Jail Site Near ‘Big A’ Handed Court Setback

A Superior Court judge Monday rejected Orange County’s environmental study on a proposed new jail near Anaheim Stadium, a decision that is expected to reignite the debate over where future jails should be located.

Judge Claude M. Owens ruled Monday that the jail’s environmental impact report--which outlines the social and economic effects of the prison on its neighborhood--was inadequate.

The county can still build the Anaheim jail, but Owens said it will first have to redo substantial portions of the report.

However, Supervisor Don R. Roth, whose district includes Anaheim, said he hopes to torpedo the Anaheim location--known as the Katella-Douglass jail site--when it comes back to the board for another decision.

“I think we ought to go back and re-evaluate the whole ball of wax,” said Roth, who testified against the site before the Board of Supervisors when he was mayor of Anaheim, which filed the court challenge against the site in 1986. “I think it was a poorly chosen site next to Anaheim Stadium.”

As a result of Monday’s ruling, the board is expected to once again look at its overall jail-capacity needs and re-evaluate its plans for new construction.

In the last year, the county opened a 500-bed jail in Santa Ana, voted to expand its existing branch jail in Orange and decided to build a massive, 6,000-bed jail in Gypsum Canyon near Anaheim.

Roth and Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez, the two newcomers to the board, said they would like to review the need for the Katella-Douglass jail in the context of the board’s other decisions.

Also, the Katella-Douglass jail is now projected to cost about $175 million and the county has no plans on how to come up with the money.

In addition, there will be no state money available for the project because of a law carried by state Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim) and former Assemblyman Richard Robinson (D-Garden Grove) that prohibited state money for that site because of its proximity to the stadium.

The issue of new jails has been one of the most politically explosive topics in Orange County for years.

In 1985, the sheriff and the Board of Supervisors were found in contempt of court by a federal judge who said the county was not doing enough to relieve severe overcrowding at the jail.

The board’s decision in May, 1986, to build the Katella-Douglass jail with about 1,500 maximum security beds came partly in response to pressure from the court. At the time, the Katella-Douglass site was intended to bring quick relief to the jail-overcrowding problem while the supervisors continued to search for a spot where they could build a larger facility.

Now, the larger facility has been planned for Gypsum Canyon and is expected to be partially opened by 1992. And because of litigation, the Katella-Douglass site might now be delayed until almost the same time.

County officials have prepared plans on how to accommodate the prison population if the Katella-Douglass jail is never built.

One recent proposal is a modification of the plans for Gypsum Canyon that would allow it to accommodate the beds planned for Katella-Douglass.

“The size of Gypsum is certainly flexible,” County Administrative Officer Larry Parrish said Monday. “Planning in that area has taken into consideration the potential that Katella-Douglass” would not be built.

Vasquez said Monday that he wants to take an overall look at the county’s jail needs before he decides on whether to continue with plans for Katella-Douglass.

And he noted that there also is likely to be litigation against the Gypsum Canyon jail site.

Anaheim officials said Monday that they are waiting for the environmental impact report on that jail--due in August--to decide if they will go to court in that case.

Supervisor Thomas F. Riley said Monday that he does not believe he will change his past vote in favor of the Katella-Douglass site. But he said he wants to hear more detail about the situation before he makes up his mind.

Supervisors Roger R. Stanton and Harriett M. Wieder were unavailable Monday.

Parrish said the county has not decided whether it will appeal the judge’s decision. And he said it is not clear how much work would be needed to repair the existing environmental impact report, which cost the county $300,000.

Anaheim city officials held a press conference Monday in which they complained that the county had been insensitive to their concerns and arrogant in forcing its decision on the city.

“All Anaheim said in this suit is that it didn’t want the decision rammed down its throat,” said attorney Pierce O’Donnell, who handled the case for Anaheim. “(Judge Owens) said in no uncertain terms, ‘County, you blew it.’ ”

Anaheim also tried to prove in its case that the county was predisposed to choosing the Anaheim site even before its environmental impact report was completed. It included testimony from supervisors and county officials that described a pact between Riley and former Supervisor Bruce Nestande about keeping the jail out of their districts.

But the judge ruled that the evidence of a conspiracy to place the jail in Anaheim was not adequate.

The judge did agree, however, that the county did not spend enough time in the environmental report discussing the alternatives to the Anaheim site.

Owens said the county’s report should have addressed the possibility that more than one prisoner might be housed in each cell. He also said the report should have included more about the economic impact of the jail on development planned in the area. Anaheim officials figured that the jail would cause about $10 million in lost property value.

“The county has not proceeded according to law,” Owens wrote in his decision. “(But) the court does not decide whether a jail should be located on the site. . . . That decision is for the Board of Supervisors.”