California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation:
Although Building a Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin
May Cost More Than Expected, the Costs of Other Alternatives for
Housing Condemned Inmates Are Likely to Be Even Higher
July 2008 Report 2007-120.2

CALIFORNIA
S TAT E A U D I T O R

The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by
check or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address:
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
916.445.0255 or TTY 916.445.0033
OR
This report is also available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca.gov
The California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an on-line subscription service. For
information on how to subscribe, please contact the Information Technology Unit at 916.445.0255, ext. 456,
or visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov.
Alternate format reports available upon request.
Permission is granted to reproduce reports.
For questions regarding the contents of this report,
please contact Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255.

Elaine M. Howle
State Auditor

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

Doug Cordiner
Chief Deputy

Bureau of State Audits

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300

S a c r a m e n t o, C A 9 5 8 1 4

July 29, 2008	

916.445.0255

916.327.0019 fax

w w w. b s a . c a . g o v

2007-120.2

The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits presents its audit report
concerning California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations’ (Corrections) efforts to build a new
condemned inmate complex (CIC) and the projected costs of building a new CIC. This report concludes that,
based on analyses performed by our consultant, it will cost $395.5 million to construct the CIC at San Quentin
State Prison (San Quentin), $39.3 million more than Corrections’ most recent estimate. In addition, our consultant
estimates the cost to activate the new CIC will reach $7.3 million and that the average net new staffing costs
to operate the CIC will be $58.8 million per year, totaling $1.2 billion over 20 years. To maximize the CIC’s
capacity, Corrections plans to double-cell certain condemned inmates; however, experts we spoke with and
our consultant expressed legal confidentiality and safety concerns with double-celling. If double-celling occurs
as planned, we estimate the CIC will reach capacity in 2035; however, if the plan to double-cell is not a feasible
approach, the CIC will reach capacity in 2014, less than three years after it is expected to open.
We also considered whether an alternative prison site would be a feasible location for a new CIC and compared
the cost of building and operating a CIC at the currently proposed site at San Quentin with the cost of doing so at
three other locations. Our analysis indicates that it would have been less expensive to construct a CIC at one of the
alternative locations if construction could begin at the same time as is planned for San Quentin. However, because
a significant amount of work has already been conducted to prepare for constructing a CIC at San Quentin,
Corrections’ current proposal is the least expensive alternative that we considered. Specifically, building a CIC at
an alternate site would involve various processes such as obtaining legislative approval, assessing the environmental
impacts, and designing a new facility all resulting in a later start date for construction. Therefore, although it would
have been less expensive to construct a CIC at one of the alternative sites we identified if construction began this
fall, due to the later construction start date building a CIC at an alternate site would result in increased construction
costs, increased transition and activation costs, and increased 20‑year operating costs.
Finally, another option is delaying the construction of the new CIC. For instance, we determined that the State
would avoid spending approximately $93.2 million, or an average of $18.6 million per year, if it delayed the
construction of a CIC at San Quentin for five years because the net new operating costs avoided would exceed
the costs of delaying construction. However, there are unquantifiable costs associated with such a delay. For
example, our consultant’s projection of growth indicates that by the end of 2010, there will be more condemned
inmates than Corrections can house in the three cellblocks currently used for this purpose. Thus, if the CIC is
not built, Corrections will need to find additional space for these inmates.
Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Contents
Summary	

1

Introduction	

5

Chapter 1	
Building a Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin
May Cost More Than Expected	

17

Chapter 2 	
Although Moving the Condemned Inmate Complex From
San Quentin Has Drawbacks, Alternate Sites Exist	

39

Appendix A	
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
Explanation for Changes in Condemned Inmate Complex Costs	

75

Appendix B	
Detailed Methodology for Determining Alternate Sites	

79

Appendix C	
Detailed Comparison of the Costs to Build a
Condemned Inmate Complex at Alternate Sites	

83

Appendix D	
Valuation of the Proposed Condemned Inmate Complex Site	

87

Responses to the Audit
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Response from Report 2007-120.1)	

105

California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation	

109

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Response from Report 2007-120.2)	

111

California State Auditor’s Comment on the Response From the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation	

113

vii

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Summary
Results in Brief
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Corrections) houses inmates who have been condemned to
death (condemned inmates) in three separate housing units
at San Quentin State Prison (San Quentin). However, these
units do not meet many of Corrections’ design standards for
maximum‑security facilities, increasing the escape risk for inmates
and posing potential safety concerns for inmates, staff, and the
general public. Accordingly, in 2003 the Legislature approved
Corrections’ request for $220 million to build a new condemned
inmate complex (CIC) at San Quentin. However, according to
Corrections, before construction could begin, the cost of the project
increased significantly due to, among other things, increases in
the cost of construction materials, design changes, and unforeseen
costs, such as those to mitigate soil problems. To minimize
these increases, Corrections modified its plan several times and
eventually reduced the capacity of the complex from eight housing
units to six and from 1,024 cells to 768 cells. Despite the 25 percent
reduction in the capacity of the CIC, Corrections now estimates the
cost of the project at $356 million, an increase of $136 million, or
62 percent in the five years since 2003.
However, analyses by our consultant suggest that the cost to
construct the CIC will exceed Corrections’ recent estimate.
Specifically, our consultant estimates that the cost to construct
the CIC will be more than $395.5 million and that the additional
cost to activate the new CIC will reach $7.3 million. Because of
the higher construction costs estimated by our consultant, as well
as Corrections’ proposed design modifications, the cost per cell
and per bed has risen significantly from Corrections’ initial fiscal
year 2003–04 estimate. Specifically, the cost per cell has increased
by 140 percent and the cost per bed has increased by 120 percent.
Furthermore, our consultant estimates that the average net new
staffing costs to operate the new CIC will be $58.8 million per year,
for a total of approximately $1.2 billion over the next 20 years.
Additionally, Corrections currently plans to double‑cell (place
two inmates in one cell) certain condemned inmates to maximize
the CIC’s capacity; however, our consultant and other experts
we spoke with raised concerns about this approach to managing
condemned inmates. Specifically, the experts stated that capital
cases often involve very personal, private, and sensitive materials
and that double‑celling raises serious concerns about maintaining
confidentiality during the preparation to defend a condemned
inmate during the appeal process. In addition, our consultant

Audit Highlights . . .
Our review of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (Corrections)
current proposal for constructing a
condemned inmate complex (CIC) at
San Quentin State Prison (San Quentin),
and our analysis of alternatives for housing
condemned inmates found the following:
»» Despite the 25 percent reduction in the
size of the CIC, Corrections now estimates
the cost of the project at $356 million, an
increase of $136 million, or 62 percent,
over its original proposal.
»» Our consultant estimates construction
of Corrections’ currently proposed
CIC at San Quentin is expected to cost
$395.5 million, $39.3 million more than
Corrections has estimated, and new
operating costs will average $58.8 million
per year, for a total of approximately
$1.2 billion over the next 20 years.
»» Corrections’ plan to maximize the CIC
by double-celling up to two-thirds of
condemned inmates raises concerns
about protecting the confidentiality
of their legal papers and staff and
inmate safety.
»» If Corrections’ plan to double-cell
condemned inmates is not a feasible
approach, the CIC will reach capacity
in 2014, less than three years after it is
expected to open.
»» Dispersing condemned inmates to
housing units at multiple prison locations
is not a practical or economically
viable alternative.
continued on next page . . .

1

2

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

»» Between the later construction start
dates and Corrections having already
spent nearly  $19 million to prepare
for constructing a CIC at San Quentin,
constructing a CIC at an alternate site
would cost between $138.7 million to
$486.3 million more than Corrections’
current proposal.
»» The sale of the land Corrections currently
plans to use for the CIC could partially
offset the cost of constructing a CIC at
another prison. Our consultant estimates
that the land could be sold for between
$45.3 million and $117.9 million,
depending on how it was developed.
»» The State could avoid spending
approximately $93.2 million if it delayed
construction of a CIC at San Quentin
for five years. However, there are
unquantifiable costs associated with
such a delay. For example, by the end of
calendar year 2010, there will be 17 more
condemned inmates than Corrections
can house in the cellblocks currently used
for this purpose. If the CIC is not built,
Corrections will need to find additional
space for these inmates.

expressed concern that double‑celling increases the risk of harm to
staff and to the inmates who are housed together. If double‑celling
condemned inmates occurs as planned, we estimate that the
CIC’s 1,152‑inmate capacity will be reached by 2035; however,
if the plan to double‑cell inmates is not a feasible approach, the
CIC will reach capacity as early as 2014, less than three years
after it is expected to open. Our consultant indicated that, rather
than double‑celling a large proportion of its condemned inmates,
Corrections should build an additional housing unit. Adding
an additional 256‑cell housing unit would allow Corrections to
single‑cell the condemned inmates until 2028. Our consultant
estimated that constructing an additional housing unit would
add $64.1 million to Corrections’ currently planned CIC if it were
constructed concurrently with the proposed CIC.
Rather than constructing a complete CIC at San Quentin,
we considered the possibility of dispersing condemned
inmates to housing units at multiple prison locations with
maximum‑security housing units, known as level IV units.
However, because all level IV housing units are currently filled
to capacity, there are literally no empty level IV beds. Thus, new
level IV housing units would have to be constructed to house either
the condemned inmates or the level IV inmates displaced by the
transfer of condemned inmates into the existing level IV units.
Our consultant also estimates that it would be more expensive
to house condemned inmates at multiple locations as opposed to
at a single location. Further, the custody experts of the California
Prison Healthcare Receivership, which manages the State’s prison
health care operations, stated that housing condemned inmates at
multiple sites would amplify issues such as community resistance
and problems with transportation, legal access and visiting, media
relations, and pre‑execution procedures. Therefore, we concluded
that the challenges presented by this option preclude it from being
practical or economically viable.
We also considered whether an alternate prison site would be
a feasible location for a new CIC, and we compared the cost of
building and operating a CIC at the currently proposed site at
San Quentin with the cost of doing so at three other locations
that meet the criteria for a CIC. Because a significant amount of
work has already been conducted to prepare for constructing a
CIC at San Quentin, we found that Corrections’ current proposal
is the least expensive alternative that we considered. Building
a CIC at an alternate site would involve various processes such
as obtaining legislative approval, assessing the environmental
impacts, and designing a new facility, resulting in a later start date
for construction. Specifically, assuming the state budget is enacted
by August 1, 2008, and with the expectation that it could take
approximately three months to complete the necessary bidding

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

and contracting process, our consultant believes that construction
can start on November 1, 2008, at the proposed San Quentin
site. However, he estimates that the start of construction would
be delayed until February 2014 at the other locations. Therefore,
although it would have been less expensive to construct a CIC at
each of the alternative locations if construction could have begun at
the same time as at San Quentin, due to the later start date, building
a CIC at an alternate site would result in increased construction
costs; increased costs to open the facility, referred to as transition
and activation costs; and increased 20‑year operating costs. For
instance, our consultant estimates that it will cost approximately
$1.6 billion to build and operate the four‑story CIC (known as
a stacked design) for 20 years at the currently proposed site.
However, if Corrections had completed all the preconstruction
work in the same time frame as has been done at San Quentin,
then the least expensive alternative would have been to build a
stacked CIC at R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility (Donovan) at
Rock Mountain in San Diego. Our consultant estimates that the
cost of building and operating a stacked CIC at Donovan would
have been approximately $1.5 billion, given a November 2008
construction start. However, because of the time required to change
the law, gain funding approval, and complete an environmental
impact report and design documents, our consultant estimates that
construction at Donovan would not begin until February 2014. Due
to this later start date, the cost of constructing a stacked CIC at
Donovan is estimated to be almost $2 billion.
Although the currently proposed CIC at San Quentin is the
least expensive option, potential revenues from the sale of that
site could partially offset the cost of constructing the CIC on
another site. Specifically, our consultant estimates that the land
Corrections currently plans to use for the CIC could be sold for
between $45.3 million and $117.9 million, depending on how it was
developed, if the CIC was built at an alternate site.
Another option Corrections could consider is delaying construction
of the new CIC. For instance, the State would save approximately
$93.2 million, or an average of $18.6 million a year, if it delayed
construction of a CIC at San Quentin for five years. The savings
would result because the additional operating costs avoided
during that time would exceed the increased cost of the delay in
construction. However, there are unquantifiable costs associated
with such a delay. For example, by the end of calendar year 2010,
there will be 17 more condemned inmates than Corrections can
house in the three cellblocks currently used for this purpose, based
on our consultant’s projection of the growth in the condemned
inmate population. If the CIC is not built, Corrections will need to
find additional space for these inmates.

