
structure is the portion that the Building Department is requiring retrofitting or removal
of under the unreinforced masonry building code. This building is in terrible condition
with numerous structural cracks. Also, the original construction was of exceptionally
bad quality, as evidenced by the extreme variation of mortar thickness (varying from
1/8 inch to 3 inches) and exhibiting a number of different types and sizes of block.
The structure is completely hidden from general public view by its location and the
proximity of the other structures.
The other winery structures are primarily poured-in-place concrete and'corrugated
metal. There are some limited areas of masonry infill. Only Building No. 1 is currently
occupied, with two tenants conducting vehicle repair services. The winery structures
are of an undistinguished industrial style and, except for the remains of a painted sign
on the east side of Building No. 3, are not understood visually as a winery by anyone
passing by the location.
There are other structures on the site: two single-family residences (one is a 1920's
California Bungalow style that appears to be in deteriorated condition; the other is
reported to be of the same era, but was remodeled to its present 1950's architectural
style). Also, there is a concrete grape-crushing building and a wood barn of unknown
condition.
B. 'Historical Significance:
Details concerning the historical aspects of the site were made available by the
Foothill Market Place Oral History project. Oral interviews with Buster Filpi (nephew
of Nick DiCarlo ) confirmed Building records that the Etivista Winery was started in
1936. The winery was a partnership between Nick DiCarlo, Frank Shiro, and
Buster Filpi. Undoubtedly this winery was part of the tremendous growth in wine
making experienced at the end of prohibition. The wine was both bottled and shipped
in bulk to the East. By 1947, Buster Filpi ended his role in the partnership since the
enterprise was not making a profit. It should be noted that many wineries had
difficulties during this period because of over-production and a changing market
according to a publication entitled Cucamonga Wines and Vines: ^ History of the
Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard Association, written by James D. Hofer.
The winery continued to produce for five or six more years, ending production in
about 1953 or 1954. Since that time the buildings have held a number of industrial
tenants and are currently held by an out of town investor. It does not appear that the
Etivista VVinery was ever part of a larger wine-producing consortium such as the
Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard Association. The facility could be classified as a small-
to medium-sized operation that operated for the relatively short period of
approximately 20 years.
HPC STAFF REPORT
DEMO. REQUEST REVIEW- ETIVISTA WINERY
July 12, 1995
Page 3
In terms of historical significance, the winery did not play a significant historical role
in the winery industry of the region; i.e., there were and are other sites that were
larger and operated longer. There is some historical significance in that the original
partnership was composed of related family members that were active in the wine-
making region from the early 19005 to the 1970s at other sites. However, the family
history aspects have been documented and preserved in the oral histories performed
for the Foothill Market Place project.
RECOMMFNDATION:
Staff recommends the historical significance level of the site be reduced to Surveyed
Determined Insignificant; the Historical Survey Form and Site List be revised accordingly;
and the Building Department be authorized to issue a demolition permit for the
unreinforced masonry building.
~~tf~y submitted//~/,,~
Dan Coleman
Acting City Planner
DC:LJH:sp
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" -
Exhibit "B" -
Exhibit "C" -
Exhibit "D" -
Historical Resources Form
Site / Building Location Map
Building Pictures
HPC Minutes from February 1, and March 1, 1990
State of CaLifornia - The Resources Agency
DEPARTHENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
HISTORIC RESOLJRCES INVENTORY
IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
1. Historic Name: Etavista Winery
2. Co~n or Current Name: Mel Tinker Truck Repair
3. Nt~nber & Street: 12742 Foothill Blvd.
City: Rancho Cucamonga Vicinity On[y:
4. Quad Hap No:. UTN Z A: B:
5. Parcel No: 0227-221-05 Other:
Set. No.
National Register Status:
Local Oesignation:
Zip: County (3-Letter Designator):
C: D:
DESCRIPTION
6. Property Category: If District, Number of Documented Resources:
7. SriefLy describe the present physical appearance of the property, including condition, boundaries,
surroundings, and (if appropriate) architectural style:
This wilt be a large rectangular shaped industrial building, with low gabte roof. There is a parapat along the front of the
building in a step pattern. The sides of the building appear to be concrete block with the upper 1/3 in what appears to be
corrugated iron. There is a [arge warehouse door on the west side of the structure. There are two front windows that are
one over one doubte hung, with wood frames. Along the parapet of the structure are two horizontal bands cast into the wall
that run along the front wall. No landscaping is present at this site. Chain [ink fencing surro~a~ding the front and west
side of the structure.
