Anaheim’s housing debate may cool off

In announcing her withdrawal of support for a controversial housing project near Disneyland this week, Lucille Kring hopes her reversal will bring a little peace and tranquillity to a city that has endured nearly a year of turmoil.

After all, it was Kring’s tiebreaking vote seven months ago that sparked a ballot initiative and escalated what had been a civil discussion about the future of the Resort District into a near civil war in Orange County’s second-largest city.

“Everybody has been so focused on this one issue,” Kring said. “We need to focus on the good stuff that goes on here. I think the people need a rest and we need to calm down a little bit.”

Kring said her switch was prompted by news that the deal between housing project developer SunCal Cos. and owners of a 26 acre-parcel near Disneyland had fallen through. SunCal had planned to build 1,500 homes -- some of them for low-income families -- in an area designated for resort development.

The housing project sparked a fierce debate between business leaders, who felt the area should be reserved for money-spending tourists, and housing advocates, who said the city had a pressing obligation to provide affordable housing.

The issue attracted national media attention, spawned three lawsuits, three ballot measures, threats of a recall and regular City Hall protests.

Mayor Curt Pringle and Councilman Harry Sidhu, along with Kring, will make up a council majority which can overturn the zoning decision that had allowed the housing project to move forward and bring an anticlimactic end to the issue when it appears on the Nov. 27 agenda.

“I think it’s hard to have a battle if you only have one side,” Pringle said. “We’ve had two very active sides for a long time. But if in fact SunCal steps away, I don’t see the folks on that side having the momentum to carry it forward.”

Although plans for the massive residential project at Katella Avenue and Haster Street, and the referendum that challenged its zoning, are all but dead, Disney and its supporters are pushing forward with a June ballot initiative to control the future of the neighborhood around its amusement parks.

Officials with Save Our Anaheim Resort District, a Disney-funded coalition of business and community leaders, say housing does not belong in the 2.2-square-mile district, which was created in 1994 specifically for tourist uses. Group leaders have touted a study that shows the district covers less than 5% of Anaheim’s land but generates 54% of the city’s general fund revenue.

“We want to ensure the future of the Resort District as it is today,” said Annette McCluskey, a coalition spokeswoman. “It’s been hugely successful. Why mess with success?”

If Disney gets its way, the Anaheim City Council will be stripped of its basic power to make or approve zoning changes in the district. Any such changes -- housing for resort workers, for instance -- would have to be put before a citywide vote. Pringle said he would lobby his colleagues to adopt the initiative outright, saving taxpayers some $250,000 in election costs.

Two projects that could be affected by that initiative are a planned 449-unit condo high-rise complex and a plan that includes a 75-room boutique hotel and 191 condominium units on the site of a closed Toys R Us.

David DiRienzo, the high-rise project’s developer, said the debate over housing in the Resort District is far from over.

“This issue was not about one project or one developer,” he said. “This is about individual property owners, small and large, who should have the right to pursue the best use for their property. That’s what being a property owner in America is all about.”

Another group of residents, who also oppose Disney’s aim, say they are not going away either. Leaders of a coalition of Anaheim business owners and residents said Friday they would continue to pursue a ballot initiative to give voters control over Disney’s planned third theme park.

“We’re rethinking our target goal of getting on the ballot in June, but we’re going forward,” said Diane Singer, the group’s chairwoman. “There’s a lot of people who believe Disney has too much influence in the city. It makes a lot of us uncomfortable that big business is meddling in local government.”

Another unresolved issue involves SunCal’s lawsuit against the Frank Family Partnership, landowners of the 26-acre parcel now occupied by two mobile home parks.

SunCal alleges the Frank Family defaulted on a $46-million arrangement to sell them the land and conspired with unnamed third parties to kill the deal.

“This is not ending quietly,” said SunCal attorney Skip Miller of the Los Angeles-based firm, Miller Barondess LLP. “There’s litigation ongoing and there are still the same issues there always were. There should there be affordable housing on that site. Affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and it’s not going away, even if this particular project does.”

Days after filing its lawsuit, SunCal informed the city it would no longer pursue the zoning amendment that allowed for its housing project and that it would stop paying legal fees to fight a Disney lawsuit against the city that attempted to block the project

“What’s the point of throwing good money after bad?” said Miller, who added his client has already invested $10 million in the project. “There’s a lot of uncertainty. We’re not paying any more money until the dust settles.”

david.mckibben@latimes.com