Supervisor to Urge End to Jail Plan : Crisis: Vasquez will propose today that Orange County abandon its Gypsum Canyon effort. That action will set the stage for a crucial debate.

By JIM NEWTON

Oct. 1, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

SANTA ANA — The chairman of the Orange County Board of Supervisors will officially propose today that the county end its four-year pursuit of a Gypsum Canyon jail, setting the stage for a crucial debate and positioning Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder as the key vote.

“The county has spent years, and millions of dollars, exploring the development of Gypsum Canyon only to see the costs continue to escalate,” Board Chairman Gaddi H. Vasquez wrote in a letter to his colleagues that was distributed late Monday. “I believe it is now evident that this site is not a viable one and that the county needs to develop a workable, and affordable, solution to the jail crisis.”

If Vasquez can persuade two other board members to join him, that would effectively end a debate that has deadlocked the board for more than four years and cost the county more than $7 million. Just two weeks ago, such a reversal would have seemed impossible, as all five board members have been solid in their positions since a 1987 vote naming Gypsum Canyon as the board’s preferred jail site.

Yet on Monday evening, the board appeared to be split 2-2 with Wieder poised to cast the deciding vote.

Vasquez’s letter was accompanied by four recommendations for action. Three direct the county administrative office to study alternatives to the Gypsum Canyon proposal and to report its findings to the board. The fourth, however, is that the board “cease any further expenditures on the development of Gypsum Canyon.”

Supervisor Roger R. Stanton, who at this point appears to be the board’s most ardent Gypsum Canyon supporter, called Vasquez’s letter “Alice-in-Wonderland thinking” and warned that closing the door on Gypsum Canyon would strip the county of an important potential jail site without gaining anything in return.

Stanton, working with his staff well into the evening, drafted a detailed letter of his own. In it, after he questions some of the estimated costs of building and operating a Gypsum Canyon jail, Stanton urges his colleagues to stick with that proposal and refrain from making any hasty decisions today.

“The inadequacy of jail beds has been a problem since before I joined the board,” wrote Stanton, who was first elected in 1980. “It is a long-term problem that needs a tangible solution. That solution is achieved one forward step at a time. This is not the time to run backward.”

The status of the Gypsum Canyon jail proposal was thrown in doubt last week as Wieder and Supervisor Thomas F. Riley--the two other board members who have long supported the canyon jail--suddenly began expressing serious reservations about the project in light of new financial projections.

Because the jail has only enjoyed a 3-2 margin of support on the board, any change in position by its backers would tip the scales.

In a report that the supervisors will formally receive today, the county administrative office warns that even a scaled-down first phase of the jail would cost taxpayers $119 million a year. The board will consider that report along with Vasquez’s recommendations and Stanton’s letter today.

Wieder and Riley both told The Times Orange County Edition last week that that report and the county’s worsening budget woes had made them think that a Gypsum Canyon jail may no longer be possible. Their comments touched off a flurry of concern by jail supporters and an explosion of activity in the Hall of Administration as officials scrambled to adjust to the shifting political status of the jail proposal.

Wieder repeated her concerns Monday, calling the report “a 2-by-4 that hit us over the head.”

Although Riley has echoed Wieder’s new concerns about the project, he has been more reluctant to call for a quick change of course, preferring to take time to consider the implications of the new numbers. He said Monday that he intends to ask Vasquez to delay a vote on whether to end the board’s support for Gypsum Canyon.

Supervisor Stanton also intends to vote against Vasquez’s recommendation, but Supervisor Don R. Roth, a longtime Gypsum Canyon jail opponent, is sure to join with Vasquez. That leaves Wieder as the swing vote, and she said Monday that she is torn between her conviction that the canyon jail would be too expensive and her concern that the county not move too quickly to drop the proposal.

Gov. Pete Wilson is considering legislation by Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Garden Grove) that would make it easier for the Board of Supervisors to condemn land for a jail, and Wieder has indicated that she might prefer to wait for Wilson’s decision before voting to drop Gypsum Canyon as a jail site.

“I can’t be inconsistent and say that we should go ahead with this project,” she said, “but I don’t want to preempt the governor.”

As each side of the jail debate tried to rally support for its position, Stanton and his aides were urging board members to refrain from taking any dramatic action today. Stanton said he expects to raise some questions about the new financial report, and he added that he considers the rush to abandon Gypsum Canyon an overreaction to that study.

“We always knew it was going to cost money,” he said. “Gimme a break. If the jail is too expensive to build as it is, let’s redesign it.”

Sheriff Brad Gates, a leading Gypsum Canyon supporter, agreed. “Wherever you build a jail, it’s going to cost you money,” he said. “Let’s not give this up. Let’s take a step and move forward.”

Although the board’s action in public session today could effectively end the pursuit of the Gypsum Canyon jail, the supervisors also intend to hold a separate debate behind closed doors. That discussion could prove almost as important as the public vote, officials said.

At the closed-door session, the supervisors will be discussing a lawsuit that the county has filed against the city of Anaheim challenging an environmental impact report prepared by that city that analyzes the effects of building a huge housing development in Gypsum Canyon. Anaheim officials favor that 8,000-unit project, called Mountain Park, over the jail proposal.

The board could elect today to curtail or even withdraw that lawsuit, which would clear the way for the Irvine Co., which owns the land, to begin developing it.

Officials say, however, that even if the supervisors drop the jail proposal, county planners have concerns about the company’s development plan, including traffic, air pollution and other matters.

As a result, county staffers are likely to urge the supervisors to stick with the lawsuit even if they withdraw support for the jail.

With so many issues on the table, few are willing to hazard a guess as to whether the Gypsum Canyon jail proposal will stand by day’s end.

“I’m not going to be a handicapper on the speculation about where the board will go,” Stanton said late Monday. “I’m just going to provide some logic.”