Anaheim’s Witness Says County’s Jail Study Was Irrelevant

Orange County supervisors relied upon “useless” studies of prisons in rural areas when they decided that building a 1,500-inmate jail in urban Anaheim would have no ill effects on that community, a witness said Thursday as testimony began in the city’s bid to block the facility.

The testimony of Terry Tornek, a former Pasadena planning director, was part of Anaheim’s effort to discredit the environmental impact report on which the supervisors based their decision to build the jail at Douglass Road and Katella Avenue, half a mile from Anaheim Stadium.

Anaheim’s attorney, Pierce O’Donnell, contended that the impact report violated the California Environmental Quality Act by excluding data unfavorable to the selection of the site.

O’Donnell, who called the county’s action “brazenly unlawful,” said the county also improperly refused to submit its proposal to the Anaheim Planning Commission for approval. If the court agrees, the county would have to reconsider the site.

But Richard Simon, the attorney representing the county, insisted that no matter what the conclusions of an environmental impact report or a municipal commission, the Board of Supervisors has the authority to build a jail wherever it wants.

‘Bottom Line’

“The bottom line here is that the county has the power, indeed, the mandate from the state, to site prisons,” Simon said after proceedings Thursday in Orange County Superior Court in Santa Ana.

“The decision--right or wrong--to build the jail at Douglass and Katella is a county decision. If you don’t like what the county supervisors are doing, vote them out.”

Simon added, however, that the county believes its environmental impact report was adequate. He further said he believes there would be “no adverse environmental effects” if the jail were built. Anaheim’s lawsuit, he said, “has nothing to do with the environment. It has to do with political wisdom (of the supervisors).”

The trial, which opened Thursday, is the latest round in a dispute between two arms of local government that has included players from the state Capitol and the federal judiciary.

Orange County has been under court order since 1978 to reduce overcrowding in its jails, and in March, 1985, U.S. District Judge William P. Gray found the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff-Coroner Brad Gates in contempt for failing to do so.

In October, 1986, Gov. George Deukmejian signed legislation introduced by Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim) and then-Assemblyman Richard Robinson (D-Garden Grove) barring the use of state funds to construct a jail on the site.

Nonetheless, the board approved the site Dec. 17, 1986, and Anaheim sued on the same day to block the proposal.

Tornek testified Thursday that studies consulted by the supervisors that found prison construction to be beneficial to the economies of such rural counties as Fresno, Kings and Madera were irrelevant to the prosperous urban city of Anaheim.

“These are places out in the boonies that have no relation to Anaheim,” Tornek said later.

Anaheim is home to Disneyland, baseball’s California Angels and the Los Angeles Rams football team and the Anaheim Convention Center.

O’Donnell, who in his brief said the supervisors’ choice was “motivated by crass political considerations,” suggested outside the courtroom Thursday that the board opted for the Anaheim site knowing it would be entangled in litigation for years, thus escaping the costs of actually building the jail.

“It’s almost as if the county wanted to show the federal court in Los Angeles that it’s doing something ‘to relieve overcrowding,’ knowing that Anaheim would file a successful brief,” he said.

“Then the Board of Supervisors can throw up its hands and say, ‘we tried.’ ”

Simon denied that charge, but conceded: “Nobody wants to build a jail. That’s a lot of money thrown in the ground.”

However, Simon said the county believed the Anaheim site to be the best among the several options because of its proximity to the criminal courts in Santa Ana. “You need a substantial facility in an urban area,” he said.

The trial, which is expected to last two weeks, is being heard by retired Superior Court Judge Claude M. Owens, who is sitting as a special judge with the consent of both parties.

On Thursday, Owens ruled against a county motion to exclude any evidence not found in the disputed environmental impact report.

O’Donnell said that based on that ruling, he plans to call 20 expert witnesses and introduce 75 exhibits that he hopes will discredit the county’s environmental document.