Will The Walls
Came Tumbiling Down?
Ancient Buildings and Overcrowding at San Quentin Spell Potential
Disaster for California’s Oldest Prison in a Major Earthquake..Now,
a New Death-Row Complex is Proposed. But, “Hope is on the way”:A
Proposed Transit Village to Transform the Prison into a Regional
Transportation Hub.
![](San%20Quentin.jpg) |
The San Quentin
prison footprint. Prisoners will very likely be making
tracks in all directions toute suite the next major
earthquake. Photo by generous courtesy of Bob
Campbell/Chamois Moon |
By Wes Starratt, Senior Editor
What do you do with an old prison in earthquake
country?
Rehabilitate the buildings? Tear them down and build new ones? Or
build a new prison someplace else? San Quentin is a very old prison,
with some buildings dating back as far as 1854, long before there
was such a thing as an earthquake building code. Construction of the
eight towers started in 1892, and the last major construction phase
took place in the 1920s and the 1930s. It included the four five-
tiered cell blocks, all of them built well before today’s strict
building codes. Thus, most of the buildings at San Quentin qualify
as historic structures, but obviously present a safety problem, not
only for guards and visitors, but also for inmates and local
residents.
Today, San Quentin employs about 1,600 people and
houses almost 6,000 inmates of which some 600 are condemned inmates.
It has three functions: a reception center for inmates, housing for
condemned inmates, and housing for minimum and medium security
inmates.
Some 20 years ago, in 1984, California’s
Department of Corrections, in response to a court order, had an
inventory of existing facilities at San Quentin, their earthquake
resistance, and the cost for renovation or reconstruction made by a
well-established architectural/engineering firm. The results were
startling:
• “many of the older buildings are in
serious disrepair“
• “existing facilities
are rapidly approaching the end of their useful lives, but can be
renovated, if funding permits”
• “the four major cell
blocks do not incorporate any current seismic design criteria or
details; consequently, all buildings require strengthening to
provide resistance for moderate to major earthquakes” ;
• “The outer shell
building is the primary seismic hazard, because of its height, great
length, and massive wall construction.”
• The four main cell
blocks, constructed more than 50 (now 70) years ago, are remnants of
an earlier era in the corrections field.”
The investigation listed 21 buildings and
structures, including the four cell blocks, that were “not adequate
for compliance with the 1973 Uniform Building Code, ” which has been
upgraded eight times since then. In addition, the report pointed to
the poor condition of the five elements of the prison that are
critical to its operations, namely the secure perimeter wall, boiler
house, utilities networks, central kitchen, and the bayside walls of
the cell blocks.
Also noted in the report were the problems at San
Quentin that derive not only from the age of the buildings but from
poor maintenance, and the report pointed out that, “The problem of
inadequate maintenance of all systems and buildings at San Quentin
is paramount” and the “lack of a rigorous maintenance program and
lack of proper funding have resulted in an extremely inefficient and
dangerous facility.”
Overall, the problems at San Quentin in 1984 were
substantial, and the report concluded that “the greatest cost
benefit will be derived from a considered program which balances
renovation with facility replacement.” Estimated costs ranged from a
“moderate renovation” of the cell blocks at $127 million to complete
reconstruction at $255 million, all in terms of 1984 dollars … a
substantial amount of money … which was unavailable until 1990 with
the passage of State Proposition #122, which authorized a bond issue
to provide funds for the seismic upgrading of state buildings.
Seimic Upgrading of the Cell Blocks
We talked with Joel McRonald, chief architect with the Seismic &
Special Program Unit of the California General Services
Administration, regarding the seismic upgrading program. He
explained that
Prop. 122 provided funds for a “life safety program” for correcting
“seismic deficiencies” and did not involve a “complete renovation”
of the buildings. “We screened a significant number of buildings
among the 17,000 buildings owned by the state” to determine which of
them were in greatest need of upgrading and “a whole bunch of
buildings at San Quentin made the list.” To date, five buildings at
the prison have been upgraded at a total cost of only $25 million.
