Supervisors Hear Dozens of Critics Attack Jail Plan, Study at Hearing : Santa Paula: Only one of 41 speakers back building the county lockup on farmland. He represents a union whose members would work there.

Dozens of critics of a proposed county jail told the Ventura County Board of Supervisors Wednesday that a study of the new lockup is seriously flawed and that it should not be built on prime farmland near Santa Paula.

Just one of 41 speakers at a four-hour hearing supported the county’s plan to construct the $54-million first phase of the jail, and the supporter represented a deputy sheriff’s union whose members would work at the facility.

Attorneys, ranchers, businessmen, schoolchildren and Chumash Indians were among the crowd that packed the supervisors’ chamber to comment on the new study of the environmental effects of the jail.

A final vote on the study, which must be certified by supervisors before construction can begin, is not expected for at least six weeks. It could be put off for months if issues raised Wednesday cannot be resolved to the supervisors’ satisfaction.

Many speakers argued passionately against a Santa Paula jail, saying the site is hazardous for inmates because of the risk of flooding and earthquakes. Others said it would destroy wetlands along the Santa Clara River, the nesting areas of eagles and site of the remains of an ancient Chumash village.

Critics said construction of the jail on agricultural land that separates Santa Paula and Ventura not only violates the county’s agreement to keep the area as farmland, but would bring more construction with it.

“Stop this project now,” pleaded rancher Dan Pinkerton. “Stay out of the flood plain. Just vote no.”

“Why let the citrus capital of the world turn into another Orange County?” asked student Michele Stewart, 19.

Santa Paula-area resident Ken Chapman said the environmental study by county consultants glosses over so many problems that its endorsement of the Santa Paula site is like “trying to sell horse manure as strawberry ice cream. You simply can’t hide the straw.”

Ventura physician Ronna Jurow declared the project a “true environmental nightmare” and told supervisors that “in election year we will accept no less than your help on this matter.”

The supervisors, three of whom are up for reelection this year, said after the hearing that they were listening and would insist that important new issues be addressed fully by county analysts.

Three of the five supervisors said they still think the Santa Paula site is suited for the new jail. But Maggie Erickson Kildee, who represents Santa Paula, said she was troubled by the testimony and wanted to re-evaluate the project from top to bottom.

“I want to be reassured that this is the correct decision,” she said. “I would not say that to proceed is the right decision until I’m sure the questions raised can be satisfactorily answered.”

John K. Flynn is the only supervisor who has voted against the Santa Paula site. He favored expanding the existing County Jail at the Government Center in Ventura. He said the expansion would be cheaper despite contrary opinions by county analysts.

The supervisors approved construction of the 752-bed first phase in 1990 after reviewing a preliminary environmental study that found few problems with the Santa Paula site.

A second, more-detailed study--the one now under consideration--was required before construction could begin.

Officials say the new jail is needed because existing lockups can handle less than one-third of the 3,500 inmates projected for the county in the year 2010. The existing jail now holds twice its 440-inmate capacity.

Despite the flood of objections, coordinators of the jail project have said the new study shows that the Santa Paula location has no major drawbacks likely to block construction.

The site would not be significantly threatened by earthquakes or floods, though it lies near a river and a major seismic fault, county Public Works Director Arthur Goulet has said. Nor will it necessarily prompt more construction on the sprawling agricultural lands that border it, he said.

After Wednesday’s hearing, Goulet said that while most issues were not new, he did hear some things that need to be investigated more fully.

But Goulet said he was not certain whether changes in the report would be substantial enough to force the county to recirculate the study for another round of public comment--a process that would take several more months.

Of particular concern were criticisms by Marc Chytilo, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center in Santa Barbara, he said.

Chytilo, representing a Santa Paula-area group called Citizens to Save the Greenbelt, said the study must be greatly altered and recirculated to be legal.

The attorney said the environmental study is inadequate partly because it does not properly document the serious risks of earthquakes and floods on the 157-acre jail property at Todd Road and the Santa Paula Freeway.

The property lies near, and perhaps over, the major Oak Ridge fault. And the October, 1989, Loma Prieta earthquake shows the damage that can be done by a major temblor centered several miles below the surface, he said.

A county consultant, geologist John Powell, said that despite extensive studies, the fault had not been found on the site. Powell said the fault lies “probably in excess of 1,000 feet south of the site.”

But studies cited by opponents placed the fault on the south half of the site.

Officials of the United Water Conservation District, which manages ground water in the Santa Clara Valley, also questioned whether the location is a good one.

“The Todd Road jail site is not acceptable for a jail,” General Manager Frederick J. Gientke said. Flaws include flooding, which would inundate a jail sewage plant and contaminate water in the nearby Freeman diversion dam, United officials said.

Mary Gayle, attorney for United, also challenged the county for evaluating its own consultants’ reports.