3

4

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Agency Comments
This report includes Corrections’ response to 2007-120.1, titled
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: Building
a Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin May Cost More
Than Expected, issued on June 10, 2008, which has been included
in its entirety as Chapter 1 of this report. We have also included
Corrections’ response that addresses the content of Chapter 2 of
this report.
Corrections generally agrees with the information discussed
in Chapter 1. However, they disagreed with our consultant and
other experts we spoke with who believe that Corrections’ plan to
double-cell condemned inmates may compromise staff and inmate
safety and raises concerns about maintaining the confidentiality
of legal papers that may be kept in cells occupied by two inmates.
Conversely, Corrections did not take exception to any of the
information discussed in Chapter 2.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Introduction
Background
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Corrections) operates California’s prison system, which houses
more than 171,000 inmates. Corrections was formed in 2005,
when the California Department of Corrections and the California
Youth Authority were reorganized under one agency with the goal
of managing the state’s prison system more efficiently. The newly
reorganized agency incarcerates youth and adult offenders.
With an annual budget of about $9.7 billion, Corrections’ mission
is to control, care for, and treat men and women convicted of
serious crimes or admitted to the State’s civil narcotics program.
Within Corrections, the Division of Adult Institutions operates
33 correctional institutions (prisons). Of these, 11 have reception
centers, which provide short‑term housing for incoming inmates
while they are being processed, classified, and evaluated. Figure 1 on
the following page presents a map of Corrections’
prison locations.
As shown in the text box, Corrections assigns
different custody levels to inmates within its
prisons, based on its assessment of the inmates’
behavior and other factors, and it houses inmates in
facilities designed for their respective custody
levels. Custody levels at facilities range from I to IV,
with level I being the minimum‑security level and
level IV being the maximum‑security level.
Corrections classifies all inmates who have been
sentenced to death as condemned inmates and
houses them separately from other inmates.
It houses male condemned inmates at San Quentin
State Prison (San Quentin) and female condemned
inmates at Central California Women’s Facility in
Chowchilla. As of May 2008 San Quentin housed
635 male condemned inmates and the Central
California Women’s Facility housed 15 female
condemned inmates.1

1	

Housing for Different Custody Levels
Level

Description

I

Open dormitories without a
secure perimeter.

II

Open dormitories with secure perimeter
fences and armed coverage.

III

Individual cells, fenced perimeters, and
armed coverage.

IV

Cells, fenced or walled perimeters,
electronic security, more staff, and
armed officers both inside and outside
the installation.

Condemned

Houses inmates with death sentences;
similar to level IV housing.

Source:  California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Web site: www cdcr.ca.gov.

Although the total male condemned inmate population as of May 1, 2008, was 656, only 635 were
housed at San Quentin, according to the San Quentin warden. The other 21 inmates were out of
the institution for various reasons, including 14 out for court date hearings, three out for medical
care, and four serving sentences in other states. Because this report deals only with housing
for male condemned inmates, any reference made to “condemned inmates” refers to male
condemned inmates.

5

6

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Figure 1
California’s Adult Correctional and Rehabilitation Institutions
Pelican Bay State Prison
Crescent City

Susanville

Sacramento
California Medical Facility

Vacaville

Folsom State Prison
California State Prison (CSP), Sacramento (New Folsom)
Mule Creek State Prison

CSP, Solano
San Quentin State Prison

Stockton
San Francisco
Tracy

High Desert State Prison
California Correctional Center

Sierra Conservation Center
Jamestown
Deuel Vocational Institution

Chowchilla
Salinas
Correctional Training Facility

Valley State Prison for Women
Central California Women’s Facility
Fresno

Salinas Valley State Prison

Pleasant Valley State Prison
Avenal State Prison

CSP, Corcoran
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison
North Kern State Prison
Kern Valley State Prison

California Men’s Colony
San Luis Obispo

Wasco State Prison
Bakersfield
California Correctional Institution

Santa Barbara

CSP, Los Angeles County

Riverside
Los Angeles
Chino
California Institution for Men
California Institution for Women
California Rehabilitation Center

Ironwood State Prison
Blythe
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison

Calipatria State Prison
El Centro

Centinela State Prison

San Diego
R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility

Source:  California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Web site: www.cdcr.ca.gov.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Corrections classifies its condemned inmates into two different
levels—grade A and grade B. Inmates classified as grade A are
perceived by Corrections as not having a high potential for violence
or escape and as having demonstrated good behavior and an ability
to cooperate safely and peaceably with other inmates and staff.
Inmates classified as grade B are perceived by Corrections to have
a high potential for escape or violence or are serious disciplinary
management cases. Grade B inmates include those with a history
of escape, in‑prison assault, gang affiliation, or possession of
contraband or weapons. These grades were originally established
as a result of a 1980 consent decree approved by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (consent
decree). The consent decree established the process by which
Corrections classifies condemned inmates into the two grades and
periodically reevaluates condemned inmates’ classifications.
In 2007 and 2008 a federal court terminated most provisions of
the consent decree, including the grade A and B classifications,
pursuant to a federal law that prohibits federal courts from
requiring state officials to provide inmates with privileges and
protections greater than those required by the United States
Constitution. However, Corrections continues to classify
condemned inmates as grade A or B despite the termination of
the consent decree and plans to further refine these grades in the
future, as we discuss in Chapter 1.
San Quentin houses inmates of other custody levels in addition
to its condemned inmates. As of March 2008, in addition to
the condemned inmate population, it housed approximately
204 level I inmates and 1,589 level II inmates. San Quentin also
housed approximately 2,781 inmates in its reception center, which
provides short‑term housing for inmates from 17 counties in and
around the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). Inmates at the
reception center have been recently sentenced to a prison term
or have had their parole revoked and are returning to custody.
Per the California Penal Code (Penal Code), Corrections assesses
these inmates to determine the appropriate custody level and
which prisons will house the inmates. This assessment includes
investigating the pertinent circumstances of an inmate’s life,
such as any strong community and family ties that may aid in the
inmate’s rehabilitation.
Background on the Death Penalty in California
California has generally authorized the death penalty for certain
offenses since it first achieved statehood in 1850. The Penal Code,
drafted in 1872, provided for either execution or life imprisonment
for individuals convicted of first‑degree murder. Aside from minor

7

8

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

changes to the Penal Code, the punishments for first‑degree murder
and the procedure for imposing the death sentence remained
constant for 100 years.
In 1972 the California Supreme Court found that the death penalty
law violated the state constitutional provision against cruel and
unusual punishment. As a result, 107 condemned inmates had their
sentences changed to other than death. Soon after, the United States
Supreme Court held that the death penalty was unconstitutional
as it was being administered at that time in a number of states. Its
decision required states to provide standards for determining the
sentence in capital cases or to define more narrowly the crimes for
which a death sentence could be imposed. Accordingly, California
enacted a law in 1973 that made the death penalty mandatory in
certain cases under certain conditions. However, in late 1976, the
California Supreme Court found the State’s death penalty statute
to be unconstitutional. Following this ruling, similar to what had
occurred four years earlier, 70 condemned inmates had their
sentences changed to other than death. Proposition 7, passed by
California voters in November 1978, reinstated the death penalty,
which courts have consistently upheld as constitutional since
that time.
Current Housing of Condemned Inmates at San Quentin
The Penal Code requires that men sentenced to death in
California be sent to San Quentin to fulfill their sentence.2 As
Table 1 shows, Corrections uses three different housing units
at San Quentin to house the 635 male condemned inmates in
its custody. Each condemned inmate is housed in his own cell
within these housing units. The United States Supreme Court
has held that prison officials may double‑cell inmates in a
maximum‑security prison; however, that ruling did not specifically
address double‑celling of condemned inmates. Corrections does
not currently double‑cell condemned inmates.
The original death row facility, referred to as North Segregation
by Corrections, occupies the entire sixth floor of the North Block
building, which was built in 1934. The facility can house up to
68 condemned inmates and has been filled to capacity since 1984.
Only Corrections’ most cooperative grade A condemned inmates
are housed in North Segregation because its design provides the

2	

There are two exceptions to this law. As many as 15 condemned inmates who commit certain
crimes while in prison may be transferred to California State Prison, Sacramento, although as of
May 2008 no condemned inmates were housed at this prison. Inmates whose medical or mental
health needs endanger the inmate or others may be housed at the California Medical Facility or
another appropriate facility.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

most freedom of movement within the three facilities’ housing
and exercise areas. These inmates use an exercise yard on the
building’s roof.
Table 1
Capacity of Existing Facilities for Male Condemned Inmates and Date Built
Facility

Capacity*

Inmates As of
April 21, 2008

Date Built

North Segregation

68

68

1934

East Block

521

481

1930

Adjustment Center

102

86

1960

691

635

Totals

Source:  Facility captain of specialized housing at San Quentin State Prison.
*	 Total number of single inmate cells.

Corrections houses most of its condemned inmates in
San Quentin’s East Block facility (East Block), a five‑story housing
unit built in 1930 that houses primarily grade A and less violent
grade B inmates. East Block can house up to 521 inmates and
housed 481 as of April 2008. Inmates housed in East Block use
six exercise yards located adjacent to the facility between the
building and the prison’s perimeter wall.
The most violent grade B inmates are housed in a facility referred
to as the Adjustment Center, a three‑story facility built in
1960 with 102 cells. It was designed as San Quentin’s administrative
segregation unit to house inmates with discipline problems.
Inmates housed in the Adjustment Center use exercise yards
located between the Adjustment Center and the North Segregation
facility. As of April 2008 it housed 86 condemned inmates.
Corrections’ Attempts to Build Condemned Inmate Housing
As far back as 1992, due to the growth in the condemned inmate
population at San Quentin, as well as safety and security concerns
inherent in managing condemned inmates in the antiquated
housing units at the prison, Corrections had discussed the need
for a new condemned inmate complex (CIC). More recently, in
2003, after failing to gain approval from the Legislature to house
condemned inmates at other locations, Corrections requested
$220 million to build a new CIC at San Quentin. The Legislature
approved this request. However, as the contemplated project
moved from conceptual design to one that was more detailed and
refined, the anticipated cost increased. As a result, Corrections

9

10

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

has requested additional funds on two occasions since 2003, in
proposals that reflected the increased cost of the CIC project and
at the same time reduced the number of cells from 1,024 to 768.
The Legislature did not act upon the first proposal for additional
funding, presented as part of Corrections’ fiscal year 2007–08
budget plan. In its fiscal year 2008–09 budget, Corrections has again
requested additional funding so that it can begin construction of the
CIC at San Quentin. This most recent proposal is now before the
Legislature. Thus, although Corrections has indicated that it is ready
to begin construction of the CIC, construction has not yet begun.
Stakeholders Providing Services to Condemned Inmates
In addition to Corrections, several other entities (stakeholders)
provide medical and legal services to condemned inmates. In order
for them to fulfill their duties, many of these stakeholders visit
inmates at San Quentin and work from offices in the Bay Area within
a short distance of the prison. These stakeholders are listed in Table 2.
Table 2
Stakeholders Involved with Condemned Inmate Operations
Stakeholder

Description

Prison Law Office

Represents inmates in litigation against Corrections
regarding conditions of confinement.

Office of the State Public
Defender (Public Defender)

Represents indigent condemned inmates on both appeal
and in habeas corpus cases before the California Supreme
Court and United States Supreme Court.*

Habeas Corpus Resource Center

Represents condemned inmates in habeas corpus petitions
and recruits and trains eligible attorneys to represent
condemned inmates.

California Appellate Project

Assists both public and private attorneys appointed by the
California Supreme Court to represent condemned inmates
on their appeals and habeas corpus proceedings. The
Appellate Project also assists condemned inmates who have
not yet had counsel appointed with their legal work.

California Supreme Court

Hears and decides automatic appeals and habeas corpus
petitions arising out of death sentences. Appoints qualified
attorneys to represent condemned inmates before the court.

California Prison Healthcare
Receivership

In accordance with a federal court order, manages prison
health care operations instead of the State; responsible
for ensuring that inmates, including condemned inmates,
receive adequate and timely medical care.