They include the four cell blocks and the building housing the
kitchen and dinning rooms. Two additional building are also
scheduled for upgrading, if there is sufficient money in the state
budget, since the bond fund has been depleted. That makes a total of
seven buildings at San Quentin, including the major cell blocks that
have been strengthened by this program.
We asked McRonald if these building now meet
California’s current building code. He explained, “Not in the
strictest sense. Because of the materials that were originally used
to build those facilities, we have done what we hope puts these
structures close to the present building code. We made assumptions
on buildings that are 70 to 80 years old. The changes that we have
made are not for property protection, but for life-safety
protection. So that the occupants can exit the buildings in the
event of an earthquake.”
And the Prison Walls?
We inquired about the prison walls, and were advised that they fall
under a jurisdiction pertaining to security rather than life-safety,
but have been unable to pinpoint that contact. So, we don’t know
what has been done to strengthen the walls and the guard towers of
the old prison, other than reinforcing them against erosion along
the channel and the bay, as we were able to witness several years
ago from the decks of the Larkspur ferry.
We asked the public information officer at San
Quentin about security, and he pointed to the dangerous over-crowded
conditions at the prison and how, even the condemned inmates, are
required to have an outdoor exercise period. The only space
available for that exercise is outside the security perimeter with
only the wall between the inmates and the bay, noting that “With a
strong earthquake, the wall could come down, and the inmates would
be in the ferry channel.”
Where are we today?
One of San Francisco’s leading structural engineers commented to us
that, “For years, they have been pecking away at upgrading San
Quentin facilities with a meager budget. They really do need a new
prison.” Since the 1984 survey of buildings at San Quentin, the
state has spent only about $25 million to upgrade the four cell
blocks and the dinning hall, while in 1984 even a “moderate
renovation” was estimated to cost $127 million. It has been stressed
that the ongoing upgrading is strictly structural, having nothing to
do with electrical or plumbing facilities, and little to do with
security. So, was the recent and ongoing upgrading of buildings at
San Quentin a “Band Aid” approach, or are the buildings really much
stronger today than they were back in 1984? We’re skeptical!
Another Site?
Over the years, there has been an ongoing debate regarding the site:
Should the old buildings be upgraded or should new ones built at the
San Quentin site? On the other hand, should a new site be chosen for
prison facilities? San Quentin has the advantage for both staff and
inmates of being close to an urban center, although the prison is at
a considerable distance from Sacramento where much of the state’s
correctional staff is headquartered. In its long range plan, the
state has also noted “the site may have a substantial sales value.
Selling the site may provide funds to offset the cost of a
replacement prison at a new site.”
In 2001, the California’s Department of General
Services prepared a “Preliminary Analysis of Potential Reuse and
Relocation of San Quentin Prison.” It estimated that the
construction of replacement facilities and relocation of current
functions would require a capital outlay of $605 million to $695
million plus a one-time support budget cost ranging up to about $100
million. On the other hand, new facilities are needed at San Quentin
starting with the proposed Condemned Inmate Complex estimated $220
million plus a long list of other facilities and utilities
conservatively estimated at upwards of $250 million (but who really
knows?) … in essence a complete replacement of most facilities at
San Quentin at $500 million or beyond.
The deciding factor in the total cost for a new
prison vs. the cost to upgrade and build new facilities at San
Quentin hinges on the amount of money that the state could derive
from the sale of the San Quentin property, and it ranges from $100
million to over $650 million.
In determining the value of the San Quentin property, three
alternatives were investigated:
• A residential community with 500 homes
which would place the value of the San Quentin property between $100
million and $200 million;
• A regional transit
village with terminals for ferries, a railroad, and buses plus
retail space, and about 2,000 dwellings that would raise the value
of the San Quentin property to the level of $364 to $568 million;
and
• A new town that would
increase the retail space and dwelling units to just over 2,000 and
raise the value of the San Quentin property to the level of $420 to
$664 million.
