Disney Resort Hearing Draws Backers, Foes : Expansion: Company tells Anaheim planners, residents the proposed $3-billion project will bring a cornucopia of wealth and fame to Anaheim.

Supporters and opponents, hired guns and interested observers packed an Anaheim hotel ballroom Wednesday to voice their opinions about the proposed $3-billion Disneyland Resort.

Disney officials, who opened the public hearing with an hourlong presentation, told the more than 800 residents and government officials that the massive expansion of the aging theme park will bring a cornucopia of wealth and fame to Anaheim.

“It is the right project at the right place at the right time,” said Disneyland President Jack Lindquist. “It’s what Anaheim needs, and it’s what Disneyland needs.”

While a majority of the audience agreed with Lindquist, a small but vocal minority strongly criticized the project.

“I don’t think Anaheim needs this project as it’s planned,” said Curtis Stricker, president of Anaheim HOME, a citizens group against the proposed resort, in an interview. “It’s a win-lose situation. Disney wins and the residents lose.”

So it went during the long-awaited Anaheim Planning Commission hearing in the Main Ballroom at the Inn at the Park Hotel.

Depending on the speaker, the project would be either an economic windfall for the county and state, generating millions of dollars in taxes, hundreds of millions in commerce and thousands of jobs, or a greedy venture by the Walt Disney Co. destined to clog traffic, pollute the air, crowd the schools and create affordable-housing problems.

Listening to all the gripes and praise about the proposed resort was the seven-member Planning Commission, which will decide whether to recommend the project to the City Council.

“We have a tough task ahead of us,” said Robert Henninger, commission chairman. “There is a lot of information to go over, and this is a very important project.”

As proposed, the expansion will add a second theme park called Westcot, as many as six new hotels, a 5,000-seat amphitheater and a retail shopping district inside the park. There will also be a six-acre lake and lush landscaping throughout.

Disney officials estimate that the project will create 28,000 jobs in the area, including 12,000 at the resort.

Even before the hearing began at 1:30 p.m., the community had demonstrated enormous interest in the project. And, as the hearing drew near, people lined up outside the ballroom just to get a seat. Those who weren’t seated stood against the back walls.

From the outset, it was clear that supporters far outnumbered detractors. Buttons and mini-placards were handed out to those whose who wanted to wear or wave their support of the project.

In fact, the supporters monopolized the initial several hours of the hearing because they were given the first opportunity at the microphone.

“We’re going to get a turn when everybody is either tired or at home,” one opponent said about the order of comments. “I guess it’s kind of like a filibuster.”

The most organized presentation in support of the resort came from a booster group called Westcot 2000. About a dozen speakers from the group used their allotted five minutes each to hail something different about the project.

Several supporters, like former Anaheim City Manager Keith Murdock, warned the Planning Commission not to “let what happened in Long Beach happen here,” a reference to Disney’s abandoning plans to build an ocean theme park a couple years ago because of opposition and regulatory hassles.

Others cautioned the commission to not be too concerned about the grumblings from several school districts in and near the city, as well as the city of Garden Grove--so far the principal critics of the project.

Some expressed their support with humor. Garden Grove resident Pat Chandler quipped that the approval process should move forward so Garden Grove “would have to suffer the consequences of additional money coming into the city.”

Others tried imagery. Fullerton resident Mark Beitstock said: “We have all shared in Walt Disney’s dream. A dream is like a flower--if it is not cared for it will wither and die. We could not prevent the death of the man, but together we can save his dream, and the way the world is now, we can’t afford to lose even one more dream.”

By the time critics and opponents of the project had their chance for comment around 8 p.m., much of the crowd had left.

The critics were not deterred, however. Some submitted written rebuttals to the city’s responses in the final environmental impact report and turned them in at the start of the meeting. Others waited.

Among the school critics are Anaheim’s own districts, which have complained that Disney is not being a good “public/private” partner because it is not concerned sufficiently with the impact the project and the children of its workers will have on the schools.

“Our fear is that Disney’s beautiful garden landscape will be surrounded by a school system that is overcrowded and underfunded,” said Celia Dougherty, president of the Anaheim City School District. “We have no land to build new schools, we have no money to buy land or build new schools, and we see no relief in the future.”

Disney officials maintain, however, that the vast majority of the new jobs will be low-paying and filled by secondary workers in existing households rather than families who move to the area to fill them.

Disney has offered to give the school districts about $2.5 million--an amount that is required under state law for large development projects. Several school districts, however, estimate the impact of the resort on schools at more than $200 million.

One Disney official has called the critiques by the school districts and the city of Garden Grove “a road map to litigation.”

As the hearing continued into the night, several speakers railed against the project’s two massive parking structures, which would be the nation’s largest with more than 33,000 spots. Some criticized the proposed realignment of streets, while others complained of the increased traffic.

Also speaking against the project were individual business and property owners who fear that the expansion would severely impact their way of life. Several hotel owners also said it would draw customers away.

The attorney for owners of a 60-acre strawberry farm called the environmental document “fundamentally flawed” because the plans include the farm, which Disney doesn’t own. Attorney Raymond Fujii also hinted that his clients, Carolyn and Hiro Fujishige, would challenge the project in a lawsuit.

Frank Elfend, a consultant for several other property owners including the Anaheim Plaza Hotel and Melodyland Church, criticized the project for the same reason: Disney doesn’t own those properties. And if Disney can’t buy them, it plans to build parking lots around those sites, decreasing their value, he said.

He said that they were “confounded and frustrated” by Disney’s plans, and that the city seemed to be bending over backward to accommodate Disney’s request for density and zoning changes.

Max Engel, a longtime Anaheim resident who lives near the park, told the commission that he was appalled by the “arrogance and obscene” assumptions made in the environmental and planning documents.

“If the promoters of this project lose, they stand to lose only money,” he said. “But if we lose, it will cost us our basic human rights . . . the integrity of our neighborhoods.”

Times staff writer Jodi Wilgoren contributed to this story.

NEXT STEP

After weighing public comments and reviewing environmental and zoning documents, the Anaheim Planning Commission will make its recommendation to the City Council. The commission meets again on May 19, and might vote then. Regardless of that decision, the environmental impact report and the specific plan will be sent to the City Council, which will have final say on whether to certify them and permit construction. The council also will hold a public hearing, and city officials expect a council vote this summer.