8. ALterations & Date:
9. Related Features on Property:
10. PLanning Agency:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
11. Owner & Address:
H&L Foothill Partnership
2193 Hackmore PI.
Riverside, CA 92506
12. Type of Ownership:
Private
Present Use:Light Industrial
14. Zoning: Commercial (S.P.)
15. Threats: URMB/RDA
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
16. Consruction Date(s): 1946-1947
17. Architect: Unknown
18. Historic Attributes (With Number fr~ List):
Original Location: Yes
Builder: Unknown
Date Roved:
SIGNIFICANCE AND EVALUATION
19. Context for Evaluation: Theme: Area:
Perioct: Property TYlDe: Context fornlaLty deveLoix-d?:
20. Briefly discuss the propertyms inqoortance within the context. Use historical and architectural analysis as
al~oropriate. Compare ~ith similar properties.
This is a Late period inclustrial style building of no unusual architecture styling. It is a very sin~ole building of
concrete block and corrugated iron. It appears to have been built in 1946 and 1947 while the property was owned by Frank
and Minnie Schiro. It is a very common structure and many exan~oLes of this style can be found.
21. Sources: San Bernardino County Assessor Lot Books
22. Applicable National Register Criteria:
23. Other recognition:
State Landn~rk Number:
EvaLuator: Lynn Merrill
Year of Evaluation: 19~70
25. Survey Type: S (C~Comprehensive,
P:Project Relatedw S=Sing[e Property
26. Survey Name: Rancho Cucamonga Update/URM Assessment
27. Year Form Prepared: 1990
By (Name): Lynn Merrill
Organization: Management Sciences Applications, Inc.
Address: 123 East Ninth Street, Suite 204
City, State Zip: Upland, California, 91786
Phone: (714) 981-0894
Sketch map. Show,cation and boundaries of
property in reLati/~q to nearby streets, railways,
natural landmeT, etc. Name each feature. .
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Etivista Winery
12700 - 12752 FOOTHILL
Building footprints
i parcels
N
North side of Bldg.s 1,2, &3
North & West sides of Bldg. 1
Eftvista Winery
5/95Exhibit Cl
Eftvista Winery
5/95
Exhibit C2
East side of Bldg.3 & Barn
Detail of east side of Bl~lg.3
Etivista Winery 5/95 Exhibit C3
South side of Blclg.3 & east sicle Blclg.2
Detail of east side of Blclg.2
Etivista Winery 5/95 Exhibit C4
Joe Di Carlo Residence
Eftvista Winery
5/95
Exhibit C6
Nick Di Carlo Residence
Etivista Winery 5/95 Exhibit C7
Remains of Conc.cooling tank in foreground
Conc. Grape Crushing Bldg.
Weir Box behind Grape Crusher
Etivist~-l'~
a Winery 5/95 Exhibit C8
Painted Sign on east side of Bldg.3
North side of Barn or Shed
Etivista~ery 5/95 Exhibit C9
T & D INSTALLATIONS
MOTION by Banks, seconded by Haskvitz, unanimously carried 7-0, to designate
T & D Installation Surveyed Determined Insignificant.
SUNSHINE FOODS EGG RANCH
Commissioner Cooper stated she felt that Commissioner Arner should research
the background of the building through the records of the old town of
Marquette !was located by Upland) at the Huntington Library to see if the
origin of this building could be determined.
Mr. Merrill stated that the building was built about !947 and that there
probably be no association with the town. He further mentioned that the
building had been added on to and it was difficult to determine what was
original.
Commissioner Arner stated that she felt the first part of the building looked
as if it were the new part.
Mr. Merrill responded that the street had been widened and much of the
frontage had been lost.
MOTION by Banks, seconded by Preston, unanimously carried 7-0, to designate
the Sunshine Foods Egg Ranch Surveyed Determined Insignificant.
MEL TINKER TRUCK REPAIR
Commissioner Banks stated that she felt that the winery industry history was
critical to this area and heritage of any former winery should be identified
and preserved. She further stated that this was the Etivista Winery.
MOTION by Cooper, seconded by Haskvitz, failed 3-4, to designate Mel Tinker
Truck Repair Surveyed Determined Insignificant.
MOTION by Banks, seconded by Arner, failed 3-4, to designate Mel Tinker Truck
Repair a Potential Local Landmark.
