RES-10274 Opposing Use of Theo Lacy Jail Facility for State Re-Entry FacilityRESOLUTION NO. 10274
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE OPPOSING THE USE OF THEO
LACY JAIL FACILITY AS A STATE RE-
ENTRY FACILITY, IMPLORING THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
NOT TO UNDERTAKE A PROGRAM WHICH
VIOLATES THE COURT JUDGMENT IN CITY OF ORANGE
V.ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF/ORANGE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CASE NO. BS029472;
AND TO ABIDE BY THE THEO LACY MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE, THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
THE ORANGE COUNTY
SHERIFF.WHEREAS, in late February of 2008, the City of Orange (City) was first made
aware that the County of Orange (County) and the Orange County Sheriff (Sheriff) were proposing
to utilize Theo Lacy Jail Facility (Theo Lacy) as a re-entry facility for 292 state
prisoners (Re-entry Program) in order to help the County of Orange to qualify for state funds to
expand the James A. Musick jail
facility; and WHEREAS, in 1989 the City sued the County and the Sheriff over
a proposed expansion to Theo
Lacy; and WHEREAS, as a result of the lawsuit the Orange County Superior Court
enjoined the construction of the Theo Lacy expansion, ruling that the Environmental Impact Report
for the expansion (EIR) was inadequate for several reasons, causing the County to re-
visit and prepare a revised
subsequent EIR; and WHEREAS, in 1991 the City and the County entered in
a Memorandum of Understanding concerning primarily a potential extension of Metropolitan
Drive, relocation of existing County facilities including the County Animal Shelter and the
Theo Lacy recreational Field and construction of a City fire station (
the MOU); and WHEREAS, in 1994, the Sheriff decided to house maximum security
prisoners at Theo Lacy and to add 358 bunk beds to Theo Lacy (the
Challenged Actions); and WHEREAS, that same year the City again found it necessary to file
a lawsuit against the County and Sheriff alleging they again failed to follow
the California Environmental
Quality Act; and WHEREAS, as a result of that lawsuit and to settle the disputes
between the parties,the City, County and Sheriff entered into a Stipulation and Judgment that was
entered in 1995 by the Los Angeles Superior Court, Honorable John A. Clarke, and executed
including then City Mayor Joanne Coontz, then Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Gaddi
Vasquez and then Sheriff Brad Gates; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Stipulation and Judgment the City agreed to waive its
right to oppose certification of the ElR for the Challenged Actions; and
WHEREAS, in exchange the County and the Sheriff agreed to numerous limitations to
the operation and expansion of Theo Lacy including the following direct excerpts from the
Stipulation and Judgment:
The Final Project will result in an inmate population exclusive of medical beds
not in excess of 1,909 rated beds or an actual population of 2,986 except in the
case of emergency or unusual circumstances.
The number of maximum security inmates shall never exceed 1,152 even in
cases of emergency or unusual circumstances.
The Final Project is the final expansion of Theo Lacy Jail forever and that
neither the County nor the Sheriff will ever seek to expand Theo Lacy beyond
those limits established in the Final Project (emphasis added).
All maximum security prisoners housed at Theo Lacy Jail... will be housed in
cell buildings. All maximum security prisoners housed at Theo Lacy will be
transported to the Main Jail in Santa Ana for release;
The County and/or Sheriff shall not otherwise attempt to expand Theo Lacy Jail
beyond the limits set forth in the Final Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Stipulation and Judgment the parties agreed to meet and
cooperate to draft, as necessary, a formal amendment to the MOU and in fact did so in March
of 1998 (the MOU First Amendment); and
WHEREAS, the MOU First Amendment contained numerous provisions governing the
Metropolitan Drive extension, the County Animal Shelter and most pertinent, the City's
agreement to except specific changes to the Theo Lacy expansion project, including:
A 13 feet adjustment upward to the height of the elevator shaft.
Moving the location of three cell modules 15 feet southerly of where they were
shown in the ElR.
Removal of the laundry building and having all laundry done at James A.
Musick facility, which added one truck round trip per day above that analyzed
in the EIR.
The location of parking utilization for Theo Lacy staff.
2
The addition of a sidewalk.
Demolition of the old library building was deleted from the expansion project
and instead was to be used by the Sheriff for warehouse space, pending possible
future need for the parking structures; and
WHEREAS, the County and Sheriff have not provided much detail on the Re-
Entry Program, but the EIR referenced in the Stipulation and Judgment does not describe or
analyze such an operation;
and WHEREAS, notwithstanding all of the above, it appears that the County and
the Sheriff have taken the position the State Re-Entry Program is not subject to approval
by
the City.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Orange determines and finds
as follows:
Section
1.Judgment.The Re-Entry Program violates the literal terms of
the Stipulation
and
Section 2.Amendment.The Re-Entry Program violates the literal terms
of the MOU First Section 3. Based on the past practice and agreements reached
by and between the City, the County and the Sheriff, it is clear that it is the parties'
mutual interpretation of the Stipulation and Judgment that even minor modifications to Theo
Lacy operations and facilities require the
approval of the City.Section 4. The City has received information that the
Re-Entry Program could result in the following significant changes to both operations and facilities
at Theo Lacy: (1) the legislation (AB 900) which led to the County's approval of the
Re-Entry Program provides that it is to be run by state corrections employees, rather than
County employees; (2) the Sheriff has indicated that it will be expanding its community work programs
to get other prisoners out more quickly to make room for the 292 Re-Entry
Program prisoners; (3) many of the programs outlined in AB 900 could require additional services
from private companies with access to Theo Lacy and/or require additional County staffing; (4) there
is a potential that the Re-Entry Program prisoners could be furloughed to work during
their terms; and (5) the Re-Entry Program may
require the addition of modular facilities at Theo Lacy.Section 5. The County's stated
need for expanding Theo Lacy Jail was to relieve overcrowding in County jails, not in state
prisons. Prisoners at Theo Lacy are typically low level offenders or criminals who are
being housed temporarily while transitioning to state prison. The Re-Entry Program will change the
nature of the prison population at Theo Lacy by introducing inmates who have served significant
time in state prison who are burdened and hardened by extensive years of prison life. The County
acknowledges that a primary purpose of AB 900 is to place prisoners who have a
higher
prisoners typically have little to no outside support, limited job skills and limited education.
Because the State prisoners will likely be medium security prisoners (a term which may be
unrelated to the seriousness of the crime they committed) they are available for release directly
from Theo Lacy into the City. Thus, the Re-Entry Program will result in the release into the
City of hardened state prisoners with a higher propensity to be repeat offenders, a situation
which does not exist under current
operations.Section 6. The City Council finds that there is a dispute between the City and
County concerning the scope and operation of the MOU First Amendment and that the County's
action to make Theo Lacy available for the Re-Entry Program is a breach of the MOU
First Amendment and the Stipulation
and Judgment.Section 7. The City Attorney is hereby directed to implement any
legal means,including the retention of outside counsel, which he deems necessary to ensure that
the County abides by the Stipulation and Judgment and the MOU
First Amendment.Section 8. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption
and shall be forwarded to the County Board of Supervisors, to the County's Chief Executive Officer,
to the Sheriff, to all properties within 1,000 feet of Theo Lacy, including but not limited
to UCI Medical Center and The Block
at Orange.ADOPTED this 25th day of
March,
2008 t.--
ro Tem
er sa Smith, ouncilmember
ea~~~
4
ATTEST:
I, MARY E. MURPHY, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of March, 2008, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith, Murphy, Cavecche, Dumitru, Bilodeau
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
tit
Mary:
5