BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
8
SB 28 (Denham)
As Introduced December 2, 2008
Hearing date: January 12, 2010
Penal Code (URGENCY)
SM:mc
VOTE ONLY
DECOMMISSIONING SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 228 (Denham) - 2008, failed passage Senate
Public Safety Committee
AB 1715 (Nation) - 2005, failed passage Senate
Public Safety Committee
SB 901 (Denham) - 2005, never heard Senate Public
Safety Committee
AB 1460 (Nation) - Chapter 934, Statutes of 2001
AB 2787 (Leonard) - 2000, never heard Assembly
Public Safety
AB 2087 (Battin) - amended 7/1/96; failed, Sen.
Comm. on Crim. Procedure
ACR 145 (Filante) - 1986, died Senate Rules
Committee
Support: None known
Opposition: American
Civil Liberties Union; City of Folsom; Roberta MacGlashan,
Supervisor, County of Sacramento
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageB
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD SAN QUENTIN BE CLOSED, ITS INMATES TRANSFERRED TO OTHER
PRISONS AND THE PROPERTY BE SOLD FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT?
SHOULD DEMOLITION OF THE PRISON BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)?
SHOULD THE SUBSEQUENT RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PROPERTY BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) require the decommissioning
of San Quentin State Prison; (2) allow the Governor to select a
new site for housing inmates condemned to death and for a new
execution site; (3) exempt the building of a new prison to house
condemned inmates from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA); (4) require the sale of the property on which San
Quentin now stands; (5) require the buyer of the property to
demolish the prison; (6) exempt the demolition of the prison
from CEQA; (7) prohibit industrial development on the site where
the prison now stands; and (8) exempt any new residential or
commercial development at the site from CEQA.
Existing law provides that there is and shall continue to be a
State prison to be known as the California State Prison at San
Quentin which shall be located at San Quentin, in Marin County,
California, with a primary purpose to provide confinement,
industrial and other training, treatment, and care to persons
confined therein. (Penal Code 2020, 2021, and 2022.)
Existing law provides that if the judgment is for imprisonment
in the state prison, the judgment shall direct that the
defendant be delivered into the custody of the Director of
Corrections at the state prison or institution designated by the
Director of Corrections as the place for the reception of
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageC
persons convicted of felonies, except where the judgment is for
death in which case the defendant shall be taken to the warden
of the California State Prison at San Quentin, as specified.
(Penal Code 1202a.)
Existing law provides that every male person, upon whom has been
imposed the judgment of death, shall be delivered to the warden
of the California state prison designated by the department for
the execution of the death penalty, there to be kept until the
execution of the judgment. (Penal Code 3600(a).)
Existing law does the following:
permits a male inmate upon whom the sentence of death
has been imposed and who commits certain offenses or whose
medical or mental health needs are so critical as to
endanger the inmate or others to be housed in either secure
condemned housing designated by the Director of
Corrections, at the California State Prison, Sacramento,
(CSPS) or an institution appropriate for medical or mental
health treatment, as specified.
provides attorney-client access procedures shall be
afforded to inmates housed in secure condemned housing or
an institution for medical or mental health treatment, as
specified.
requires an inmate placed in these alternative housing
situations to be returned to San Quentin State Prison at
least 60 days before his scheduled date of execution.
requires (1) that the condemned housing program at CSPS
shall be fully operational prior to the transfer of any
condemned inmate; (2) those local procedures relating to
specified privileges and classification procedures provided
to Grade B condemned inmates at San Quentin State Prison
shall be similarly instituted at CSPS for specified
condemned inmates; (3) no more than 15 condemned inmates
may be rehoused for disciplinary reasons; and, (4) prior to
any relocation of condemned row from San Quentin State
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageD
Prison, all maximum security Level IV, 180-degree housing
unit facilities with an electrified perimeter shall be
evaluated by the Department of Corrections for suitability
for the secure housing and execution of condemned inmates.
