Hawthorne Officials Seek Deadline for Hotel Project

In an effort to end lengthy delays that have stymied a major redevelopment project and left local property owners in limbo, Hawthorne Councilman Steve Andersen has urged that a deadline be set to force the developer to proceed with the project--or drop it.

“I’m for giving them a deadline,” Andersen said at Monday’s council meeting, asking fellow council members to impose a cutoff date for the $200-million project at their next meeting June 26.

Uncertain of Future

He said the hotel and office-complex project has dragged on for 1 1/2 years under the developer, Watt Investment Properties Inc., leaving homeowners and businesses in and near the redevelopment district uncertain of their future.

“Eighteen months is too long,” Andersen said.

Councilman David M. York echoed the call for prompt action. “We want to push this thing to a speedy conclusion as soon as possible,” he said. “The property owners deserve some kind of answer, yea or nay.”

Mike Slawinski, who owns a typesetting business in the redevelopment area, pleaded with the council on Monday to end lingering uncertainty about the project, which dates back 3 1/2 years. “People in the area are stagnating, not knowing what we’re going to do,” he said.

The city began its efforts to develop the 20-acre site at Rosecrans Avenue and the San Diego Freeway in December, 1984. City officials had to start over again about a year later, when the financing fell through for the original developer, Andrex Development Co. of Los Angeles.

Watt eventually stepped in and developed new plans for the site. The project has been modified because of local concerns about the impact of traffic on residential areas, particularly Holly Glen, next to the project. Changes include $5 million in traffic mitigation measures, Watt officials said.

The current plan includes a 10-story hotel and a smaller hotel, six office towers ranging from three to 13 stories, three parking structures, at least three restaurants and some retail businesses. Further changes may be made, possibly including condominiums or additional retail stores, Watt project manager Mark Phillips said.

$200-Million Cost

The cost of the project, earlier set at $170 million, is now $200 million, he added.

City officials and the developer disagree on who is responsible for the slow progress on the project, which is expected to generate $800,000 a year in added hotel and sales taxes for the city.

The council had hoped to vote on a final development agreement Monday, but Watt has been unable to obtain financing and could not provide plans firm enough for the city to draw up the agreement, city officials said.

Watt is responsible for the delays, Andersen said.

“The delay is not the City Council, it’s strictly the developer,” agreed City Manager R. Kenneth Jue at Monday’s meeting.

But in an interview Tuesday, Phillips said the blame cannot be laid entirely at the developer’s door. General economic factors and decisions by local officials have affected the project’s progress, he said. It could be 30 to 60 days before Watt obtains financing and a final plan can be submitted to the council, he said.

Phillips said that a relatively high vacancy rate in offices and hotels in the South Bay has made lenders wary of financing more such development.

Furthermore, Phillips said, it didn’t help the project’s standing with lenders and prospective tenants when Councilwoman Ginny M. Lambert announced in March that she would not support the development because of its impact on adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Thrown Into Tizzy

Lambert’s surprise announcement threw the council, city planners and the developer into a tizzy because four of the five council votes are needed to condemn property and clear the way for redevelopment. Andersen could not vote because of a conflict of interest, and Lambert had been counted on for the crucial fourth vote.

Andersen’s law firm had represented the original developer on other matters. Andersen said his firm has not had contact with Andrex since May, 1987.

After Lambert’s bombshell, Andersen revived hopes for the proposal by announcing that the one-year period during which he was barred from voting on the project was due to expire in May. On May 23, Andersen announced he was free to vote on it.

Andersen is seen as a supporter of the project because of the added revenue it would generate, but he adopted a hard line Monday in an attempt to get the project going. “We are trying to bring things to a head right now,” he said.