Sources:  Web sites of the Prison Law Office, Office of the State Public Defender, Habeas Corpus
Resource Center, and California Appelate Project. Article IV, Section 10 of the California Constitution,
and Plata v. Schwarzenegger.
*	 Appeals refer to appellate briefs filed on behalf of condemned inmates who object to their
sentences based on the way their trials were conducted. Habeas corpus petitions are filed with a
court on behalf of a person who objects to his own or another’s detention or imprisonment.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

State and Federal Laws Regarding Housing Condemned Inmates
The Penal Code requires that male condemned inmates, with few
exceptions, fulfill their sentence at San Quentin. Before relocating
a CIC from San Quentin, whether proposed through legislation
or otherwise, the Penal Code requires Corrections to first evaluate
all maximum‑security level IV 180‑degree housing unit facilities
with electrified perimeters for suitability for housing and executing
condemned inmates.
Our research did not reveal any California or federal statute
or any reported California or federal court decision requiring
Corrections to house condemned inmates within a certain
geographic proximity to a state or federal courthouse. The
fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires
prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing
of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with either
adequate law libraries or assistance from persons trained in the law.
However, no reported California or federal court decision has held
that this right is violated as a result of an inmate’s distance from a
courthouse. Condemned inmates also have a right to the effective
assistance of counsel for their appeal of a death sentence. No
reported California or federal court decision has held that this right
is presumed violated as a result of an inmate’s remote geographic
proximity to a courthouse.
Litigation and Court Orders Affecting Prisons
In recent years federal court orders resulting
from litigation have driven many of Corrections’
practices and operations. As shown in the text box,
these court orders require that all inmates,
including condemned inmates, receive access to
constitutionally adequate medical care, mental
health care, and dental care, and that disabled
inmates have access to Corrections’ programs
and services. In addition, an opinion rendered
by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
of which California is a part, found that the
federal constitution requires that inmates receive
opportunities to use outdoor exercise facilities.
Although none of these cases contain provisions
specific to determining an appropriate site for
the CIC, we have used them in determining the
basic services to which condemned inmates must
have access.

Major federal court orders prescribe Corrections’
operations (by plaintiff name):
•	 Plata: Inmates must receive access to adequate
medical care.
•	 Perez: Inmates must receive access to adequate
dental care.
•	 Coleman: Inmates must receive access to
adequate mental health care.
•	 Armstrong: Disabled inmates may not be denied access
to Corrections’ programs and services.
Source:  Federal court decisions.

11

12

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Financing of Prison Projects
The State typically finances new prison construction projects by
issuing lease‑revenue bonds. The State Public Works Board (public
works board) has the authority to issue lease‑revenue bonds to
finance acquisition and construction projects when the Legislature
authorizes such projects, such as the CIC at San Quentin. In prison
construction projects funded by lease‑revenue bonds, Corrections
typically acquires the site and transfers its control and possession to
the public works board, pursuant to state law. Acting as the public
works board’s agent, Corrections then contracts out the project’s
construction. Once construction is complete, the public works
board leases the site and facility back to Corrections for a fee
equal to the amount needed to pay for the debt service on the
lease‑revenue bonds and the associated administrative expenses.
Leases can be for periods up to 35 years but cannot exceed the
prison facilities’ useful life. The lease term for the new CIC will
not be determined until the State sells the bonds. As the State
Administrative Manual prescribes, Corrections is not obligated to
make lease payments until Corrections occupies the new complex.
At that time, lease payments will be appropriated to Corrections
from the State’s General Fund.
New legislation passed on May 3, 2007, also authorized the
public works board to issue negotiable bond anticipation notes to
finance the design, construction, and interim financing costs of
specified prison projects. Bond anticipation notes are short‑term
interest‑bearing notes issued by a government in anticipation of
bond proceeds to be received at a later date. The notes are retired
from the proceeds of the bonds to which they are related.
Scope and Methodology
In light of Corrections’ requests for additional funds, the Joint
Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee) asked the Bureau
of State Audits to provide independently developed and verified
information related to alternative sites for condemned inmate
facilities. Specifically, we were asked to perform the following tasks:
•	 Review Corrections’ original CIC project and cost plans and
compare them to its revised project plan and actual costs to date
and projected costs through the end of construction.
•	 Identify the parameters for constructing and maintaining a
facility for housing condemned inmates.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

•	 Considering these parameters, determine various alternatives for
housing condemned inmates, including the following options:
•	 Building the CIC elsewhere on the San Quentin property while

preserving the possibility of using part of the property for
nonprison‑related purposes.

•	 Building the CIC on an alternate site.

The audit committee also asked us to analyze the costs and benefits
of each alternative that we developed, and to consider factors such
as the following:
•	 The capital outlay costs for each alternate site and the projected
expenditures for ongoing maintenance and operations.
•	 The alternate sites’ access and proximity to state and federal
courts, counsel, medical care, and inmates’ families.
•	 The costs of transporting condemned inmates to courts,
counsel, medical care, and other relevant resources from each
alternate site.
•	 Concerns with housing condemned inmates at sites other than
San Quentin and whether doing so presents significant risks to
staff and the public.
•	 The relative difficulty of finding qualified counsel to represent
inmates at each site.
•	 The ability to comply with relevant legal orders at each site.
•	 The relative benefits associated with constructing a CIC at
San Quentin contrasted with the benefits of using the site for
alternate purposes.
Additionally, the audit committee asked us to compare California
construction costs, as they relate to condemned inmate facilities,
with those of other states.
In 2004 the Bureau of State Audits released its report 2003‑130:
California Department of Corrections: Its Plans to Build a New
Condemned‑Inmate Complex at San Quentin Are Proceeding, but
Its Analysis of Alternative Locations and Costs Was Incomplete.
In this report, we reviewed similar subjects, such as Corrections’
analyses of alternative locations, plans for alternative uses of the
San Quentin site, and an analysis of the project cost plans. Because
the audit addressed these subject areas through 2003, in the current
audit we limited our review to work that was completed after 2003.

13

14

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

To obtain an understanding of the alternatives considered by
Corrections since the last report on this subject, we interviewed
employees at Corrections’ facilities management division
to determine whether additional analyses had been completed. To
determine a timeline of the efforts to build a CIC, we reviewed
documentation of Corrections’ analyses of alternative sites that was
not reviewed in the previous report.
To investigate the changes in scope and cost between the
original $220 million CIC project plan and the current
$356 million plan, we reviewed the original cost model developed
by Corrections’ construction consultant in 2002, Kitchell CEM
(Kitchell), and compared it to documentation supporting the
latest capital outlay budget change proposal that Corrections
submitted to the Department of Finance requesting the $136 million
increase in project costs. Using this documentation we were able
to identify the cost differences between the original $220 million
CIC project plan and the current $356 million plan by category,
such as increases related to site preparation and the construction of
condemned inmate housing. We then identified material differences
between the original CIC project and the revised project, defining
material differences as changes of more than $5 million in a
category of costs.
To assess whether the material cost increases were reasonable, we
interviewed both Kitchell and Corrections’ staff to determine the
reasons for the increases, reviewed relevant project documentation,
and evaluated Corrections’ revised project plan and actual costs
to date. To assist in this evaluation we contracted with Criminal
Justice Institute, Inc. (CJI), a national prison consulting firm.
CJI concentrated its efforts on estimating the cost of constructing,
transitioning, activating, staffing, and operating a CIC at all
locations under study and oversaw all aspects of the cost analyses.
CJI’s team included DMJM Design, which assessed and evaluated
if and how a CIC could be situated at different locations; the Louis
Berger Group, which analyzed and estimated the cost of site work;
Parametrix, which reexamined estimates to construct the CIC at
San Quentin and estimated the cost of constructing CICs at other
locations; and C. B. Richard Ellis Valuation and Advisory Services,
which conducted a valuation of the land under consideration for a
CIC at San Quentin. CJI’s analyses included evaluating Corrections’
current $356 million project plan in terms of cost, determining the
amount of other related costs, and assessing whether the current
project plan will meet Corrections’ needs for housing condemned
inmates over a 20‑year time horizon from the time that the CIC
is built.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

To narrow down our list of potential alternate sites for condemned
inmate housing, we developed a two‑pronged approach to
determine which of the 33 existing prisons could be considered
suitable options. Because the Penal Code requires that Corrections,
before relocating the CIC, first evaluate the State’s existing
maximum‑security level IV, 180‑degree housing unit facilities
with an electrified perimeter for suitability for the CIC, we began
by identifying the eight prisons that meet these criteria. We then
developed a second group of prisons for review, consisting of
those located within two hours’ travel time of the Bay Area or
Los Angeles, to address concerns regarding condemned inmates’
access to courts and qualified legal counsel. Of these two groups, we
identified which ones have enough available land for construction
of a new CIC. We also contacted representatives at each prison
to determine their access and proximity to transportation, urban
areas, and other services such as medical and mental health care.
To develop parameters for constructing condemned inmate
housing at an alternate site, we reviewed relevant state and federal
laws. We also reviewed relevant court orders regarding inmate
housing. To determine the impact of housing condemned inmates
at a location other than San Quentin, we also sought the input of
various stakeholders involved in condemned inmate operations.
We compiled their responses and included them as criteria and
parameters for identifying prospective sites for condemned inmate
housing. We discuss the process of identifying our proposed
alternate sites in more detail in both Chapter 2 and Appendix B.
CJI assisted in finalizing the selection of the prisons we considered
for housing condemned inmates. CJI also evaluated the feasibility of
housing condemned inmates at multiple locations and performed
cost‑comparative analyses of building a CIC at different sites
at San Quentin, as well as on sites at other prisons. Its analyses
included evaluating each alternative location to determine the
most suitable sites for a CIC; evaluating the site development costs
associated with constructing a CIC at each location; and estimating
the costs of construction, activation, and operations for each
alternative considered. The analysis included estimating the amount
of time it would take to complete preconstruction, construction,
and activation tasks at each alternate site. CJI worked extensively
with Corrections to obtain the necessary maps, diagrams, and
reports required to evaluate utility needs at each site, and to
identify topographic features and other physical site characteristics
that would affect costs.
To compare California construction costs, as they relate to
condemned inmate facilities, with those of other states, we
surveyed 14 states that house 50 or more condemned inmates,
to allow for a somewhat similar comparison with California’s

15

16

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

population of condemned inmates. Specifically, we asked the
directors of the departments of corrections in these states if their
state had constructed housing for condemned inmates between
January 1, 2003, and April 1, 2008, or if they planned to begin
construction of condemned inmate housing between April 1, 2008,
and December 31, 2009. For those states responding affirmatively to
either of these questions, the survey included questions about the
number of cells constructed, the number of beds, and the estimated
cost of the construction.
Of the 12 states that responded, Louisiana was the only one that
reported building housing for its condemned inmate population.
In 2007 Louisiana constructed a single building containing 116 cells
at a cost of approximately $10.2 million, or $88,000 per cell. To
obtain additional information about this project, we contacted the
architecture and engineering firm that performed the work for
Louisiana. The director of the architecture and engineering firm
stated that the project was bid prior to Hurricane Katrina, and he
estimated that constructing the same facility today would cost at
least 40 percent to 50 percent more. Additionally, according to the
secretary of Louisiana’s Department of Public Safety & Corrections
at the time of the construction, unlike San Quentin, Louisiana’s
condemned inmate facility receives support services, including
food services and laundry, from the facility within which the death
row cellblock is situated. Due to many factors, such as significant
differences in the timing of construction, the size of the projects
and their relation to their respective host institutions, and the
design of the projects, as well as Louisiana’s use of inmate labor
to construct guard towers and some fencing, we do not believe
that the cost of Louisiana’s condemned inmate housing project is
comparable to the cost of constructing a CIC at San Quentin.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Chapter 1
Building a Condemned Inmate Complex at
San Quentin May Cost More Than Expected
Chapter Summary
Our consultant estimates that the cost to construct the condemned
inmate complex (CIC) at San Quentin State Prison (San Quentin)
currently proposed by the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (Corrections) will exceed Corrections’ estimate
of $356 million by $39.3 million and that the added cost to activate
the new CIC will reach $7.3 million. Furthermore, our consultant
estimates that the net new staffing costs to operate the proposed
CIC will average $58.8 million per year, for a total of approximately
$1.2 billion over the next 20 years. Under Corrections’ current
proposal, the CIC will have 768 cells, which is 256 fewer cells than
under its original proposal, a 25 percent reduction.
In order to maximize the number of condemned inmates that can
be housed in the CIC, Corrections plans to double‑cell certain
condemned inmates. Our consultant stated that double‑celling
increases the risk of harm to inmates and staff, and other experts
raised concerns about the confidentiality of condemned inmates’
legal papers. If double‑celling of condemned inmates occurs
as planned, we estimate that the CIC’s 1,152‑inmate capacity
will be reached by 2035, with approximately two‑thirds of the
condemned inmates sharing cells; however, if Corrections’ plan
to double‑cell inmates is not a feasible approach to managing
condemned inmates, the CIC will reach capacity as early as 2014,
less than three years after it is expected to open.
Rather than double‑celling a large proportion of its condemned
inmates, our consultant recommends that Corrections build an
additional 256‑cell housing unit. This would allow Corrections
to single‑cell the condemned inmates until 2028. Our consultant
estimated that constructing this additional housing unit would cost
$64.1 million if it were constructed concurrently with the CIC.
The Cost of Constructing the New CIC Complex Has Increased
Significantly Since 2003
Corrections currently estimates that the cost of constructing a new
CIC at San Quentin will be $356 million, an increase of $136 million,
or 62 percent, since the Legislature initially approved funding
for a CIC in fiscal year 2003–04. This increase comes despite the
fact that, among other modifications to its original CIC design,

