The city’s cultural heritage commission voted unanimously Thursday to preserve a San Fernando Valley citrus ranch that officials say is the last of its kind.
The commissioners voted unanimously in support of landmarking the 13-acre ranch and commercial orange grove, with commissioner Richard Barron calling it “one of the cleanest, clearest [examples of a monument] I’ve ever seen.”
The grove’s status still requires the approval of the full City Council, but it already has the support of Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who represents the area.
“A lot of folks don’t realize the Valley was once this great agricultural center,” Blumenfield said at a committee hearing in August. “This property is literally the last remaining commercial orange grove—not just in the Valley, but in the city of Los Angeles.”
The Bothwell Ranch, located in Tarzana, was listed for sale earlier this year. Promotional material described the property as a “rare infill location” and laid out plans for 26 new single-family homes that could be developed at the site.
The possibility that the land could be sold and redeveloped inspired an online petition calling on city leaders to preserve the ranch as a historic site. In July, Blumenfield authored a council motion kickstarting the process of landmarking the site.
That’s raised the ire of the Bothwell family, which owns the property and does not wish to see it landmarked.
“Preserving this as a farm forever would take away all economic value” of the land for the owners, Andrew Fogg, an attorney for the family, told commissioners.
The family needs to sell the land because, according to Fogg, the orange orchard has become prohibitively expensive to maintain: In 2017, the ranch’s water bill was more than double the revenue brought in from the sale of its oranges.
Bothwell Ranch “hasn’t turned a profit in over 50 years,” said Fogg.
Landmarking the property would not preclude future redevelopment of the site, but it would give city officials leeway to review plans and potentially delay construction for up to a year.
Blumenfield emphasized that his landmarking effort is not about blocking construction on the site.
“This effort is not about stopping all potential development but rather ensuring that if anything is built here, it embraces the rich past of this incredible site,” Blumenfield said in a statement.
Blumenfield also said that his staff will continue to meet with the community, developers, and the owners of the ranch to discuss “different realistic options” for the future of a site that symbolizes an incredibly important part of the Valley’s history.
Only a century ago, Southern California led the nation in citrus production. In 1901, 4.5 million orange trees grew statewide, with farms concentrated in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties.
But with land values skyrocketing, most of LA’s citrus ranches had been subdivided into residential developments by the 1970s,
Most of the Bothwell Ranch has already been sold off and incorporated into the surrounding neighborhood. According to a report from city planning staff, the ranch contained roughly 30 acres of orange groves when grower Lindley Bothwell purchased the property in 1926. Today, only 13 acres remain.
Comments
The last remaining commercial orange grove in Los Angeles. Yes, I do think that is worth preserving.
By Cleavon Little on 08.14.19 12:56pm
Doesn’t sound very commercial considering the owners say it’s losing money.
By disqusted on 08.14.19 1:11pm
Yes its worth preserving butt not at the expense of ownership. They will lose everything if forced to utilize the property as is. They cant compete with raised water bills and global competition. If the well heeled neighbors wish to buy it and share it the city can put a a special tax for just that area on the neighbors or the city of LA would have to buy it. I had a client lose $4,000,000 because of a historical designation they didn’t want. If they government wants to force people to keep it as is we the taxpayers have to foot the bill, do not punish the family that roughed it out farming for 3 generations.
By Marc Schwartz on 08.14.19 1:17pm
Ah, yes, the "well-heeled" residents of Tarzana.
By Cleavon Little on 08.14.19 1:40pm
I’m sure all the tourist dollars from folks like you who will regularly visit this historic commercial orange grove once it’s preserved will help fill the Tarzana coffers in a jiffy.
By disqusted on 08.14.19 3:43pm
Yeah, I’ve read your posts for a few years. "Tear it down and build housing" is your one-size-fits-all solution to pretty much any land use issue. Concepts such as history, culture and context are lost on you.
So there’s a 13 acre viable orange grove in one of the most densely populated areas in the country. I won’t bother with the historical importance of oranges and agriculture in the birth and growth of southern California – but it’s what built this region. This acreage could be repackaged and rezoned to include limited development in conjunction with a sizeable orange grove component. It could be a State Park, with an educational center and event space with trails, picnic areas, etc. Perhaps it could be a dedicated event space for weddings, corporate events, quinceaneras, etc. Food Halls area all the rage now – seems like there’d be plenty of space for a dining hall, parking & retail to generate enough revenue to pay for the upkeep of a large portion of the orange grove. To name a few.
Or 26 SFR’s unless you have anything to suggest.
By Cleavon Little on 08.15.19 12:16pm
"Concepts such as history, culture and context are lost on you."
Concepts such as property rights are lost on you. If the owner of any given property wants to get it designated, or add a covenant to the title (thus reducing its sales value at their own expense), go nuts! Go for it!
"viable orange grove"
It’s losing money because water is expensive and not getting any cheaper. Presumably the owners would be happy to keep it in the family and keep running it if you and others who like it are willing to personally subsidize it. Again, go for it!
Yes, I know the history. Oranges and other agriculture built this region. Most of Hollywood was orange groves, now it’s entertainment. Meatpacking built a lot of Chicago, a fraction of that business exists there now. Things change, that’s also an inevitable part of history.
By disqusted on 08.15.19 1:37pm
You love private property rights when someone wants to put SFRs in place of a historic orange grove but hate them when the state talks about upzoning SFRs for more density.
