Developer Denies Stanton Project Is in Peril : Funding: The county’s $1-million investment in the much-delayed senior housing project is secure, builder says, though he has not found additional backing.

The developer of a much-delayed Stanton housing project for the elderly denied Thursday that the county’s $1-million investment in the project is in jeopardy and said he hopes to begin construction by early 1993.

Ed Czuker, vice president of the Beverly Hills-based Jan Development Co., said the $1-million loan from the Orange County Housing Authority is secured by a guarantee from the company and an interest in the project’s 3 1/2-acre property, even if the proposed 330-room complex is not built. Also, terms of the county loan do not require repayment to begin until 1995.

“This is a good project that is strongly needed by the city (of Stanton) and the county,” Czuker said. “The county is in no way in jeopardy.”

But Czuker also admitted Thursday that he has not been able to find backing that would allow him to use the $17.7 million that the city of Stanton has committed to the project.

The plan for the $25-million complex has become the subject of much concern among local housing officials, who said Wednesday that Czuker’s financing difficulties have threatened the county’s investment and delayed groundbreaking on the project by nearly 18 months.

Despite the guarantees contained in the loan agreement, Bob Pusavat, the county’s director of housing and redevelopment, said slumping property values and the continued economic decline in California could make the county’s $1-million investment difficult to recoup if the complex is not built.

“I’ll be satisfied when I see a final project,” Pusavat said Thursday. “I’m still skeptical. He (Czuker) says everything will be all right, but I’ll wait and see.”

Pusavat said the county Housing Authority’s loan, provided to Jan Development Co. in July, 1990, was spent long ago by the company to help buy the land in the 7700 block of Katella Avenue. In recent weeks, Pusavat and Tom Watford, the county’s housing development finance manager, said they have turned down repeated requests by Czuker for additional money to close the financing shortfall.

“We’re not going to give any more money,” Pusavat said Thursday.

A major piece of the project’s financial package is contained in the city of Stanton’s agreement to commit about $17.7 million from the sale of revenue bonds. But that money cannot be touched until certain requirements are met, Stanton City Manager Terry Matz has said.

Those requirements include finding adequate financial backing for half the bond amount, or about $8 million. And Czuker on Thursday said the company does not have that backing.

The city of Stanton’s Redevelopment Agency has promised to contribute $500,000 to the project. Access to that money, however, is protected by the same rule governing funds from the city of Stanton.

The $8-million shortfall is roughly double the amount that county officials said Wednesday was necessary to complete the project.

Czuker claims that his company has invested up to $7 million in pre-construction costs.

Because of repeated extensions granted by the county and Stanton, the development company has until Jan. 31, 1993, to secure all project costs. And Czuker said he is confident that the company will meet that deadline, adding that it is possible that construction could begin within 60 days of the deadline.

“We are very confident that we’ll secure the financing we need,” Czuker said. “I don’t really see what the controversy is about. We hope to have all commitments by the end of January. That is our goal. We hope it won’t be necessary to seek another extension.”

Czuker said virtually all of the project’s troubles have been caused by the recession.

“I had hoped that a government would be more open to problems we have experienced due to a down economy,” he said.

The county’s loan was to help finance construction of 33 affordable apartments for the elderly. The apartments are planned as part of a 330-unit complex called Park Stanton.

At the time the loan was made, the attorney advising the Housing Authority stated in a June, 1990, memo that she was “uncomfortable with advancing money prior to construction start.”

However, attorney Chris Gouig, whose San Francisco-based firm no longer counsels the Housing Authority, said Thursday that the loan was made because it was believed the developer had adequate financing in place to begin construction.

“I’m surprised to hear he is short of funds,” Gouig said. “But I think there is enough protection so that they (the county) have the ability to get their money back.”