(Penal Code 3600(b), (c), and (d).)
Existing law provides that every female person, upon whom has
been imposed the judgment of death, shall be delivered to the
warden of the Central California Women's Facility, there to be
held pending decision upon appeal and shall be moved to the
prison designated by the department for the execution of the
death penalty, not earlier than three days before the day upon
which judgment is to be executed, all as specified. (Penal Code
3601 and 3602.)
Existing law provides that the judgment of death shall be
executed within the walls of the California State Prison at San
Quentin. (Penal Code 3603.)
Under existing law , the Secretary of the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation is vested with the supervision,
management, and control of the state prisons and is responsible
for the care, custody, treatment, training, discipline and
employment of a person confined in those prisons. The Secretary
may prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of
the prisons. (Penal Code 5054 and 5058.)
This bill requires the California State Prison at San Quentin be
decommissioned no later than December 31, 2014; beginning
January 1, 2014, all death-row prisoners be housed and
executions carried out at a prison other than San Quentin; and
that all other prisoners be moved out of San Quentin by June 30,
2014.
This bill requires that the Governor, after consulting with
members of his or her cabinet, legislative leaders of both
parties, and local government officials, shall make a decision
no later than March 31, 2011, regarding which prison shall house
death row prisoners and be the site of executions.
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageE
This bill provides that the building of a new death row and
execution site would be exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act, requires that bids on building a new death row and
execution site be taken commencing on September 1, 2011, and
ending on March 31, 2012, and states that construction on death
row shall begin immediately after announcement of the winning
bid and shall be completed no later than June 30, 2013.
This bill provides that the land upon which San Quentin sits
shall be sold, the proceeds shall be exempt from the provisions
of Proposition 60a of the November 2, 2004, statewide General
Election, and shall go to building the new death row at another
prison. Bids on the purchase of San Quentin and the land shall
be taken commencing on January 1, 2011, and ending on December
31, 2011. Full payment of the purchase price shall be due no
later than June 30, 2012.
This bill provides that the purchaser of San Quentin shall be
responsible for demolishing the prison and all lawful disposal
of resulting materials. The demolition of San Quentin and
related activities is exempted from the California Environmental
Quality Act.
This bill provides that the development of residential or
commercial facilities, or both, by the new owner of the site
shall be exempted from the California Environmental Quality Act
provided, however, that no industrial development will be
permitted at the site.
This bill is an urgency measure.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125 percent (an
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageF
average of 4 percent annually) over the past 20 years, growing
from 76,000 inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the
state's population growth rate for the age cohort with the
highest risk of incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many prisoners
for the existing capacity. The Governor, the
principal defendant, declared a state of emergency in
2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44-the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration-grew by an average of less than 1 percent
annually, which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageG
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
----------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts For The Eastern District Of California And The
Northern District Of California United States District Court
Composed Of Three Judges Pursuant To Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageH
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
San Quentin State Prison is California's oldest
correctional facility, and was founded in 1852. The
facility sits on the shore of the San Francisco Bay in
Marin County and was designed to house a total of
3,317 inmates. Currently it houses twice that many
prisoners. San Quentin also serves as California's
death row, and consequently faces a perpetual growth
in inmate population. It's dilapidated premises and
outdated facilities present safety risks to guards and
inmates alike.
The estimated cost to build a new death row at San
Quentin is over $336 million and rising. At the same
time, estimated profit from selling the prime parcel
of land where the prison sits could be as high as a
billion dollars. The coastal real estate is appealing
to both commercial and residential developers alike.
Funding for the renovation of the death row at San
Quentin was proposed in Governor Schwarzenegger's
Comprehensive Prison Reform Proposal, which shows the
condition of San Quentin to be an important issue for
California. But renovating this crumbling facility is
an expensive short-term solution to a big problem.