17

18

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Corrections has lowered the number of inmate housing units
from eight to six, reducing the total number of cells by 25 percent.
According to the director of project management at Corrections,
the cost increase is due mainly to the delayed construction start,
increases in construction costs, and design changes as well as the
need to mitigate poor soil conditions at the San Quentin site that
were unknown at the time of the original estimate. Because of the
significant cost escalations, the project has temporarily been put
on hold.
Corrections Estimated a CIC Would Cost $220 Million
In fiscal year 2003–04 Corrections requested and received an
appropriation for $220 million for the construction of a new
CIC. A key assumption made by Corrections when developing its
cost model, which estimated the costs of various components of
the proposed CIC, was that it could estimate the cost to build the
housing units at San Quentin based on the cost incurred to build
similarly constructed housing units at other Corrections facilities in
California. Corrections planned to build the CIC on approximately
40 acres at the San Quentin site, and inmate housing in the complex
was to consist of what are known as 180‑degree housing units due
to their design, which gives the control booth officer in the center a
180‑degree view of all the cells. This prototype design has been used
at other typical level IV (maximum‑security) prisons in California.
According to our consultant, while other designs might work as
well or even better, Corrections’ staff are extremely comfortable
with the 180‑degree design for housing high‑risk inmates, and
they feel safe working in it. In addition, because architectural
drawings already exist, using the 180‑degree design avoids the
cost of designing a different type of facility. For these reasons, our
consultant has concluded that, overall, it makes sense to use the
180‑degree design for the CIC.
To determine how much it would cost to build the CIC’s eight housing
units, Corrections, together with a consultant specializing in prison
construction, developed a cost per gross square foot, using the bids
it received when it built a 180‑degree housing unit at the California
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, which opened in 1997. At the
time that Corrections completed its cost estimate for the CIC in 2002,
this facility was the most recently constructed maximum‑security
prison in California. It was therefore necessary to adjust these costs
for inflation and for San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) market
conditions. However, as we discuss in the following section, even
with these adjustments, subsequent cost estimates prepared by
Corrections and its consultant project that the CIC will cost much
more than originally anticipated.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Corrections’ Most Recent Estimate for a CIC Is $356 Million, a Significant
Increase Over Its Previous Estimate
Corrections’ most recent estimate of the cost to construct the
CIC revealed that the project will require significantly more
funding than that approved by the Legislature in fiscal year 2003–04.
Specifically, the estimate prepared by Corrections in November 2007
showed that the new CIC will cost $356 million, an increase of
62 percent over its original estimate. Because of these escalating
costs, construction of the new CIC was put on hold. In its fiscal year
2008–09 budget, Corrections has again requested additional funding
so that it can begin construction of the CIC at San Quentin. Table 3
shows the change in costs for each component of the proposed CIC.
According to the CIC project director, the significant increase
in the project’s costs was the result of an unprecedented rise in
construction costs during the five years between the development
of the original cost model and the most recent estimate. The
CIC project director noted that various modifications made
to the original design of the CIC also increased the costs. The
original cost estimate was based on construction bids received
for a prior prison construction project and adjusted for inflation,
whereas Corrections’ most recent cost estimate is based on final
construction documents specific to the San Quentin site.
Table 3
Cost Comparison of the Original Budget for the Condemned Inmate Complex
to the Proposed Condemned Inmate Complex Budget

Cost Component

Original
Condemned
Inmate complex
Budget*

Proposed
Condemned
Inmate complex
Budget†

Site demolition and grading‡

$32,156,544

$29,050,571

($3,105,973)

Site utilities

Difference

Percentage
Change

(9.7%)

9,006,401

34,286,761

25,280,360

280.7

Housing and guard towers

81,749,624

134,758,964

53,009,340

64.8

Secure support buildings

26,909,888

51,301,759

24,391,871

90.6

Correctional treatment center

18,627,961

27,082,592

8,454,631

45.4

Nonsecure support buildings

11,590,189

22,158,089

10,567,900

91.2

Professional fees

28,923,983

39,820,000

10,896,017

37.7

Other
Totals

11,035,410

17,815,631

6,780,221

$220,000,000

$356,274,367

$136,274,367

61.4
61.9%

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) original and revised cost estimates.
*	 Corrections prepared this estimate for a two-level 1,024‑cell condemned inmate complex (CIC)
on November 1, 2002.
†	 Corrections prepared this estimate for a four‑level stacked 768-cell CIC on November 13, 2007.
‡	 This component consists of 12 different subcomponents. Although the overall costs declined, due
largely to a reduction in costs for demolition and hazardous materials cleanup, other subcomponent
costs increased. For example, site grading and soil stabilization costs increased by $14.1 million.

19

20

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Final construction documents provide a much more accurate
representation of the true cost of a project because they contain
details regarding variables and contingencies specific to building at a
particular site. For instance, the following items included in the final
construction documents have contributed to increased costs:
•	 The original cost model assumed that Corrections would
use its standard 180‑degree housing unit for the condemned
inmate population, which is a two‑story building with a total
of 128 ground‑floor and mezzanine cells. According to officials
from Corrections’ facilities management division, the design of
this housing unit provides both a higher level of security and
operational flexibility for the condemned inmate population.
Due to constraints specific to the San Quentin site, however,
Corrections decided to stack the 180-degree housing units on
top of one another, resulting in three four‑story buildings, each
containing two housing units. Although stacked, each housing unit
is designed to operate totally independently, for security reasons.
This security requirement resulted in the need for elevators,
dumbwaiters, and additional access and stairways that were not in
the original 180‑degree housing design or in the budget.
•	 Because of the size, configuration, and weight of the stacked
structures, the structural engineer of record reported that the
concrete could not be precast but would have to be cast in place,
resulting in a significant increase in the cost.
•	 The original cost model assumed that average soil conditions
existed on the site. Following completion of a detailed geotechnical
investigation, however, it was determined that the soil conditions
would require extensive mitigation before construction could begin.
•	 The soil conditions at the San Quentin site require that the
foundations for the housing units be constructed in a much
more substantial manner, further adding to the cost. Specifically,
Corrections determined that the housing units will require pile
foundations instead of a conventional spread footing, due to
the weight of the stacked configuration, soil conditions, and
seismic requirements.
•	 Additional site costs that were not in the original budget include
the removal of Dairy Hill, a 30‑ to 40‑foot‑high sandstone hill
located on about one‑third of the proposed CIC site. Material
from Dairy Hill will be removed, crushed, and reused as general
site fill or in excavations where poor soils exist. Soil piers spaced
approximately 8 to 10 feet apart must also be installed in selected
areas throughout the site to keep sidewalks and roads from settling.
Further, the soils in the middle of the asphalt‑paved recreation
yards will undergo deep dynamic compaction to prevent settling.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

•	 The original cost model budgeted approximately $18.7 million for
a correctional treatment center (treatment center) and central
health services totaling 48,993 square feet. However, based on
input from the San Quentin medical staff and revised operational
requirements, it was determined that many of the medical
functions (such as pharmacy and dialysis) that were provided at
other on‑site facilities would be relocated to the new treatment
center. These new functions added approximately 8,400 square feet
to the size of the structure, increasing the cost of the building.
Corrections also decided not to construct the central health
services building, reducing costs by $5.1 million. However, the
increase in the size of the treatment center increased its costs by
$13.5 million, for a net increase of $8.4 million.
•	 A warehouse was not included in the original cost model, based
on initial planning information received from the San Quentin
staff. It was later determined that the existing warehouse space
was at capacity and that a new warehouse would be required to
store goods and materials to support the new CIC.
•	 The original budget was based on the standard amount of asphalt
paving required for a maximum‑security prison. The biggest
increase in this category was for additional work and materials
related to paving four recreational yards, which constitute
approximately 75 percent of the 14.5 acres of paving to be
installed on the project. Because of the poor soil conditions, the
geotechnical engineer recommended that from 12 to 16.5 inches
of aggregate base topped by up to 3.5 inches of asphalt be placed
on all areas to be paved.
Because of these and other factors identified in Appendix A,
Corrections now estimates that the new CIC will cost approximately
$356 million.
Several Factors Contributed to the Decision to Stack the Housing Units
One of the critical decisions leading to the increased costs was the
decision to stack the standard 180‑degree housing units one on
top of the other. This decision resulted in increased area related to
vertical movement, increased foundation costs, and a requirement
to change from precast modular construction to cast‑in‑place
concrete construction. Additionally, the greater height of the facilities
contributed to community concerns during the environmental impact
report (EIR) process, resulting in the need to develop a more sensitive
approach to the exterior facade, again resulting in increased costs.

One of the critical decisions
leading to increased costs was the
decision to stack the housing units
one on top of the other.

21

22

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

According to the CIC project director, because of site constraints and
the desire to maintain the existing staff housing adjacent to the CIC
site, Corrections decided to stack the housing units on top of one
another. Under its original proposal, Corrections would have had to
demolish 57 homes to make room for the eight two‑story housing
units. These are among the 86 homes located on the San Quentin
property for prison employees and their families. According to
the CIC project director, allowing prison employees to reside on the
grounds enables them to respond to emergencies more quickly.
Specifically, the project director told us that staff housing is deemed
very important to San Quentin because it allows operations
and maintenance staff essential to the operation of the prison to
be housed on prison grounds should an emergency such as an
earthquake occur in the Bay Area. The project director further stated
that these homes are important because most of San Quentin’s staff
commute from outside the area due to the high cost of living in
Marin County, where San Quentin is located.
Additionally, according to the September 2004 EIR, Corrections’
original proposal would have resulted in the demolition of a
schoolhouse building. The EIR stated that demolition of the building
would be a significant impact, because the schoolhouse could be listed
as a historical resource. The project director also noted that public
input during the EIR process indicated a strong desire to maintain the
aesthetic appearance of the view from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, a
main access road running parallel to the San Quentin site.
Corrections did not perform a
comparative cost analysis to
determine whether moving the
houses and schoolhouse to other
locations and continuing its plan for a
two-story condemned inmate complex
would result in lower overall costs.

Although these appear to be reasonable explanations for Corrections’
decision to stack the housing units, Corrections did not perform a
comparative cost analysis to determine whether moving the houses
and schoolhouse to other locations on the San Quentin site or
elsewhere and continuing its plan for a two‑story CIC would result in
lower overall costs to build the complex.
The Cost of the New CIC at San Quentin May Exceed Corrections’
Current Estimates
Analyses performed by our consultant found that, with one exception,
Corrections correctly estimated construction cost, was precluded
from applying realistic escalation rates, and omitted estimating
the cost to activate the CIC. However, our consultant believes that
Corrections inappropriately reduced the cost of constructing the
CIC because it believed that economies of scale realized in building
multiple, similarly designed buildings would reduce construction
costs. Our consultant estimates that the cost to construct the CIC
at San Quentin will exceed Corrections’ most recent estimate
by $39.3 million. Additionally, Corrections did not estimate all of
the costs associated with activating the new CIC until very recently

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

at our request. Our consultant estimates that these costs will total
approximately $7.3 million. Finally, at our request Corrections
provided salary information for the staff it anticipated needing to
operate the CIC.3 Our consultant’s analysis of Corrections’ estimated
staffing needs found that San Quentin will spend $39.5 million more
in staffing costs in the first full year after the facility opens than it
would spend if the new CIC were not built. Overall, our consultant
estimates that San Quentin will incur additional staffing costs of
approximately $1.2 billion during the first 20 years the facility is in
operation. Table 4 compares Corrections’ estimated costs with those
developed by our consultant, including the net new costs to complete
anticipated major repairs to the CIC.
Table 4
Comparison of Estimated Costs to Construct, Activate, and Operate
the 768‑Cell Condemned Inmate Complex

Nature of Costs 

Capital Construction Costs

Corrections’
Estimated Costs
(November 2007)

Bureau of State
Audits’ Consultant’s
Estimated Costs
(May 2008)

 

 

Variance

 

Site work

$63,337,332

$67,536,412

$4,199,080

Construction

246,309,035

278,140,663

31,831,628

6,808,000

7,944,910

1,136,910

Equipment
Professional fees
Subtotals

39,820,000

41,926,556

2,106,556

$356,274,367

$395,548,541

$39,274,174

$7,403,992

$6,786,332

($617,660)

Activation Costs*
Staff
Escalation

604,166 

553,765

(50,401)

Subtotals

$8,008,158

$7,340,097

($668,061)

Staff

 

$1,176,150,497

 

Major repairs/replacements

 

22,500,000

 

Subtotal

 

$1,198,650,497

 

Total

 

$1,601,539,134

20‑Year Operating Costs† 

 

Source:  Our consultant’s analysis of documented estimates prepared by the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections).
*	 Activation costs are certain types of nonconstruction costs associated with opening any new
prison and include recruiting, hiring, and training of new staff and moving inmates from their
current location to the new facility. Unlike its construction costs, Corrections estimated these
costs in May 2008, at our request.
†	 These amounts represent costs that are specifically related to the new condemned inmate
complex or net new operating costs. Corrections has not estimated these costs as of May 2008.