You want speculators to be able to tear down homes and put up 6-story towers but the guy next door, who paid $1.5M for an SFR in an R1 only zone, and expected it to remain that way, is shit out of luck in your book.
In that case it’s OK for the government to do whatever it wants but when city leaders talk about preserving the last orange grove they are out of line. As a developer / investor / speculator shill it’s the same old song with you, "Tear it down and build housing"
By calzada on 08.19.19 3:11pm
Very well said Cleavon. I’ve noticed the same thing about him over the last 4 months, can’t imagine having had to endure that for years like the rest of you.
By calzada on 08.19.19 3:00pm
We took a poll, and 9 out of 10 Curbed commenters agree, "dealing" with four years of my posts is about the equivalent of dealing with a single week’s worth of your bad faith inanity.
By disqusted on 08.19.19 3:15pm
They should propose to turn the land into supportive housing for the homeless. That would get the residents of that area to get on board with building 23 homes there instead.
By LADude on 08.14.19 1:53pm
Then the City should buy it and turn it into a taxpayer-funded (preferably by a special assessment district) historic park. Plymouth, MA has Plimouth Plantation; the Valley should have a historic working orange grove!
By Greyvagabond on 08.14.19 2:11pm
Of course the neighbors don’t want to see it developed. Orange trees make nice neighbors. But they don’t want to buy the orange grove and maintain it either. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. And the city certainly doesn’t have the money for foolish things like this.
By LAoneWay on 08.14.19 3:36pm
Everyone uses the phrase but why? What on earth is the point of having cake you can’t eat? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Why not? Is this hell? Why would you have cake otherwise?
By Gryphonisle on 08.14.19 5:19pm
maybe if it’s Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson’s wedding cake, but then your personal assistant eats it
By Danny Beta on 08.15.19 12:25pm
Don’t let what happened to the W.L.Hardison Ranch happen here. We lost one of Ventura County last remaining Citrus Ranches and Landmark to poor decisions from our City Officials. Developers like Williams Homes will develop it in a heartbeat regardless if it’s the last or not.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/WLHardisonHome/?ref=share
By Amberlm on 08.14.19 4:42pm
Property ownership is not a slave-owner mentality, it’s a stewardship. They didn’t sell soon enough and now they’ve got a millstone around their neck. Yes, it should be preserved, but it needs to be purchased from them at market rates. And saving an orange grove with little to no economic value as such will need some sort of repurposing.
Pick your own?
What’s needed here is to stop and take a broader look. Much of our cities and their surrounds are examples of capitalism gone wrong, profits at the expense of everyone else (Trump is the example of an extension of this idea, but with people over geography). Capitalism doesn’t have to be this brutal and the world it produces doesn’t have to demolish the Penn Stations, or build monstrosities like the Fontana East and West on the San Francisco waterfront. Or much of the San Fernando valley. We don’t have to build this ugly and that we’ve only got one orange grove left in what, paraphrasing Trump could easily be called a s—thole part of Los Angeles (the San Fernando Valley) is indicative of capitalism gone wrong, not how capitalism should work.
By Gryphonisle on 08.14.19 5:16pm
Originally 100 acres sold down to 13 at what presumably would be a profit.
Stewardship has its responsibilities and this land could have been or should be managed in such a way as to preserve its integrity as "the last remaining".
No mention of any structures on the property but the prospect of infill development for 26 single family homes does not appear to be a way to handle this in any thoughtful way.
By lanatik on 08.14.19 5:30pm
Oops, missed the link.
Does not at all like an imaginative or thoughtful use of the property, just a total erasure .
By lanatik on 08.14.19 5:35pm
Do you even know where this is? Have you ever seen it? Look it up on google maps. It is the most out of place, least efficient use of that land. And 26 homes would be a much better use of this land which is walking distance from Ventura Blvd and a bus line. Shit, letting homeless people set up encampments there would be a more efficient use of the land.
By LADude on 08.14.19 5:49pm
Whoa!! Mr. Concerned Citizen. Yes, and no , and did not need to Google map it.
The conversation was not about efficient use or homeless encampments and your argument seems silly. Plenty of folks in the are are in favor of preserving the land and hopefully may remain open to a more thoughtful plan, as I mentioned. Would be happy to appear at Cultural Heritage Commission and speak for that possibility.
By lanatik on 08.14.19 7:12pm
…but won’t those 26 new owners all be hypocrites for having single family homes?
By LosFeliz$ean on 08.14.19 9:05pm
Only if the homeowners are oustpoken advocates of density and livable streets. But most single family homeowners advocate for maintaining single family home neighborhoods and oppose density. Those individuals are not hypocrites. Their opinions may be out of touch with the direction LA needs to go, but they are not hypocrites.
By LADude on 08.15.19 12:50pm
But don’t we undeniably need more density? Maybe we’re the hypocrites if we go along with this plan?
By LosFeliz$ean on 08.15.19 1:03pm
It sounds like CC1950 is fine with more density but not in place of SFR. Which is the feeling of most NIMBYs BTW. Sure a few don’t want any new development but they are in the minority. We have plenty of run-down commercial, under-utilized parking lots, etc. to add all the housing we need in LA. We’re on the same page.
By calzada on 08.20.19 10:53am