Planners Ask City to Scrap Anaheim Renewal Project

Faced with continued public opposition to the Katella Redevelopment Project, the Anaheim Planning Commission voted Monday to recommend to the City Council that the $2.7-billion project be scrapped.

The unanimous vote came on the advice of Norm Priest, community development and planning director, after a series of public meetings at which residents of the proposed project area angrily opposed it.

Monday’s action came just a week after the City Council voted to delete several residential neighborhoods from the project. Residents had argued that their property rights were threatened by the Katella project and contended that the plan would mainly benefit big businesses in the area. Included within the project’s boundaries are Disneyland, Anaheim Stadium and the Convention Center. The residents had vowed to fight to have the entire project canceled.

In a press release issued after the vote, Priest said that “as a result of enormous citizen concern and opposition to this project, we do not believe that the (Redevelopment) Agency can effectively carry out a redevelopment plan which is disturbing to so many residents.”

The Redevelopment Commission will be asked to consider the same action Wednesday, Priest said. The City Council had been scheduled to vote on the Katella project Sept. 8, but Priest said the council will probably consider the matter before then.

The council’s next meeting will be Aug. 11.

Priest, who has borne the brunt of complaints from residents, declined further comment on why he recommended that the entire project be canceled.

Surprisingly, none of the residents who have turned out in the hundreds at weekend rallies to protest the project attended Monday’s Planning Commission meeting.

Many reacted with cautious optimism to word of the action.

“I think it’s super,” said Doug Kintz, president of the primary homeowners group opposed to the project.

“I think this is a victory for all of the neighborhood groups who have been instrumental in working against this plan. But until the City Council takes a formal vote, we’re going to be cautious about celebrating. This could be another trick so that they can come up with another tactic. Unfortunately, people don’t believe the city.”

Another resident who lives in the project area also expressed a distrust of city officials and said neighborhood groups would remain active even if the council votes to scrap the plan.

“It’s good thinking on their part, because this plan has a lot of holes in it,” Lou Herz said. “I think it is likely they may vote to cancel this plan and then come back with another one. But luckily, the people have wised up.”

Not Against All Plans

But Herz said most residents were not narrow-minded and would consider a redevelopment plan “designed to do away with genuine blight, not all-encompassing and not designed to help developers and big business.”

Several large businesses, including Disneyland, had favored the plan, citing the need to alleviate traffic congestion and other problems in the area. But Disney officials have denied having any other motives for supporting redevelopment.

Disney officials could not be reached for comment.

City officials--surprised by the vehement opposition to the project, first expressed several weeks ago at a public hearing--have argued that residents have mistaken the project’s intent.

Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood repeated that position Monday: “Everybody is sure that eminent domain will be used to take their home, and that’s not true at all. The facts are being obscured by emotions.”

But Kaywood said it would be difficult for the City Council to disregard the Planning Commission’s vote. “It might be very hard to go ahead with (Katella) under these circumstances,” she said.

Four other City Council members could not be reached for comment Monday.

City Redevelopment Commission member Tina Lirette said she was surprised by Monday’s action.

“This is all new to me,” Lirette said. “I’m still planning to vote for (the redevelopment at Wednesday’s commission meeting).”

Lirette expressed confidence that her commission would not follow the lead of the Planning Commission and vote to terminate the project. Other redevelopment commission members could not be reached for comment Monday.

The original boundaries of the 4,500-acre project included Santa Ana Street and Ball Avenue on the northwest and north, the city limits on the south and 9th Street on the west.

More than 12,500 residences in the area could be affected.

If approved, the project is scheduled to be completed by the year 2022.

Public improvements under the plan include building and widening freeways, alleys and streets; improvement of storm drains and sewers, and construction of new city parks.

But an environmental impact report on the project said the plan would more than double traffic in the area and would cause open-space deficiencies. The report also predicted that under worst conditions, 7,000 people could be displaced if some residential property is converted to commercial uses, as permitted under the city’s General Plan.

City officials were faced with strong public opposition to the project at a July 7 hearing jammed with more than 1,600 residents. The residents began forming neighborhood groups to lobby against the project.

Many residents in well-kept neighborhoods within the project’s boundaries objected to having their areas described as blighted, and they succeeded in getting officials to recommend that the project’s boundaries be revised to eliminate about 19% of the total project--or about 4,800 residents.

The Planning Commission had been scheduled to vote only on the proposed revisions Monday--until Priest offered the resolution to cancel the entire project.