Concerns Stall Vote on Costa Mesa Furlough Site

SANTA ANA —  Facing last-minute concerns from the city of Costa Mesa, the County Board of Supervisors postponed a decision Tuesday on where to locate a 50-bed community furlough center for drunk drivers and other low-risk offenders.

County officials bill the work-release program as one solution to the growing problem of overcrowding in county jails. The program calls for the use of private, unarmed guards to house and monitor offenders who would otherwise serve their criminal sentences in traditional jails.

But the idea has now run into a potential roadblock from city leaders in Costa Mesa, who complain that the county has kept them in the dark about it. City officials said they believe that they could ultimately block the plan by refusing to issue the required permits. They said they want the county to hear their concerns now before moving ahead with the idea.

Costa Mesa Mayor Sandra L. Genis said she fears that the city, already home to several halfway houses and shelters, may be seen as a “dumping ground.”

“Are we getting too many of these types of facilities concentrated in one area?” she asked. “I would be very, very cautious about approving anything like this” when it comes before the city for approval. “You’re not sure what type of people these are.”

Several neighborhood residents also voiced resistance to the plan Tuesday.

“When your friends ask where you live, do you say, ‘I live across the street from the jail?’ ” asked Rudy Garcia, who rents an apartment across from the proposed furlough site, which is two apartment buildings at 2256 and 2260 Maple St.

The Costa Mesa facility would be the county’s third furlough home. County staff members are recommending that the Board of Supervisors spend $608,000 a year to set it up. The supervisors had been expected to approve the move at their weekly meeting on Tuesday.

Instead, they postponed the vote until Feb. 23 after Costa Mesa City Manager Allan L. Roeder urged them not to rush the project through.

County officials have also weighed competing proposals from other private contractors to run furlough programs in Santa Ana and Westminster, but the Costa Mesa plan was estimated to cost at least $100,000 less annually than either of the other plans.

Under the Costa Mesa proposal, a nonprofit group called Orange County Youth & Family Services Inc. would lease the two Maple Street apartment buildings, now owned by a private businessman, and turn them into a correctional facility for low-risk offenders.

The nonprofit group already operates the the county’s two existing furlough programs, in Anaheim and Buena Park. Executive Director Kevin Meehan said more than three-quarters of the offenders were convicted of drunk driving. People convicted of failing to pay spousal support, passing bad checks and cheating on welfare are among the rest of the population, he said.

Convicted offenders facing jail time could apply for placement at the Costa Mesa furlough center. Chief Probation Officer Michael Schumacher told supervisors Tuesday that “anybody who is dangerous would not even be considered for this type of program.”

Offenders would be closely monitored by 13 unarmed, private workers at the Costa Mesa site, officials said. They would be allowed to go to work, returning immediately afterward for Breathalyzer tests, officials said. Head counts would be taken six times a day, and visitation would be limited.

“They are not going to go anywhere. They are in custody,” Schumacher said.

Roeder and other Costa Mesa officials said they recognize the need for the county to unclog its overcrowded jails but voiced concerns about the county’s failure to properly inform them about such a critical local issue.

Roeder said the city received just a courtesy call about the project a week ago from the office of Board of Supervisors Chairman Harriett M. Wieder, the first notification of the project. Wieder’s district includes the Costa Mesa site.

Said Costa Mesa Councilman Jay Humphrey: “The county sometimes does things unilaterally. . . . I’m upset over the quickness with which this has happened. I hadn’t even heard about this until (Tuesday). All of a sudden, it just cropped right up.”

Indeed, as late as Monday night, county officials were unwilling to disclose the precise location of the proposed facility.