Until rezoning and entitlements are secured for
the site, the value of the property is speculative, but Marin County
has already started that process by initiating an update of its
Countywide Plan.
We talked with Marin Supervisor Steve Kinsey, who commented that the
1984 survey of San Quentin facilities (cited earlier in this
article), “pretty much said that the whole place should come down.”
Marin County has another vision for the property, and “we are
working with the Countywide Plan to incorporate the concept of the
Transit Village, and that would give a clear push toward the reuse
of the San Quentin property. It’s going through its own
environmental review process for the next six months, and we will be
making a final decision next Fall. The vision that we did with the
community seemed to focus on the Transit Village, which would
provide an opportunity to create a regional transit hub for rail,
ferry and buses.
” The best that we can do now is to show the state
that we are committed to a meaningful level of development that
would allow them to get an entitlement, which would provide them
with enough return on their real estate that they could use to get
replacement facilities for San Quentin. We are not asking the state
to give the property to us for $1 so that it can be used for another
park. Instead, the Transit Village would be a substantial
contributor to the region, with transit access, jobs, housing, and
retail.”
A New Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin is Proposed
In the 1984 assessments of facilities at San
Quentin, seismic problems were not the only deficiencies cited for
cell blocks. “The basic configuration of the cell blocks is
unsatisfactory in terms of the ability to separate population groups
for purposes of security and safety.” … and it “contains hidden
areas which make supervision and security very difficult” … “There
is no centralized control point” … “The existing five-tier
organization makes security and control more difficult to achieve,
creating dangerous conditions for staff and inmates” and “existing
fire and life safety measures are inadequate.”
These problems have grown over the years as the
condemned inmate population has increased so that a completely new
$220-million San Quentin State Prison Condemned Inmate Complex
Project was recently approved by the state legislature. It would be
built to house 1,408 inmates on a 40-acre site of auxiliary
structures near the West Gate of the prison and thus not require the
demolition of the existing cell blocks or other major structures. An
Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and is currently being
reviewed in Marin County, with construction already scheduled to
begin in September 2005.
A spokesmen for San Quentin stressed that the
proposed complex, “has nothing to do with seismic safety, but with
public safety caused by the over-crowding of the prison, with
condemned inmates scattered through the various cell blocks.”
Marin Conty Responds
Needless to say, the proposed new “death row” complex has been
received with mixed feelings in Marin County.
We talked with Assemblyman Joe Nation, who
represents Marin County in the State Legislature. ” I continue to
focus on getting the governor’s attention on this issue … and … to
convince him that we really ought to reconsider the expansion of
death row. I think the governor will look closely at the auditor’s
report, and it really comes down to the direction that he provides
over the next few months. I hope that he will look at what a
financial disaster and mistake it is for California to expand death
row at San Quentin. And that he looks at alternatives, which the
state auditor indicated that the state had never done. The Dept. of
Corrections never looked at an alternative to San Quentin. It never
explored it at all. They simply said that we need a thousand beds on
death row. They didn’t look at other possible facilities. They
didn’t look at other high security prisons. I think that’s a
mistake, and I think that the auditor has pointed that out. They
simply said that we have been doing this at San Quentin for years,
and death row has been there for year, and we might as well keep it
there. That’s when government gets into trouble. It’s in trouble
when it doesn’t innovate and doesn’t think. And that’s what’s
happened here. Rather than explore options, the Dept. of Corrections
did what is the easiest thing to do.”
Marin County and the entire Bay Area have a stake in what happens at
San Quentin:
Whether facilities at the old prison continue to be patched-up and
some new facilities added with the ongoing question of the security
and safety of the guards and nearby community remaining, especially
during an earthquake. Or whether we open our eyes to the strategic
importance of the San Quentin Peninsula as the transit hub of the
North Bay and build a new prison elsewhere that incorporates the
latest security and structural features.
We may soon have an answer, as the state struggles
with the question of whether or not to spend $220 million on a
completely new facility at California’s oldest prison … and see
whether that facility is to be an asset … or a waste of taxpayer’s
money?