Ancient buildings and overcrowding at San Duentin 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.
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.
By Wes Starratt, Senior Editor
Published: November, 2004
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?