3	

We confirmed a sample of salaries used in the computation of staff costs by tracing to the fiscal
year 2008–09 Governor’s Budget.

23

24

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Our Consultant’s Projected Capital Construction Costs for the
San Quentin CIC Are Higher Than Corrections Estimated
Capital construction (construction) costs for the new CIC
at San Quentin may be as much as $39.3 million higher
than Corrections’ most recent estimate. As shown in
Table 4, Corrections estimates that construction costs for the
CIC will total $356.3 million. However, our consultant estimates
that these costs will total $395.5 million, 11 percent more than
Corrections’ estimate. Table 5 shows the factors contributing to
the differences between Corrections’ estimates of the construction
costs and those developed by our consultant.
Table 5
Reasons for the Differences Between Corrections’ Estimated Capital Construction Costs and the
Bureau of State Audits’ Consultant’s Estimates
Variance Attributable tO

 

Corrections’
Estimated Costs
(November 2007)

Bureau of
State Audits’
Consultant’s
Estimated Costs
(May 2008)

Application of
Higher Escalation
Rates and Delays
in Starting
the Project

Adjustment to
Cost of Items

Total
Variance

Site work

$63,337,332

$67,536,412

$4,199,080 

$0

$4,199,080

Construction

246,309,035

278,140,663

26,759,363 

5,072,265

31,831,628

Equipment
Professional fees
Totals

6,808,000

7,944,910

1,136,910 

0

1,136,910

39,820,000

41,926,556

2,106,556 

0

2,106,556

$356,274,367

$395,548,541

$34,201,909 

$5,072,265

$39,274,174

Source:  Our consultant’s analysis of documented estimates prepared by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

An escalation factor is applied to construction estimates to
account for the price of construction materials and services
at a future point in time. In California state departments are
required to use the projected California Construction Cost Index
(cost index), published monthly by the Department of General
Services, in their estimates for capital outlay projects, as a way
to escalate construction costs. The cost index is an average
of the Building Construction Cost Indices for Los Angeles and
the Bay Area, as published in the Engineering News Record.
Departments must apply the most recently published cost index
when preparing budget packages, preliminary plans, or working
drawings estimates for a given project.
According to our consultant, the cost differential between the
two estimates is due primarily to the fact that the escalation
factor Corrections was mandated to use was too low and not
reflective of market conditions. In August 2007 the Department

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

of Finance (Finance) issued a budget letter stating that to help
ensure adequate funding for projects, costs for construction
projects are to be escalated on a monthly basis, starting from the
date the cost index for the project was last updated to the estimated
start and midpoint of construction, at an uncompounded annual
rate of 5 percent, or 0.42 percent per month. Our consultant
determined that this escalation rate does not accurately reflect
the current or future rate. Prior to 2008 our consultant believes
that the average escalation factor was in excess of 8.7 percent due
to factors in both the domestic and international markets. Going
forward, our consultant believes that an escalation rate of 8 percent
for 2008, slowing to 6 percent in 2009 and beyond, is more
reflective of the current market conditions. Consequently, because
Corrections’ project cost estimates were based on price increases
for purchasing construction materials and paying for services and
work at a future point in time using the rate mandated by Finance,
its cost estimates were understated. Additionally, our consultant
recommends that escalation be compounded annually.
Furthermore, Corrections estimated that site preparation work
would begin in August 2008, and any delays will increase
project costs. Specifically, unaccounted for delays in starting
the project extend the project’s completion date further into the
future, and require taking into consideration the additional
costs associated with paying for goods and services during that
unanticipated period of time. Although Corrections estimated
that site preparation work would begin in August 2008, funding
has been delayed pending further analysis of the project and,
therefore, escalation costs will increase. Our consultant believes
that the earliest feasible start date will be November 2008,
assuming the state budget is enacted by August 1, 2008, and with
the expectation that it could take approximately three months to
complete the necessary bidding and contracting process before
work on the project will actually begin. In the case of the proposed
CIC, our consultant estimates that for every month the start of the
project is delayed from when it was expected to begin, the cost of
the project will increase by one‑half percent per month, based on
an annual escalation rate of 6 percent for 2009 and subsequent
years. Assuming a currently estimated cost of $395.5 million for a
24‑month project with a start date of November 1, 2008, the cost
of the project would increase by approximately $2 million for every
month the project’s start date is delayed beyond November 1, 2008.
Finally, Corrections reduced the cost of constructing the
three buildings in which inmates would be housed because it
believed that the economies of scale realized in building multiple
similarly designed buildings would reduce the overall costs of
constructing them. However, our consultant believes that the
anticipated 4 percent cost reduction is not likely to be realized

25

26

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

given the current market conditions. Therefore, he eliminated
the discount in his calculation, increasing the cost of building the
housing units by $5 million.
As shown in Table 6, because of the higher construction costs
estimated by our consultant, as well as Corrections’ proposed
design modifications, the cost per cell and per bed has risen
significantly from Corrections’ initial fiscal year 2003–04 estimate.
Specifically, as shown in the table, the cost per cell has increased by
140 percent and the cost per bed has increased by 120 percent.
Table 6
Unit Cost Comparison for Corrections’ Condemned Inmate Complex,
Using the Original and Modified Designs and Cost Estimates
Modified Design:
Original Design:
$395 Million
$220 Million Cost
Cost Estimate*
Estimate
(Fiscal year 2003–04) (Fiscal year 2008–09)

Housing units
Cells
Beds
Square footage
Cost

Percentage
Change

Difference

8

6

2

1,024

768

256

(25%)
(25)

1,408

1,152

256

(18)

609,957

541,061

68,896

(11)

$220,000,000

$395,548,541

$175,548,541

Total cost per cell

$214,844

$515,037

$300,193

140%

Total cost per bed

$156,250

$343,358

$187,108

120%

$361

$731

$370

102%

Total cost per square foot

80

Source:  Our consultant’s analysis of documented estimates prepared by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.
*	 This amount represents the total estimated construction costs as calculated by our consultant.

Corrections’ Current Cost Estimates Do Not Include $7.3 Million to Open
the CIC and Move the Condemned Inmates Into the Complex
Before opening the new CIC and moving all of the condemned
inmates into the complex, Corrections will incur certain start‑up
costs unrelated to constructing and operating the facility. These
one‑time costs are referred to as activation costs and generally
include costs associated with recruiting and hiring new staff and
costs for training and orienting staff to the new facility. Additional
activities include testing the CIC’s operational plans, procedures,
and systems prior to the arrival of condemned inmates and
transporting them from their current housing units to the new CIC.
In the capital outlay budget change proposal submitted to
Finance for fiscal year 2008–09, Corrections indicated that it
would need a total of 505 staff to operate the CIC, consisting
of 158 existing San Quentin employees and 347 new staff.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

According to Corrections’ associate director of reception centers,
167 of the new staff would be correctional officers. However, due
to an expected increase in population, Corrections expects to
hire 11 new correctional officers before the CIC is opened, and
therefore the number of new correctional officers that must be
hired to operate the new CIC is 156 (167‑11=156).4 After it hires the
11 correctional officers, the total number of existing San Quentin
staff available for assignment to the CIC will be 169. Therefore,
to fully staff the CIC, Corrections will need to hire 336 additional
employees (505‑169=336).
As shown in Table 7, our consultant, working with Corrections,
estimated the total activation costs for the new CIC as
approximately $7.3 million.
Table 7
Estimated Costs to Activate the Condemned Inmate Complex
Estimated Cost 

Preservice training for 156 new correctional officers

$4,002,804

San Quentin classroom training for 336 new staff

560,179

Training for 54 health care staff

130,290

Orientation for all 169 condemned inmate complex (CIC) staff

152,614

Total Training and Orientation
CIC activation staffing
Moving condemned inmates to the CIC
Subtotal
Two‑year estimated increase in salary and benefit costs
(4% per year for 2 years, compounded)
Total

$4,845,887
$1,125,000
815,445
$6,786,332
$553,765
$7,340,097

Source:  Information obtained from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in
memos, e-mails, and meetings.

Our consultant concluded that recruitment and hiring costs are
likely to be substantially absorbed within Corrections’ operations
budget. The incremental costs associated with recruiting and
hiring new staff for the CIC are likely to be minimal compared
to Corrections’ ongoing expenditures for these activities, as
Corrections already hires hundreds of employees each year.
Therefore, we have not included any additional costs for recruiting
and hiring the 336 new staff.

4	

Corrections would hire any mix of staff they deem appropriate, not just correctional officers.
However, for the purpose of estimating costs, it is assumed that Corrections would hire
correctional officers only.

27

28

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Training and orienting staff to the new CIC is estimated to
cost $4.9 million. The 156 new correctional officers will attend
Corrections’ 16‑week preservice training program, during which
time they will be paid as correctional officer cadets at an estimated
cost of $25,659 per cadet, for a total of $4 million. In addition,
all 336 new employees will receive 40 hours of formal classroom
orientation upon arrival at San Quentin. The estimated cost of
this training is $560,179, based on an average of $41.68 per hour
for salary and benefits. Additional institutional‑level training will
be provided for the estimated 54 new health care staff, including
medical, mental health, and dental employees who will be assigned
to the CIC. Assuming that such classroom training will be 40 hours
in duration, another $130,290 in additional costs will be incurred,
based on an average rate for all of the health care positions. Follow‑up
mentoring and orientation by more experienced institution health
care staff is anticipated in the week(s) following the formal training
as the new employees make the transition into their new jobs.
Further, all 505 staff assigned to the CIC will require an average
of 16 hours of orientation and training specific to the new CIC’s
systems and procedures, prior to the activation of the CIC. However,
additional costs are likely to be incurred only for training the
existing San Quentin staff, who will have to be relieved from their
current assignments to attend the training. Applying an average
hourly overtime rate of $56.44 for 16 hours for these 169 employees
produces a cost of $152,614 for this training.

Our consultant estimates that the
process of moving the inmates
will require some staff to work
additional hours on an overtime
basis, incurring up to an additional
$815,445 in costs.

In addition to training and orientation costs, prior to the arrival
of any of the condemned inmates, considerable nonconstruction
work is required to ensure that the CIC is in proper working order.
According to Corrections, as part of its general protocol, tasks to
be accomplished prior to moving condemned inmates into the CIC
would include, among other tasks, developing institutional policies
and procedures, practicing operational responses, conducting
inspections and searches, and securing areas. To accomplish this
work, staff will need to be assigned to the CIC on a phased‑in
schedule well in advance of the arrival of the first condemned inmate.
A few experienced staff will begin work at the CIC as much as a year
in advance, with more coming on board as the opening approaches.
Based on discussions with Corrections, our consultant estimates that
50 staff will be assigned to the CIC in this capacity for an average
of three months prior to its opening, at an average monthly rate for
salary and benefits of $7,500, resulting in a cost of $1.1 million.
Finally, it is neither practical nor desirable to move all of the
condemned inmates at one time from the cellblocks in which they
are currently housed to the CIC. Thus, a phased‑in approach is
anticipated, resulting in some additional one‑time costs. Assuming
that about 125 inmates per week are transferred to the CIC, it will

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

be necessary to operate both the CIC and the old condemned
inmate facilities for about six weeks. This transition time will
provide CIC staff the opportunity to make sure that the CIC,
its systems, and its procedures are working properly prior to
moving all of the condemned inmates to the new facility. Based
on conversations with Corrections, our consultant estimates that
the process of moving the inmates will require some staff to work
additional hours on an overtime basis, incurring up to an additional
$815,445 in costs. This estimate is based on filling 43 security posts
for an average of eight hours a day for 42 days at $56.44 per hour.
Corrections’ Current Cost Estimates Do Not Include Additional Costs to
Operate the New CIC
In addition to the one‑time costs for construction and activation,
there will be significant additional ongoing costs to operate the
new CIC. In order to provide a thorough analysis of the additional
cost of the CIC, our consultant estimated the additional (net new)
staffing costs over a 20‑year period, from fiscal year 2011–12, the
first full year the CIC is expected to be operational if construction
begins as anticipated, to fiscal year 2030–31. Furthermore, this
information is necessary to compare the net new costs of staffing
the CIC for 20 years at San Quentin with the net new staffing costs
at other potential sites for the CIC.
Based on the analysis prepared by our consultant, we estimate
that San Quentin will incur approximately $39.5 million in net
new staffing costs during the first full year of the CIC’s operation.
Net new staffing costs are estimated to average $58.8 million per
year, for a total of about $1.2 billion over the 20‑year span, with
the assumption that the cost of salaries and benefits will increase
at 4 percent per year, compounded annually. According to our
consultant, these are costs that San Quentin will incur only if
the new CIC is built, and they include the cost of paying salaries,
benefits, and overtime for 336 new CIC staff. Furthermore, during
the first 20 years the CIC is in operation, our consultant estimated
that there will be an additional $22.5 million needed for major
building repairs.
The total cost to operate the CIC will also include the cost of the
existing 169 employees as well as the cost of nonpersonnel services
at the CIC, which include the costs of providing food, clothing,
and medical care for inmates, among other things. Our consultant
estimated that the nonpersonnel cost would average approximately
$17 million per year during the first 20 years the new CIC is in
operation. However, we did not include these in our calculations
because they are expenditures that Corrections would incur
whether or not the new CIC is in operation. For the same reason,

Net new staffing costs are estimated
at about $1.2 billion over the first
20 years the CIC is in operation.