SB 28 would require the decommissioning of San Quentin
and would authorize the Governor to designate which
prison would house condemned inmates. The bill lists
procedure for the housing of current inmates at other
states prisons while a new facility is built elsewhere
with the funds from the sale of the San Quentin
property.
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageI
SB 228 also limits the development of the parcel to
commercial or residential properties and provides a
deadline for the full payment price of the purchase to
ensure the funding of the new facility.
2. San Quentin State Prison
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) website contains the following information about San
Quentin State Prison:
San Quentin is California's oldest and best known
correctional institution. The prison today includes a
reception center for new commitments, a parole
violator unit, general population units, and a minimum
security work crew unit. The state's only gas chamber
and death row for all male condemned inmates are
located at San Quentin.
Institution Statistics
San Quentin State Prison was opened in July 1852 and
covers 432 acres. As of Fiscal Year 2006/2007, the
following statistics apply:
Number of custody staff: 1,033
Number of Support services staff: 685
Total number of staff: 1,718
Annual operating budget: $210 million
--------------------------------------------------
| |
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageJ
| Designed Bedspace & Count |
| |
--------------------------------------------------
|------------------+----------------+--------------|
| | | |
| Facility | Design | Coun |
| | | t |
| | | |
| Level | Capaci | |
| | ty | |
|------------------+----------------+--------------|
| | | |
| I | 215 | 251 |
| | | |
|------------------+----------------+--------------|
| | | |
| II | 1,077 | 1,56 |
| | | 4 |
| | | |
|------------------+----------------+--------------|
| | | |
| RC | 1,436 | 2,78 |
| | | 8 |
| | | |
|------------------+----------------+--------------|
| | | |
| Condemne | 554 | 619 |
| d | | |
| | | |
|------------------+----------------+--------------|
| | | |
| Total | 3,317 | 5,22 |
| | |2 |
| | | |
--------------------------------------------------
3. Study of San Quentin Closure
The 2000-01 budget bill - AB 1740 (Chapter 51, Statutes of 2000)
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageK
- contained the following:
1760-001-0001- for support of Department of General
Services, for payment to Item 1760-001-0666 . . .
2. Of the funds appropriated in this item, $250,000
shall be available to the Department of General
Services to prepare a report and analysis of the
possible closure of the California State Prison at San
Quentin, including the disposition of the real
property. The analysis shall be prepared with the
participation of the County of Marin with respect to
planning and land use issues. The department shall
coordinate with the Department of Corrections to
prepare an analysis of the relocation of the inmates
and programs served at the institution. The department
shall submit its report to the Legislature no later
than June 30, 2001.
On July 3, 2001, the Department of General Services (DGS)
released the "Preliminary Analysis of Potential Reuse and
Relocation of San Quentin" which includes the following from the
Executive Summary (page I-3):
Until rezoning and entitlements are secured for the Site,
the value of the property is speculative. Consequently, it
is premature to declare the property surplus to the State's
needs. . . . Before the state chooses to move forward, DGS
recommends the following additional steps:
1. Through Marin County's Countywide Plan update,
develop a master plan for the Site showing general land
uses based on this report and a community outreach
program.
2. Develop a program or master Environmental Impact
Report for the proposed master plan.
3. Review possible replacement sites for a new prison
facility, receive community input and develop the
preliminary plans and environmental documents needed to
refine CDC's cost estimate, and obtain the necessary
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageL
statutory changes.
These steps could take 2-3 years. At that time, the state
would have the information needed to make a well-informed
decision about the economic feasibility of balancing the
anticipated sale proceeds from selling the Site against all
or a portion of the replacement cost for a new facility.
Since the time of the DGS report, the new condemned inmate
complex at San Quentin, described below in Comment 4, has been
authorized and funded.
4. LAO Report on Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin
In its 2007-2008 budget analysis the Legislative Analyst's
Office made the following recommendations regarding San Quentin
(emphasis added):
Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin
We recommend canceling the condemned housing project
at San Quentin and using the remaining funding
authorized for this expensive project to build
additional prison capacity for condemned and
maximum-security inmates at a lower cost per bed
elsewhere.
