Ban on Expansion of Theo Lacy Jail Lifted : Crime: Neighbors’ fears of increased threat to public safety fail to convince appellate court, which overturns earlier ruling.

Over the objections of the city of Orange, a state appellate court has reversed a lower court ruling and held that the county may proceed with plans to expand the Theo Lacy Branch Jail, possibly doubling its inmate population.

The city of Orange had fought a vigorous battle since May, 1987--when the county announced its plans to enlarge the branch jail--to prevent the expansion of the facility at 501 The City Drive. The city and its residents unleashed a storm of protest over the proposed expansion, citing public safety as their biggest concern.

The Orange County Jail in Santa Ana has long been overcrowded, and an enlarged Theo Lacy jail would ease the strain on the larger facility.

After the ruling, both sides expressed relief that legal issues were behind them and negotiations could begin on jail expansion.

“We seem to be in great shape,” said Board of Supervisors Chairman Don R. Roth, expressing optimism on final negotiations with the city on the expansion.

The 4th District Court of Appeal’s action allows the Board of Supervisors to approve advertising of bids for the $41.5-million expansion at its March 13 meeting.

Once approved by the board, the bidding procedure could take 10 weeks to complete and construction might begin by June, a county official said.

The branch jail is expected to be increased from its present population of 622 inmates to 1,326. If approved, the project could be completed by December, 1991.

The safety of residents and a lid on the branch jail’s population in times of extreme overcrowding at the County Jail were the major concerns originally expressed by city officials, according to Orange Mayor Don E. Smith. Theo Lacy, a medium/minimum security jail, has long taken in inmates from the main jail.

“These items are being discussed now and the appellate court at least clears up some issues,” he said.

“We’re very hopeful and I know Don Roth is, too, that we can reach a mutually acceptable settlement,” Smith said.

The lawsuit was filed in February, 1989, by Orange and a city shopping center and office complex across the street from the jail. It contends that a state-required environmental report on the project is flawed because it does not adequately analyze the negative impact of the project on the surrounding area. It also contends that the environmental review process was inadequate because no separate report was done by the Sheriff’s Department, the sole and independent operator of county jail facilities.

Last May, Superior Court Judge William F. McDonald ordered an injunction against any construction at the facility until the issues could be argued in trial. But the court’s decision was reversed Wednesday, in part, on appeal. The appellate decision was handed down Wednesday. In lifting a previous injunction against construction, the court also ruled that the county must submit a new environmental impact report, in line with the city’s complaints.

The jail expansion announcement in 1987 spawned the formation of a Citizens Committee for the Logical and Sensible Siting of Jails, which held several rallies to protest the Theo Lacy expansion.

Some irate residents charged discrimination, noting that the original proposal called for a new jail to be built near Anaheim Stadium.

“We think the people of Orange deserve an explanation why this board apparently favors the people of Anaheim Hills over the City of Orange,” said Bob Bennyhoff, who was one of the three members of a special committee on jails appointed by the Orange City Council.

In December, 1987, the council approved spending $50,000 to hire a private attorney to sue the county.

The Theo Lacy expansion is the county’s only firm, short-term project to ease overcrowding at the county’s main jail in Santa Ana, which has been so congested in recent years that thousands of defendants who would otherwise have been jailed have been issued citations and released. In some cases, inmates have had time taken off their sentences so that their beds could be turned over to more serious offenders.

As of December of last year, 51,476 suspected offenders were cited and released early, according to a Sheriff’s Department spokesman, Lt. Richard J. Olson. He noted that the Sheriff’s Department is under court order to limit the inmate population at the main jail.

Orange officials want assurances, Smith said, that the Theo Lacy population will be kept below 2,000 prisoners, and that the more dangerous prisoners will be housed elsewhere.

Smith said he plans to meet soon with Supervisor Roth to discuss the situation.

“We want to settle and I’m sure the county does too. After all, we’re sharing each other’s tax dollars,” Smith noted.

He said that the city of Orange “just wants to be protected.”

Deputy County Counsel Edward Duran said the county successfully argued that when there is a defective environmental impact report, “you don’t discontinue construction.”

“We were unhappy that the Superior Court stopped construction because all this time has gone by. We would have fixed the (environmental impact report) and the place could have been built by now,” Duran said.

The lower court had found two deficiencies pertaining first to the Sheriff’s Department’s authority as the responsible agency for the expansion, and also a complex point on a new state law involving “mitigation monitoring,” Duran said.

“The mitigation monitoring has no case law,” Duran said, conceding that the county counsel’s office “never understood” whether the law meant the monitoring of project construction, or going beyond that and including operation of the jail.

“The Court of Appeal kind of left it open and agreed that it goes on beyond construction,” he said.

The bidding process for a contractor on the expansion must begin anew because the original contractor, Construction Group Inc. of Los Angeles, was released, said Steven Blaylock, a principal project manager for the county’s General Services Administration.

“We were tying up the contractor’s bonding capacity and they would have gone broke” while while waiting for the court decision, Blaylock explained.