29

30

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

we did not include the cost of adding staff in future years to keep
pace with the projected increase in the number of condemned
inmates, because those costs would be incurred to operate the
existing facilities that house condemned inmates.
Although the Proposed CIC May Provide Adequate Capacity to House
Condemned Inmates in Future Years, There Are Concerns About
Corrections’ Plans to Double‑Cell Condemned Inmates
Corrections’ current plan for the CIC includes double‑celling up to
two‑thirds of the condemned inmates, meaning that half of the cells
would house two inmates.5 Given a projected growth of 18 inmates
per year and 768 cells in the new CIC, Corrections would need
to begin double‑celling inmates in calendar year 2014, less than
three years after the CIC is scheduled to open, and the CIC would
reach its inmate bed capacity during calendar year 2035.
Our consultant expressed concerns about staff safety, inmate safety,
and the protection of confidential legal papers if condemned inmates
are double‑celled. The Office of the State Public Defender concurs
with our expert regarding the protection of confidential legal
documents. Corrections believes it has procedures in place to address
these concerns. Nevertheless, representatives from 11 of 12 other states
who responded to our request for information indicated that they do
not double‑cell condemned inmates. Notwithstanding Corrections’
position that many condemned inmates can be double‑celled, our
consultant believes that a more realistic alternative is to add another
housing unit to the CIC, which he estimated would cost $64.1 million
if constructed concurrently with the proposed CIC project.
Corrections’ Plans Include Double‑Celling Inmates to Meet Future Needs
As currently envisioned, the new CIC would house condemned
inmates in three buildings, each containing 256 cells, for a total of
768 cells. Half of the cells would be configured with a second bed to
accommodate two inmates per cell. Thus, according to Corrections’
plan, the total capacity of the CIC would be 1,152 inmates. Although
Corrections’ policy is to double‑cell inmates, the memorandum
outlining the policy states that it will be adhered to for inmates in
the general population, administrative segregation, and security
housing units. However, it does not address whether condemned
inmates can be double‑celled. Nevertheless, according to the chief
deputy secretary of adult institutions (chief deputy), this policy

5	

Current condemned inmate cells are approximately 42 square feet, whereas under the proposed
design the cells would be approximately 80 square feet.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

would also apply to condemned inmates confined at the CIC.
Corrections’ decision to double‑cell certain inmates is based on
an evaluation of their characteristics and history, which includes
assessing the inmates’ compatibility and disciplinary history.
Although it does not currently double‑cell any of its condemned
inmates, as the condemned inmate population increases,
Corrections has indicated it will begin doing so in the new CIC.
If double‑celling of the condemned inmates occurs as planned,
we estimate that the CIC’s 1,152‑inmate bed capacity will be
reached in 2035. If double‑celling does not turn out to be a
feasible approach, the CIC will reach its cell capacity in 2014. As
of April 2008 Corrections was housing 635 condemned inmates
at San Quentin.6 In designing the new CIC, Corrections estimated
that the condemned inmate population would grow by 24 male
condemned inmates per year, which would result in the new CIC
reaching its inmate bed capacity in 2028. However, our consultant
believes that Corrections may have overestimated the population
growth, because its estimate did not take into account that in
recent years fewer people have been sentenced to death. This
change has resulted in an average annual increase of 12 condemned
inmates rather than 24. Recognizing that this downturn could be
short‑lived, but that the annual increase might not soon return to
the earlier level, our consultant estimated that the male condemned
inmate population will grow by 18 inmates per year. This is the net
population growth, accounting for factors such as executions, deaths
due to other causes, and inmates that are removed from death row
because their sentences are changed. Our consultant’s estimated
population growth rate of 18 condemned inmates per year results
in the facility reaching its full bed capacity in 2035 if Corrections
implements its plan to double‑cell some condemned inmates.
According to the chief deputy, Corrections intends to double‑cell
those condemned inmates that it determines pose the least
threat to one another and staff. Corrections currently classifies
its condemned inmates into two levels—grades A and B.
As of May 2008, 474 of the condemned inmates were classified
as grade A. Corrections views the inmates classified as grade A as
having a low propensity for violence or escape. According to
Corrections, these inmates have demonstrated good behavior and
an ability to cooperate safely and peaceably with other inmates
and staff. Conversely, condemned inmates currently classified as
grade B have a high potential for escape or violence or are serious
disciplinary management cases.
6	

Although the total male condemned population as of May 1, 2008 was 656, according to the
San Quentin warden only 635 were housed at San Quentin. The other 21 inmates were out of the
institution for a variety of reasons, including 14 out for court dates and hearings, three out for
medical care, and four serving sentences in other states.

If double-celling does not turn out
to be a feasible approach, the CIC
will reach its cell capacity in 2014.

31

32

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation’s Anticipated New
Condemned Inmate Grades
Grade A:  These inmates have demonstrated a low
propensity for violence or escape. These inmates have
demonstrated good behavior and an ability to cooperate
safely and peaceably with other inmates and staff, and
they are provided work assignments and other privileges.
According to the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (Corrections), these inmates can be
double‑celled.
Grade B:  These inmates have also demonstrated a low
propensity for violence. However, they are not provided
with work assignments. According to Corrections, most of
these inmates can be double-celled.
Grade C:  These inmates have special needs and are
in protective custody due to the nature of their crimes.
Their custody requirements are similar to those of
grade B inmates. According to Corrections, some of
these inmates can be double-celled, but only with other
grade C inmates.
Grade D:  These inmates are management cases who will
have no contact with inmates of other grades. According to
Corrections, these inmates cannot be double-celled.
Grade E:  These inmates are serious management cases
and/or validated gang members who will have no contact
with inmates of other grades. According to Corrections,
these inmates cannot be double-celled.
Sources:  Corrections’ chief deputy secretary of adult
institutions and the Condemned Inmate Complex Architectural
Program report.

Corrections intends to update and expand this
classification system by placing condemned
inmates into one of five different grades. Under the
new system, the condemned inmates currently
classified as grade A will be reclassified to grades
A through C, and the current grade B inmates will
be reclassified to grades D and E. (Refer to the text
box for a brief description of these anticipated
grades.) Corrections’ architectural program report
for the CIC specifies a level of double‑celling for
inmates classified as grades A, B, or C and states
that inmates classified as grades D and E will be
single‑celled. Additionally, the chief deputy stated
that Corrections has not yet implemented the new
grading system, and while court approval for the
system is not required, he believes Corrections
would engage the courts and others before making
the change.
According to the chief deputy, under the new
grading system it would be reasonable to assume
that Corrections will first evaluate inmates
classified as grade A for potential double‑celling.
Corrections would likely evaluate inmates
classified as grade B next, and so on. The chief
deputy stated that these evaluations would be
performed on an individual basis, and therefore it
may not be the case that all inmates classified as
grade A will be double‑celled but would depend
on Corrections’ evaluation of each individual.

Based on our consultant’s projected population
growth, placing two condemned inmates in
some cells will be necessary beginning in 2014,
three years after the CIC is expected to open.
As Figure 2 indicates, in that year the condemned inmate
population is expected to exceed the 768 cells available in the CIC.
By the end of calendar year 2016, all of the grade A condemned
inmates would be double‑celled, assuming that double‑celling is
appropriate for all of these inmates, and Corrections would need to
begin double‑celling its grade B condemned inmates. Continuing
this process, by 2035, when the CIC has reached its capacity,
1,152 condemned inmates would be housed in the CIC, and
two‑thirds of these, a total of 768 inmates, would be sharing cells.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Figure 2
Projected Growth in Condemned Inmate Population by Grade and Condemned Inmate Complex Capacity
2008 Through 2035

1,200

“A” inmates
“B” inmates
“C” inmates
“D” inmates
“E” inmates
Inmates
double-celled

Inmate Capacity 1,152

1,000

Number of Inmates

800

Number of Cells

768 inmates
double-celled*

600

400

384 inmates
single-celled*

200

35 †

34

20

33

20

32

20

31

20

30

20

29

20

28

20

27

20

26

20

25

20

24

20

23

20

22

20

21

20

20

20

19

20

18

20

17

20

16

20

15

20

14

20

13

20

12

20

11

20

10

20

09

20

20

20

08

0

Calendar Year

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ consultant’s condemned inmate population projections using the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) condemned inmate counts for 1978 through 2007 and its anticipated reclassification of existing condemned inmates. We
did not verify inmate counts to source documentation such as inmate files.
*  Estimate based on Corrections’ current projections of the number of inmates in each grade level.
†  Represents only nine months of 2035, at which point the condemned inmate complex would be at capacity.

In this hypothetical scenario, all grade A condemned inmates
would be double‑celled, all but one of the grade B inmates would
be double‑celled, and 16 of the grade C inmates would be
double‑celled.7
7	

The condemned inmate population is projected to reach 1,152 during calendar year 2035. At this
point, there is projected to be an odd number of grade B inmates, requiring one of these inmates
to be single‑celled since grade B inmates cannot be double‑celled with grade C inmates.

33

34

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Some Experts Have Expressed Concerns About Double‑Celling
Condemned Inmates

Although the chief assistant
state public defender cannot say
whether his office would challenge
the legality of double-celling,
in his professional opinion a
legal challenge would certainly
be brought by others who have
standing to do so.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that placing two inmates
per cell in a relatively modern prison facility does not violate the
constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
However, some experts we spoke to raised concerns about
double‑celling condemned inmates. Because condemned inmates
typically have appeal matters pending throughout their time on
death row, the chief assistant state public defender (chief public
defender) stated that inmates often review legal papers related to
their cases while in their cells, and housing two inmates in a cell
may compromise the confidentiality of an inmate’s legal papers.
Further, according to the chief public defender and the executive
directors of the California Appellate Project and the Habeas Corpus
Resource Center, capital cases often contain very personal, private,
and sensitive materials. They added that double‑celling raises serious
concerns about maintaining confidentiality during the preparation
to defend a condemned inmate. Additionally, although the chief
public defender cannot say at this point whether his office would
challenge the legality of double‑celling, in his professional opinion, a
legal challenge would certainly be brought to such a plan by others
who have standing to do so. The executive director of the California
Appellate Project agrees, stating that it is likely that double‑celling
condemned inmates in California would be legally challenged.
In our discussions with Corrections’ chief deputy on this point,
he stated that there are ways to address concerns regarding
confidentiality. Specifically, he stated that storage exists in which
condemned inmates are currently permitted to store legal documents
outside of their cells. When necessary, a condemned inmate can
request legal papers from this storage area, and the correctional
officers at San Quentin then retrieve the documents. However,
according to the captain who oversees the inmates currently
on death row at San Quentin, condemned inmates are allowed
to have 1 cubic foot of legal paperwork in their cells. Thus, to
address the risk that another inmate will access confidential legal
materials in a shared cell, Corrections would need to change its
current practices.
Our consultant believes double‑celling the new grade A inmates
is worth exploring. However, he expressed concern that
double‑celling any of the other inmates increases the risk of
harm to the inmates who are housed together, especially for long
periods of time. He added that health and mental issues may
preclude double‑celling a portion of the condemned inmates.
Additionally, he said that condemned inmates are more likely
to resist double‑celling than other difficult‑to‑manage inmates.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Consequently, they may do whatever it takes in terms of acting out
to remain in a single cell, unless significantly greater privileges are
afforded to them when they are assigned to a two‑person cell.
The chief deputy stated that it is Corrections’ current policy to
double‑cell inmates whenever it is safe to do so, given space
limitations and overcrowding, and that condemned inmates would
not be an exception to this policy. He stated that the architectural
design for the CIC assumed a certain level of double‑celling.
According to the chief deputy, the purpose of Corrections’ process
for evaluating whether inmates would be suitable to share a cell is to
minimize the risk of harm to the inmates who are celled together,
and part of the evaluation of inmates for double‑celling would
include consultation with medical and mental health staff. He
further noted that the heightened risk of harm is not unique to the
condemned inmate population. This concern also applies to inmates
serving life without parole and to those that are housed in
segregated housing units. Currently, some of these prisoners are
double‑celled in cells that are similar in size to those planned for the
CIC. Additionally, he stated that it is likely that some condemned
inmates would not be opposed to sharing a cell and that existing
incentives would be sufficient motivation for these inmates.
To provide some context regarding the
double‑celling of condemned inmates, we surveyed
13 states that had populations of 50 or more
condemned inmates as of April 2008. Of the 12 that
responded, only one, Oklahoma, stated that it
currently double‑cells around 80 percent of its
condemned inmates. The assistant deputy director
of Oklahoma’s Department of Corrections stated
that inmates are double‑celled after the department
has determined that they are not an imminent
threat to others. The remaining 11 states said that
they do not double‑cell condemned inmates.
Representatives from the corrections departments
of the other 11 states cited security as the main
reason for not double‑celling condemned inmates,
stating that they believe condemned inmates would
be more prone to violence against correctional
officers and fellow inmates if they were
double‑celled. (See the text box for a listing of
the states.)
According to our consultant, California’s reasons
for pursuing double‑celling are not compelling.
Our consultant does not believe Corrections
can sufficiently mitigate the difficulties and risks
inherent in double‑celling condemned inmates

Most States We Surveyed
Do Not Double‑Cell Condemned Inmates
Eleven states do not double-cell condemned inmates:
Alabama
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nevada
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
One state double-cells condemned inmates:
Oklahoma
One state did not respond:
Texas
Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ survey of states with 50 or more
condemned inmates as of April 2008.