Proposal. The budget requests an additional $117
million to complete the construction of a new death
row facility, known as the Condemned Inmate Complex
(CIC), at the state prison at San Quentin. These new
costs are due primarily to inflation and other
increases in site construction costs. It is now
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageM
estimated that, when finally completed, the project
will cost $337 million. According to CDCR, it has
spent about $15 million to date on the CIC project,
leaving $205 million in funding appropriated for the
project available for our alternative approach. The
CIC would have 768 cells, providing capacity for a
total of 1,152 male inmates on death row. As of
September 2006, there were 640 male inmates on death
row.
Costs for CIC Escalate Significantly but do not add
system capacity. While the Legislature has previously
authorized the CIC project, important aspects of the
project have changed, which we believe warrant
reconsideration of the merits of the project. The
estimated increase in construction costs of $117
million represents a 53 percent increase in estimated
costs since 2003 despite the fact that the department
reduced the size of the project by 25 percent in 2005.
At the revised project cost estimate, each CIC bed
would cost almost $300,000 to construct, more than
twice the cost of other high-security beds. These
higher costs are primarily due to the location of the
project. In particular, engineering requirements are
more challenging at San Quentin because of the
instability of the soil. Also, labor and materials are
more expensive in the Bay Area than other potential
sites for such a facility.
Moreover, this high level of expenditure may not add
to overall prison system capacity. We are advised that
the state agreed in the project's Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to a restriction on the total number of
inmates that can be housed at the San Quentin state
prison (6,558). Consequently, even though the
construction of CIC would allow the state to vacate
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageN
the existing cells housing death row inmates, this
agreement might prevent CDCR from using all of those
cells to increase the prison's overall capacity.
Cancel CIC and Build Death Row Capacity Elsewhere. We
recommend canceling the CIC project and using the
remaining funding already authorized for this
expensive project to build additional prison capacity
at a lower cost per bed elsewhere. This could include
(1) building a new death row complex at an existing
prison or at a new site or (2) constructing new Level
IV capacity and moving condemned inmates to Level IV
housing.
Using the funds currently designated for CIC to build
Level IV beds for both Level IV and death row inmates
at another location would have significant benefits.
The state could use these funds to obtain additional
beds for both condemned inmates and Level IV inmates.
. . . [T]he Governor's plan does not resolve the
current deficit of Level IV beds. Based on our
discussions with correctional experts, housing
condemned inmates in Level IV facilities would be safe
for staff and inmates if properly designed and
staffed. In fact, one option would be to house
condemned inmates with the Level IV population in a
single facility. At least one other state, Missouri,
takes this approach.
Our proposed approach would also allow CDCR to house
its current and future condemned inmate population.
The current death row housing unit could house other
groups of inmates without violating the EIR, thereby
adding more than 600 beds to CDCR's total capacity.
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageO
Given the age and design of the condemned cells at San
Quentin, these beds are probably best-suited for lower
security inmates, and could help address the
significant statewide shortage of Level I and II beds.
(More)
SB 28 (Denham)
PageP
5. Argument in Opposition
The American Civil Liberties Union states:
We are strongly opposed to moving death row
inmates from San Quentin. Death row inmates
moved elsewhere in the state prison system will
have less access to legal counsel, many of whom
live in the Bay Area. It will also make it more
difficult for family members to visit.
SHOULD SAN QUENTIN BE CLOSED, ITS PRISONERS TRANSFERRED TO OTHER
PRISONS, AND THE PROPERTY SOLD TO PRIVATE DEVELOPERS, AS
SPECIFIED?
6. Requested Re-referral: Environmental Quality
The Environmental Quality Committee has requested that this
bill, should it pass this Committee, be referred to the
Rules Committee for possible re-referral to the
Environmental Quality Committee.
***************