Anaheim Acts Fast to Thwart County Jail Plan

Plans for a massive new community of almost 8,000 homes in Gypsum Canyon sped ahead in the race Monday against a competing plan for a county jail.

The Anaheim Planning Commission certified the environmental impact report and overall plan for the Irvine Co’s. Mountain Park development. The approvals, decided during a daylong meeting at City Hall, move the plan to the City Council, which has been rushing to block the county’s efforts to capture the area for a 6,720-bed jail and new landfill.

“The race has not been to get a new development in, but to forestall the efforts to put a jail in there,” Anaheim Councilman Bob D. Simpson said after learning of the Planning Commission’s action. “We’re in a hurry to preclude a jail, but we would not do that at risk of a bad project. It will not be rushed through council.”

The commission’s action comes a month after proponents of a Gypsum Canyon jail were dealt a major setback when voters rejected Measure J, a tax proposal that would have allowed the county to buy the unincorporated land from the Irvine Co. for a jail. City officials led the campaign against Measure J, and Mayor Fred Hunter has said that he expects the area to be annexed to the city by the end of the year.

Still, proponents say Anaheim must clear some major hurdles before houses begin cropping up in the canyon.

Legislation that could make it easier for the county to condemn the land for purchase has been approved by the Assembly and is pending with the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The legislation, written by Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Garden Grove), would allow Orange County supervisors to condemn the property with a vote of three of five supervisors. Currently, it takes a vote of four supervisors to condemn property by the process of eminent domain.

“They (the planning commissioners) are raising the stakes,” said George Urch, Umberg’s chief of staff. “Obviously, the city is moving quickly.”

If the Senate approves Umberg’s bill, Urch said, he is counting on Gov. Pete Wilson’s “good relationship” with the Irvine Co. to keep the county’s hopes for a jail alive.

“We’d like to hope that the governor would sign our bill,” Urch said. “Orange County needs a jail, and the governor is in favor of law enforcement.”

Urch said he believes that the Planning Commission’s actions will have no bearing on the success or failure of the legislation. At the same time, he credited Hunter and Anaheim Councilman Tom Daly with “working hard” for the Mountain Park community.

“We still have confidence that the Irvine Co. is looking at the big picture. Obviously, the ideal situation would be that the Irvine Co. says ‘we want to help the county get a jail.’ ”

Although plans for the 3,179-acre development were approved by a unanimous vote of the commission, Irvine Co. representatives and city planners bickered Monday over how and when a network of roadways that would service the area should be developed and placed in the city’s control.

The commission required that the company designate the roadways and place them in the city’s control at the start of the project.

Commissioners also provided that housing in the area should be kept to a ratio of 67% attached housing and 33% detached.

Commissioner Glenn W. Hellyer Jr. said homes in the development are expected to range from $200,000 to $500,000.

The commissioner said there are no provisions for low-income housing units.

“We think we had a very fair hearing,” said C. Bradley Olson, president of Foothill Community Builders, a division of the Irvine Co. “They were very thorough.”

Hellyer said he doesn’t believe that there will be a need for much more adjustment at the council level.

“If it needed to be tweaked more, we would have done it here,” Hellyer said. “I don’t think we have to worry about any more adjustments.”

While Simpson said he favors the project, he does not consider it a “done deal.”

“I’ll be pleased if the project is acceptable to the council, but I still think there are some unanswered questions,” the councilman said. “I have concerns about the density of the project and what impact that will have with respect to traffic in the area.”