35

36

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

who, more than any other inmate group, have nothing to lose.
Although he agrees that some condemned inmates could be
double‑celled, our consultant believes it would be prudent for
Corrections to consider double‑celling only the condemned inmates
classified as grade A under the new classification system.
A More Practical Solution for Housing the Growing Number of
Condemned Inmates Would Be to Add a 256‑Cell Housing Unit
Our consultant indicated that, rather than double‑celling
a large proportion of its condemned inmates, Corrections
should build a fourth housing unit, which the existing land can
accommodate. Based on an estimated increase in the condemned
inmate population of 18 inmates per year, adding an additional
256‑cell housing unit would allow Corrections to single‑cell the
condemned inmates until 2028. At that time, if Corrections began
double‑celling its grade A condemned inmates, total capacity would
be reached during 2030. The additional housing unit would increase
the total number of cells in the CIC to 1,024, and bed capacity
would increase to 1,408.
Adding a housing unit would also be consistent with Corrections’
original plan for the CIC, which included eight housing units
containing 128 cells each, for a total of 1,024 cells. Its modified
plan to construct the stacked housing units, each containing
256 cells, initially would have resulted in the same number of cells.
However, due primarily to cost considerations, Corrections reduced
the capacity of the proposed CIC by 25 percent, or 256 cells, by
eliminating one of the four stacked housing units.

Although our consultant believes
that the addition of a fourth
housing unit is preferable to
double-celling, it would come at a
substantial cost.

Although our consultant believes that the addition of a
fourth stacked housing unit is preferable to double‑celling, it
would come at a substantial cost. Our consultant estimated that
constructing a fourth stacked housing unit would add $64.1 million
to Corrections’ currently planned CIC if it were constructed
concurrently with the proposed CIC. With the addition of the
fourth stacked housing unit, the CIC would have a total of
1,024 cells and 1,408 beds. This would lower the total cost per cell
and cost per bed to $448,876 and $326,445, respectively. Thus,
when compared to the per cell and bed cost shown in Table 6 on
page 26, the additional housing unit would decrease the cost per
cell and per bed because the fixed cost of the correctional treatment
center and other CIC facility support functions would be spread
over a greater number of cells and beds.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

However, if construction of the fourth stacked housing unit was
delayed, our consultant estimated that the construction costs would
rise significantly. For example, if construction was delayed five years
until 2013, our consultant estimates that the construction costs
would be $92.6 million, due to $19.2 million in costs associated
with delaying the project and $9.3 million in additional costs due
to construction inefficiencies created by doing the work after
construction of the other structures and while the CIC was in
full operation.

37

38

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Chapter 2
Although Moving the Condemned Inmate
Complex From San Quentin Has Drawbacks,
Alternate Sites Exist
Chapter Summary
In our report titled California Department of Corrections:
Its Plans to Build a New Condemned‑Inmate Complex at
San Quentin Are Proceeding, but Its Analysis of Alternative
Locations and Costs Was Incomplete, issued in March 2004, we
reviewed the alternatives considered by the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) for constructing
a new condemned inmate complex (CIC) and concluded that its
analyses of alternatives did not consider all feasible locations and
relevant costs. Our follow‑up review found that Corrections has
not performed any additional analyses of alternatives since we
published the previous report.
Our study for the current report found that Corrections’ current
proposal for building the CIC at San Quentin State Prison
(San Quentin) is the least expensive of the various alternatives
we considered for housing condemned inmates. In evaluating
the alternatives, our consultant determined that dispersing the
inmates to multiple prison locations is neither practical nor
economically viable: There are no excess level IV beds at other
prisons, and the costs to build additional condemned inmate
housing at multiple locations would be higher than the costs of
building at a single location, due to economies of scale. Further,
a significant amount of time would necessarily elapse before
construction of a CIC at another location could begin, likely
delaying the start of construction for almost five years. This delay,
due to the time required for the approval and planning processes,
would add an average of $447 million in costs for a similar-sized
CIC at the three alternative prison locations we considered:
California State Prison, Sacramento (Sacramento); R. J. Donovan
Correctional Facility (Donovan); and California State Prison,
Solano (Solano). Constructing a two-story CIC at the currently
proposed San Quentin site or a stacked CIC at an alternate site
at San Quentin is also estimated to cost more than Corrections’
current proposal, due to delayed construction start dates. Potential
revenues from the sale of the currently proposed CIC site would
only partially offset the cost of constructing the CIC elsewhere.
Specifically, our consultant estimates that the land Corrections
currently plans to use for the CIC could be sold for between
$45.3 million and $117.9 million, depending on how it was developed.

39

40

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

The State would avoid approximately $93.2 million in staffing costs
if Corrections delayed construction of a CIC at San Quentin for
five years—an average of $18.6 million a year. However, although
the State could save money by postponing the project, there are
unquantifiable costs associated with doing so. For example, by
the end of calendar year 2010, there will be 17 more condemned
inmates than Corrections can house in the three cellblocks
currently used for this purpose, based on our consultant’s
projection of the growth in the condemned inmate population.
Further, the current facilities Corrections uses for condemned
inmates do not meet many of Corrections’ current standards
for maximum-security facilities. As a result, our consultant
has concluded that the use of the current facilities for housing
condemned inmates increases the risk of escape and heightens the
risk of harm to both staff and inmates. Thus, the cost avoidance
involved in postponing construction of the new CIC for five years
has to be weighed against the potential costs and risks associated
with continuing to house the condemned inmates in outdated and
inadequate facilities.
Corrections Did Not Consider Alternatives to Building a New CIC
at San Quentin
Our previous report, issued in March 2004, concluded that
Corrections’ analyses of alternatives to its proposed CIC did not
consider all feasible locations and relevant costs. We recommended
that if the Legislature desired a more complete analysis regarding
the optimal location for housing male condemned inmates,
it should require Corrections to assess the costs and benefits
of relocating the CIC to each of the current prison locations
possessing either adequate available land for such a facility or
an existing adequate facility that could be renovated to house
condemned inmates, including in its assessment the relative
disadvantages and costs related to each site’s geographic location.
Corrections has not completed
any additional analysis of feasible
alternatives since our last report.

Based on our follow up during this audit, we found that Corrections
has not completed any additional analyses of feasible alternatives
since our last report. The CIC project director stated that, because
the Legislature was clear in its intent that Corrections should
build the CIC on the San Quentin site, conducting alternate site
analyses would have been counterproductive. The deputy director
of facilities management and the manager of Corrections’ real estate
unit also stated that no such analyses were ever requested, either
internally or externally by the Legislature.
Corrections has made various attempts to address the housing
and security of condemned inmates over the past 16 years, and
the director of project management and construction has noted

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

that performing additional analyses would mean starting the
project all over again. According to the CIC project director and
representatives for the California Prison Healthcare Receivership
(Receiver), looking for alternative locations and conducting the
analyses necessary to determine the suitability of these locations
would increase the amount of time necessary to solve the current
housing problem.
Dispersing Condemned Inmates Among Housing Units at Multiple
Prison Locations Is Neither a Practical nor Economically Viable Option
In examining the possibilities for housing condemned inmates,
we evaluated the possibility of constructing individual 180‑degree
housing units at San Quentin within the secure prison perimeter,
defined as the area within which existing prisoners and support
services are located on the San Quentin property. We also
considered transferring condemned inmates from San Quentin
to existing 180‑degree housing units at other level IV prisons, or
constructing new individual 180-degree housing units at these
level IV prisons. However, we found that these options presented
a variety of challenges that would make them neither practical nor
economically viable.
Due to limits on the existing available space within San Quentin’s
prison perimeter, according to our consultant, constructing
one or more individual housing units at San Quentin rather
than a complete CIC could be accomplished only outside the
existing perimeter. Further, he concluded that building individual
level IV housing outside of the perimeter without also constructing
the support buildings to serve the population is not a practical
alternative. Because of the need to eliminate contact between
condemned and noncondemned inmates, services and programs
for condemned inmates must be provided in close proximity to
their housing units.
Transferring condemned inmates from San Quentin to
other level IV prisons is similarly problematic. Because all
level IV housing units are currently filled to capacity, there are
literally no empty level IV beds. As a result, new level IV housing
would have to be constructed to house either the condemned
inmates or the level IV inmates displaced by the transfer of
condemned inmates into existing level IV units. Additionally, the
custody experts of the Receiver do not recommend dispersing
condemned inmates to multiple locations. They identified
community resistance and problems with legal access and visiting,
media relations, and pre‑execution procedures associated with this
alternative, and stated that housing condemned inmates at multiple
sites would amplify these issues.

41

42

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Our consultant estimates that it
would be more expensive to house
condemned inmates at multiple
locations as opposed to keeping
them at a single location.

Additionally, our consultant estimates that it would be more
expensive to house condemned inmates at multiple locations
as opposed to keeping them at a single location. Certain costs
associated with building level IV housing would be repeated at
each location. Specifically, necessary construction-related work,
including the preparation of environmental impact reports (EIRs),
soil studies, site grading, architectural design, and the purchase
and delivery of materials, would be incurred at each location, at a
greater combined cost than if it all were to be accomplished at
a single prison. The activation costs identified in Chapter 1 would
also be multiplied, to a degree. For example, rather than activating
and training all employees at the same prison, activation and
training would need to take place at each location, which would
likely increase overall costs. According to our consultant’s analysis,
the increased cost of multiple locations would not be offset by
cheaper labor or materials costs at these alternative locations.
To Determine Possible Alternative Locations for a CIC, We Considered
Court Orders, Stakeholder Concerns, and Other Factors
As mentioned in the Introduction, state and federal law provide
little guidance on the parameters for siting a CIC. In the absence
of such guidance, we used other factors, such as court orders and
stakeholder concerns, to narrow our alternatives from 33 prisons to
four: San Quentin, Sacramento in Folsom, Solano in Vacaville, and
Donovan at Rock Mountain in San Diego.8
In selecting alternative locations for a CIC, we considered the
following parameters:
•	 Section 3600 of the California Penal Code, which states, “Prior
to any relocation of a CIC from San Quentin, whether proposed
through legislation or any other means, Corrections must
evaluate all maximum-security level IV, 180-degree housing unit
facilities with an electrified perimeter for suitability for the CIC
and execution of condemned inmates.”
•	 Court orders and other litigation affecting Corrections’
operations, which were discussed in the Introduction:
Plata, Perez, Coleman, and Armstrong.
•	 Concerns from various stakeholders who represent condemned
inmates in their appellate and habeas corpus work.9
8	

In this report, we refer to California State Prison, Sacramento, as “Sacramento” and the city in
which it is located as “Folsom.”
9	 Habeas corpus petitions are filed with a court on behalf of a person who objects to his own or
another’s detention or imprisonment. Appellate briefs are appeals filed on behalf of condemned
inmates who object to their sentences based on the way their trials were conducted.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

•	 The Prison Law Office requested that the CIC be located in

a major urban area that could be easily accessed by doctors,
attorneys, psychiatrists, protestors, volunteers, and inmate
families by car, airplane, and other public transportation.

•	 The California Appellate Project (Appellate Project), the

Office of the State Public Defender (Public Defender), and
the Habeas Corpus Resource Center (Habeas Corpus Center)
prefer that the CIC be built near the San Francisco Bay Area
(Bay Area) so that inmates are easily accessible to attorneys.

