Hawthorne to Redevelop 100-Acre Parcel

In a surprise announcement, Hawthorne officials said the city expects to start the redevelopment process on 100 acres near the new I-105 Freeway by early 1990, much sooner than property owners in the targeted area had expected.

Bud Cormier, assistant redevelopment director, made the announcement Monday at a City Council hearing on Hawthorne’s updated General Plan. The council voted 4-0 to approve the plan, a document that will govern all future zoning and development in the city.

At the two-hour hearing, several residents and property owners peppered the City Council and staff with questions about how the updated General Plan would affect them. Of particular concern was the staff recommendation--later ratified by the council--that a sector of northern Hawthorne alongside the proposed freeway be targeted for commercial redevelopment.

The area now contains a mix of uses including more than 400 residential properties. At Planning Commission hearings in March and April, residents said they feared rezoning would leave them in limbo for 10, 15 or 20 years while the city awaited commercial development proposals.

Commercial Designation

Until such commercial development materializes, they said, their home values would suffer because lenders and buyers would be wary of residential property in an area designated by the General Plan for commercial zoning. The Planning Commission went along with their view and on April 5 recommended that the current mixed zoning be retained in the General Plan.

But the council, noting that commercial development is close at hand, ignored the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approved the commercial designation. The council made a point to note that the wholesale rezoning could be a financial boon to area property owners.

Cormier’s announcement Monday was the first public acknowledgment that commercial development and the creation of a redevelopment district is imminent in the area surrounding the freeway, which is scheduled for completion in 1993.

The enormous development potential has already attracted three major development proposals for the “bell curve” area, consisting of 80 acres just south of the I-105 route, he said. Also targeted for redevelopment is a 20-acre area west of the “bell curve” area, officials said.

Saying that it would be premature to identify the three prospective developers, Cormier described them as “quality people”’ who have proven track records in development.

Early Next Year

Cormier said the city expects to start the redevelopment process early next year. “We won’t be purchasing homes by then, but we will be getting the mechanisms in place” to establish a redevelopment district, he said.

The principal critic of the city’s intention to earmark the freeway area for commercial development was Ray Sulser, a former Planning Commission chairman. At Planning Commission hearings, Sulser had said he feared that the commercial designation would be harmful to residents’ property values if the redevelopment process were subject to lengthy delays.

Under questioning from Councilman Charles Bookhammer on Monday, Sulser acknowledged, however, that if commercial redevelopment is imminent, residents could get more money for their land than if it remained residential.

R. Dale Beland, the city’s consultant on the General Plan, testified that commercial land generally is more valuable than residential land.

Councilman David M. York said it would be more harmful to current owners to leave the zoning mixed. Developers who know of impending plans for commercial zoning could buy up land at residential prices, zoned property would bring, he said.

Projects Withdrawn

In an interview Tuesday, Sulser said he will withdraw his opposition if commercial redevelopment, as officials have promised, gets under way within the year.

But Sulser said he is skeptical of staff promises. He said that in another redevelopment area, a 20-acre site at Rosecrans Avenue and the 405 Freeway, property owners have been left hanging for nearly five years. Because of a variety of factors, including a dwindling demand for office space, two major projects were proposed for the 20-acre site, and later withdrawn. A third proposal is pending.

A homeowner who has lived with his family in a three-bedroom home for 10 years said he fears being forced to move by redevelopment because mortgage payments will be higher.

Cormier said that state law requires the city redevelopment agency to “make whole” property owners who are displaced by a redevelopment project. The city has to find comparable sites and pay relocation costs, he said. If necessary, the city must subsidize higher mortgage costs to help the resident or business owner acquire a comparable property in a new location, he said.

Prospect of Relocation

In spite of efforts by the council and staff to reassure property owners, several members of the audience grumbled about the prospect of relocation, particularly for the elderly.

The 80-acre area is generally bounded by I-105 on the north and Imperial Boulevard on the south, with the San Diego Freeway on the west and Prairie Avenue on the east. The 20-acre site has Imperial Highway as its northern border with 115th Street on the south. It runs west from Inglewood Avenue to the San Diego Freeway.

While the commercial designation for the freeway area was the main subject of debate Monday, another segment of the General Plan came under fire from two of the city’s largest employers, Northrop Aviation and TRW.

That segment of the plan called for reducing the amount of development allowed in industrial areas: cutting the floor-to-area ratio to .75:1 from 2:1. The floor-to-area ratio depends on the lot size to calculate the maximum interior space of a building. For example, on a 30,000-square-foot lot, a 2:1 ratio would allow construction of a 60,000-square-foot building, while the .75:1 ratio would allow construction of a 22,500-square-foot building.

After Northrop and TRW representatives said the lowered allowance would mean “a significant devaluation of corporate assets,” the council modified the ratio to 1.75:1. On a 30,000-square-foot lot, this ratio would permit a 52,500-square-foot building.