Hawthorne Panel Rejects Rezoning

In the face of heated protests, the Hawthorne Planning Commission has voted to recommend that the City Council rescind plans to designate an area of northern Hawthorne for commercial development.

About 100 Hawthorne and Lennox residents packed the council chambers Wednesday night for a public hearing on Hawthorne’s updated General Plan. Once the General Plan is approved by the City Council, it will govern all future zoning and development in the city.

Hawthorne residents loudly opposed a provision of the plan that earmarks their neighborhood for commercial development. The area, south of the new Glenn M. Anderson Freeway (I-105), is roughly bounded by 116th Street, the San Diego Freeway, Prairie Avenue and I-105.

The area contains a mix of uses, including commercial development and about 400 homes, duplexes and apartments. Residents say that as many as 700 families live there.

Lennox residents also showed up in force at Wednesday’s hearing because they fear that Hawthorne plans to annex their neighborhood, north of I-105.

Affordable Housing

Both the Lennox and Hawthorne contingents argued that if they were displaced from their homes, they will be unable to find housing they can afford anywhere else in the South Bay.

“I have worked 25 years, and this property is all I have to show for it,” said Ron Alsbaugh, an Aerospace Corp. employee who owns a duplex in northern Hawthorne.

He said that his lifetime investment would be jeopardized by the proposed change. If the area was targeted for commercial development, residents would have a harder time finding buyers and would be at the mercy of speculative investors who buy up properties in distress situations, he said.

Hawthorne officials said they have no immediate plans to annex Lennox or displace Hawthorne residents.

Among Lennox residents at the hearing was Jackie Carrera, who attended with her mother and grandmother. She said her family will have no place to go if Hawthorne annexes part of Lennox and converts it to commercial uses.

Little Faith

Lennox residents have little faith in Hawthorne’s protestations that it does not plan to annex Lennox, she said. In 1986, she noted, Hawthorne succeeded in annexing a section of Lennox just south of I-105. “Hawthorne supposedly had no interest in annexing that area, but it did,” she said.

Carrera said Lennox residents will mobilize against any plans to annex or redevelop their community. “We might be Hispanics, we might be from immigrant origins,” she said. “But if we organize we can be as strong as you white folks.”

Hawthorne officials said repeatedly that Wednesday’s hearing was on the General Plan, not on annexation. Further, they said that it is unlikely Hawthorne would seek to annex Lennox.

R. Dale Beland, the city’s General Plan consultant, said that annexation would not make fiscal sense for Hawthorne. Tax revenues from the area, which has a preponderance of pre-Proposition 13 property owners who pay relatively low taxes, would not be sufficient to cover the city’s cost of providing services, much less be a financial benefit to the city, he said.

The Hawthorne General Plan shows Lennox north of I-105 as part of Hawthorne’s “sphere of influence,” and marks it for commercial and industrial uses.

But those designations would come into play only if Hawthorne was to annex the area, Beland said. Otherwise, Hawthorne’s General Plan would have no direct effect on Lennox, he said.

“You will not be affected by the adoption of this General Plan unless you choose to annex to Hawthorne in the future,” Beland said.

Officials from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) said in an interview Thursday that a majority of Lennox residents could stop an annexation attempt by Hawthorne. If a majority of owners or residents file written protests, the annexation effort must be terminated, officials said. If 25% to 49% protest, the annexation must be put to an election, they said.

At the commission hearing Wednesday, Beland chided residents for straying from planning issues and focusing on how much money they would get for their properties if the area was rezoned for commercial development.

“This plan does not promote the forced sale of property. It does not legitimize condemnation,” he said. The city would have to declare the area a redevelopment zone before any property acquisition would be initiated by the city, he said.

Residents were incensed at Beland’s comments, noting that many their homes represent the savings of a lifetime. “Don’t tell me fair market value has nothing to do with it,” said an indignant Ray Sulser, a former member of the Planning Commission who urged that the current mixed zoning be retained.

It is fine for the city to want to attract commercial development, he said, “but not at the expense of property owners” who live there.

After hearing lengthy public comment, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan and leave in place the current mixed uses in the area just south of the I-105.

The Hawthorne City Council will hold a public hearing on the plan at 7 p.m. April 24, and then will decide whether to approve the plan and the commission recommendation.