MOTION by Preston, to designate Mel Tinker Truck Repair Surveyed Undetermined
Significance, failed for lack of seconded.
MOTION by Haskvitz, seconded by Arner, unanimously carried 7-0, to table this
item until the next scheduled meeting.
HPC MINUTES
-5-
FEBRUARY 1, t990
Mr. Henderson suggested the Commission approve the project with comments,
indicating that the comments are to come back to the next meeting under old
business, and to bring back the resolution with detailed wording. He further
stated that this enables the applicant to get his concept approved, and, the
applicant understands from the minutes, what he needs to do; also, the
Commission would be able to see the comments prior to the meeting and they
would be able to see if they meet with the Commission's approval.
The Commissioners concurred with this idea.
Commissioner Banks stated she felt the attached benches were not indicative of
the historical period.
Commissioner Preston stated he preferred "Mission Style" benches and tables,
more reflective of this time period.
Mr. Petry stated that they shall reflect in their tenant improvement package
that the Commission would like to see heavy wood Mexican style benchs and
tables. '
Mr. Henderson stated that if the Commission accepts approving and bringing
back the resolution tonight staff will send the applicant a copy so he can
return to the next meeting i~ their are wording problems.
Commissioner Preston summarized that this would give conceptual approval to
the applicant to prepare a Planning Commission package but the final action
will be taken when the Historic Preservation Commission sees the resolution.
MOTION: Moved by Preston, seconded by Haskvitz, conceptual approval of the
Landmark Alteration Permit for Thomas Winery, incorporating the revised
conditions of approval, suggested by staff and the Commission members, and
specifying that staff draft a Resolution incorporating both revised findings
and revised conditions, and return it to the Historic Preservation Commission
at its next meeting with the understanding that this is a conceptual approval
only. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: PRESTON, HASKVITZ, COOPER, BANKS, SCHMIDT, ARNER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE'
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: BILLINGS
--carried
OLD BUSINESS
D. ~OTENTIAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION FOR MEL TINKER'S TRUCK REPAIR
MOTION: Moved by Preston, seconded by Banks, to approve designation of the
Mel Tinker Truck Repair as Potential Local Landmark Motion carried by the
following vote: '
HPC MINUTES
-12- MARCH !, 1990
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
PRESTON, BANKS, COOPER, SCHMIDT, ARNER, HASKVITZ
NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BILLINGS
--carried
NEW BUSINESS
E. NEW STREET NAME FOR ROCHESTER AVENUE FOR HISTORIC LIST
Alan Warren, Assoqiate Planner, presented the Staff Report.
Commissioner Cooper suggested the name Smith for historical significance as
Captain Smith owned property on Rochester Avenue and the Smith Brothers had a
store on Rochester Avenue.
Mr. Bob Hickcox, former Historic Preservation Con~issioner, suggested the use
of names from early pioneer settler's in the community including Smith, Aimee,
Aggazzotti, Colombero, Lopez, LaFourcade, Van Fleet.
Commissioner Banks suggested names to be used that were significant to the
area where the street is located to include Aggazzotti, Campanella, Smith
Masi, Aimee, Lopez and LaFourcade, and Van Fleet. '
F. PRESENTATION BY CAROL LaFOURCADE CONCERNING HISTORIC BACKGROUND OF THE
LaFOURCADE STORE, A.K.A. COWGIRL THEATER, LOCATED AT 11871 FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD
Carol LaFourcade, 61 Sparrow Court, Redlands, California, stated the her
grandfather, John B. LaFourcade, came to the area and started his ranch in
1892 at which time he had to haul the water down from the mountains for
irrigation purposes. She further stated that her grandfather drilled for and
brought water into the valley in the early 1900's. She stated that she
believes the current building was .once the raisin and grape packing building,
built in !918; added later was a gas station, and two bunkhouses for the
workers.
Commissioner Arner commented that she had read an article in a book called The
Brown History of San Bernardino that implied that John LaFourcade was the
first dry grape farmer in the area.
Ms. LaFourcade stated that was true; before he drilled and irrigated for water
he brought it down from the mountains in barrels. She further stated that her
grandfather left the area in the 1940's.
MOTION: Moved by Haskvitz, seconded by Banks to stress the name LaFourcade
for the renaming of the Rochester Avenue south of Foothill. Motion carried by
the following vote:
HPC MINUTES
-13- MARCH 1, 1990