•	 The following two stakeholders did not have an official position
on the location of the CIC but still voiced location preferences
and concerns:
•	 The Receiver’s chief of staff specified that the CIC should

be built in an area where inmates would receive adequate
medical care. Custody experts working with the Receiver
stated that the CIC should be located in an area where the
Receiver could easily recruit and retain qualified medical
personnel (clinicians).

•	 A representative from the California Supreme Court suggested

that the CIC be located in or near the Bay Area to reduce the
risk that attorneys would not accept death row appellate cases
if their clients were located far from the Bay Area.

•	 Other practical considerations that do not fall into the
aforementioned categories, such as the ability to fill security
positions, and the public acceptance of a CIC.
Using these parameters, we developed a two-pronged approach
to determine which prisons merited further consideration as a
possible location for a CIC. Level IV prisons with 180-degree
housing units were analyzed as one group, per state law. Other
prisons were evaluated based on their proximity to the Bay Area
and Los Angeles. We anticipate that taking these concerns into
account might alleviate some of the resistance to moving the CIC
away from San Quentin. Additionally, since some stakeholders,
such as the Public Defender, the Habeas Corpus Center, and the
attorneys assisted by the Appellate Project, are funded by the
State, keeping the CIC near a major urban area would help avoid
increased travel costs.

We developed a two-pronged
approach to determine which
prisons merited further
consideration as a possible location
for a CIC.

43

44

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Working with our consultant, we evaluated the possible options and
summarized their strengths and weaknesses with respect to various
factors, such as availability of land and the ease of recruiting to fill
custody and clinical positions. The results of the evaluation are
summarized in Table 8.
Table 8
Summary of Factors Considered in Selecting Potential Sites for a Condemned Inmate Complex

Factors Considered

San Quentin

California
State Prison,
SACramento

R.J. Donovan

California
State Prison,
Solano

California
Correctional
Institution

Deuel
Vocational
Institution

California
Institution
for Men

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Public support for a condemned
inmate complex

Neutral

Negative

Neutral

Negative

Unknown

Unknown

Negative

Public support for the prison in general

Positive

Positive

Positive

Neutral

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Potential availability of land

Ability to fill security positions

Good

Best

Good

Good

Good

Good

Unknown

Ability to fill support service positions

Poor

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Unknown

Ability to fill health care positions

Best

Best

Good

Good

Poor

Good

Good

Proximity to current legal counsel

Best

Good

Poor

Good

Poor

Poor

Poor

Proximity to potential future
legal counsel

Best

Good

Good

Good

Poor

Good

Good

Availability of hospital resources

Best

Best

Best

Best

Poor

Unknown

Good

Host prison experience with inmates of
similar custody levels (level III or IV)

Best

Best

Good

Good

Good

Poor

Poor

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.
Note:  This table depicts the results of various objective and subjective factors that we considered in order to identify a limited number of alternative
prison sites for analyzing their suitability for a new condemned inmate complex.

Appendix B describes in more detail the process by which we chose
three of these alternate sites. Although we initially considered
Deuel Vocational Institution, California Institution for Men, and
California Correctional Institution in addition to Sacramento,
Solano, and Donovan, we determined that these were less viable
alternative locations for a CIC. Deuel Vocational Institution and
the California Institution for Men do not currently house inmates
of similar custody levels, which according to our consultant
makes them less desirable for housing condemned inmates, and
the California Correctional Institution would be a less desirable
location for a CIC due to the lack of available hospital resources
and the lack of a sufficient labor pool to fill additional health care
positions at the prison.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Our Consultant Evaluated the Costs of Several Options for
Comparison to Corrections’ Current Condemned Inmate
Complex Proposal
In considering alternatives to constructing the CIC at the
San Quentin site Corrections has selected, our consultant
evaluated the costs of two alternative scenarios at San Quentin
and two alternative scenarios for each of the other three prisons
examined. Each alternative considered by our consultant included
estimating the cost of building a CIC that has the same number of
beds and cells as the currently proposed facility at San Quentin.
The alternatives considered at San Quentin included building a
CIC with standard, two-story 180-degree housing units on the
currently proposed site (as opposed to the stacked housing units
in Corrections’ current design), and building a stacked CIC at
a different site on the San Quentin property. As we discussed
in Chapter 1, a standard 180-degree housing unit is a two-story
building with 128 ground floor and mezzanine cells. In the stacked
design, the standard two-story housing units are stacked one on
top of the other, resulting in housing units four stories in height.
The stacked design results in a smaller footprint, and was selected
by Corrections as the optimal design for its currently proposed
San Quentin CIC due to site constraints and the desire to maintain
the existing staff housing adjacent to the site. Our consultant also
evaluated the costs of building both standard two-story housing
units and stacked housing units at Sacramento, Solano, and
Donovan for the purpose of comparing these costs to those for
Corrections’ proposed CIC at San Quentin.
The Currently Planned CIC at San Quentin is the Least Expensive
Option Due to Later Construction Start Dates at Other Locations
Because a significant amount of work has been conducted to
prepare for constructing a CIC at San Quentin, we found that
Corrections’ current proposal is the least expensive alternative
that we considered. Building a CIC at a different site would involve
various processes such as obtaining legislative approval, assessing
the environmental impacts, and designing a new facility. These
processes would result in later construction start dates. Because
of their later start dates, building a CIC at another site would
result in increased construction costs, increased costs to open the
facility, referred to as transition and activation costs, and increased
20‑year operating costs.

Because of the later start dates,
building a CIC at another site would
result in increased construction
costs, increased costs to open the
facility, referred to as transition
and activation costs, and increased
20‑year operating costs.

45

46

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Alternative CIC Designs and Locations Would Result in Later
Construction Start Dates
Redesigning Corrections’ currently proposed CIC or building the
CIC at an alternate location would result in a later construction
start date. For any significant changes to the design or location
of the CIC, Corrections would need to secure the Department of
Finance’s approval for a budget change, the Legislature would need
to approve a change in the current law as well as the funding, and
an environmental assessment would be needed for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act. The environmental
assessment would include producing detailed statements of the
project’s impacts, including, among other things, an assessment of
the biological resources and of the potential harm to endangered
species, as well as an evaluation of the historical, cultural, and
visual impacts of the project. The process includes public review
and comment, results in an EIR, and may result in changes to the
project design to mitigate the identified impacts. Redesigning
Corrections’ currently proposed CIC or building the CIC at another
location would also require additional time to design the facility,
which involves hiring engineers, architects, and other experts
to examine the unique physical characteristics of each site and
produce detailed drawings of the CIC. Additional time would also
be needed to prepare and review construction bid documents.
The processes required to bring an
alternative design and/or location
to an equal footing with the
currently proposed San Quentin CIC
would involve years of work.

The currently proposed plan for a CIC at San Quentin is in the
final stages of the process. Pending the additional funds that it
needs, Corrections is ready to prepare and review construction
bid documents, and assuming that the state budget is enacted
by August 1, 2008, construction could begin as early as
November 1, 2008. In contrast, the processes required to bring
an alternative design and/or location to an equal footing with the
currently proposed San Quentin CIC would involve years of work.
One of the two alternatives considered by our consultant for
San Quentin is to build a CIC with two-story housing units, rather
than four-story, stacked units at the currently proposed site. Due
to the time required for environmental review and other processes,
our consultant estimates that construction for this alternative
could begin August 1, 2010. This extended start date allows time
for legislative deliberation, for delays in the start of design until
an updated EIR is completed, and for updating the construction
documents to reflect design changes. Postponing the start date
would also allow time for addressing potential renewed community
concerns. The second San Quentin alternative is to construct a
CIC with stacked housing units at an alternate site at San Quentin.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

For this alternative, our consultant projects that additional time
would be required for environmental review and design work, and
he estimates that construction at this site could not begin until
August 2011.
The processes for planning a CIC at locations other than
San Quentin would require even more time. As shown in Table 9,
our consultant projects that this planning process would take a
total of 66 months. Thus, if the process began on August 1, 2008,
construction could not begin until February 1, 2014.
Table 9
Processes Extending Estimated Construction Start Dates to February 2014
Process Starting August 1, 2008

Estimated Time
Required (in Months)

Legislative approval

24

Environmental impact review

24

Design

15

Bid preparation and review
Total

3
66

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.

Legislative approval of a change in the law would be required to
move the condemned inmate population to another location, as
the California Penal Code currently requires that men sentenced
to death in California be sent to San Quentin to fulfill their
sentence.10 Additionally, if it elected to build a CIC at another
location, the Legislature would need to approve the funding.
Our consultant estimated that these two legislative actions could
take up to 24 months, which corresponds to one regular session
of the Legislature. Constructing a CIC at an alternate site would
also require an assessment of the environmental impacts, which
our consultant estimated to take 24 months from the time that
funding is approved. Our consultant projects that the design phase
would take 15 months. Finally, as noted in Chapter 1, completing
the necessary bidding and contracting process would take
approximately three months.

10	

There are two exceptions to this law. As many as 15 condemned inmates who commit certain
crimes while in prison may be transferred to Sacramento. Inmates whose medical or mental
health needs endanger the inmate or others may be temporarily housed at the California Medical
Facility or another appropriate facility.

47

48

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Later Construction Start Dates Associated With Alternative CIC Designs
and Locations Significantly Increase Costs
The later construction start dates for the two alternatives at
San Quentin significantly affect the costs. As shown in Table 10,
extending the start date to August 2010 for constructing a
two‑story CIC with 768 cells and 1,152 beds at the currently
proposed San Quentin site adds $123.5 million in costs, shown as
the subtotal under “Increases in Project Costs Due to Projected
Construction Start Dates.” Similarly, extending the start date
to August 2011 for the stacked configuration at the alternate
San Quentin site increases the estimated project cost by
$231.5 million.
The most significant cause of the
increase in the estimated costs
of building a CIC at Sacramento,
Donovan, or Solano is the
later construction start date of
February 2014.

The most significant cause of the increase in the estimated costs
of building and operating a 768-cell, 1,152-bed CIC at Sacramento,
Donovan, or Solano is the later construction start date of
February 2014. As discussed in Chapter 1, an escalation factor
is applied to construction estimates to account for the price of
construction materials and services at a future point in time. Even
though each of the alternative locations has the same projected
construction start date, because escalation is a function of capital
project costs, the estimated escalation costs differ. Escalating
the capital project costs alone adds between $182.5 million and
$226.7 million to the cost of each of the alternative projects. These
costs are calculated using an 8 percent escalation rate for 2008 and
6 percent for future years, compounded annually to the expected
midpoint of construction, which is estimated to be 12 months from
the date construction starts.
The later construction start dates would also increase the net
new staff costs for locations other than the currently proposed
San Quentin site. As discussed in Chapter 1, our consultant
assumed that there would be yearly increases in staff salaries and
benefits. Therefore, because delays in beginning construction of
a CIC using a different design or at a different location would
result in a later opening date for the facility, staff costs will be
higher when the CIC initially opens. Consequently, our consultant
determined that transition and activation and net new staffing costs
to operate the CIC over a 20-year period would be more using a
different design or building at one of the alternative locations than
they would be at Corrections’ currently proposed stacked CIC at
San Quentin. Because the cost of staff and the cost of training are
also expected to increase over time, both transition and activation
costs and 20-year operating costs will continue to increase if the
date that the CIC is projected to open is delayed.

$361,346,632
$361,346,632§

Currently
Proposed Site:
Two-Story Design
Alternate Site:
Stacked Design

Two-Story
Design
Stacked Design

California State Prison, Sacramento
Two-Story
Design
Stacked Design

R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility
Two-Story
Design

Stacked Design

California State Prison, Solano

32,268,468
$123,469,706

$34,755,674

125,664,105
$231,470,516

1,116,652

$104,689,759

237,528,773
$468,536,700

4,261,560

$226,746,367

237,528,773
$450,849,408

4,261,560

$209,059,075

237,528,773
$427,917,498

5,064,496

$185,324,229

237,528,773
$425,140,429

5,064,496

$182,547,160

237,528,773
$462,587,760

4,180,165

$220,878,822

237,528,773
$447,937,202

4,180,165

$206,228,264

7.1%
12.9%
22.4%
22.1%
21.6%
21.6%
22.3%
22.1%
$1,740,193,988 $1,800,455,445 $2,087,791,702 $2,039,145,766 $1,976,848,502 $1,969,210,639 $2,071,351,758 $2,031,057,857

967,248

553,765

2.2%
$1,601,539,135††

$90,233,990

$34,201,909

Sources:  Our consultant’s analysis of the costs related to each site, and information obtained from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections).
*	 In the stacked design, the two-story housing units are stacked one on top of the other, resulting in four stories.
†	 The project costs are estimated assuming construction of a 768-cell condemned inmate complex (CIC) would start on November 1, 2008, which provides a similar basis of comparison across all alternatives.
As discussed later in in this chapter, our consultant also estimated the cost of constructing an additional 256 cells at Sacramento, Donovan, and Solano.
‡	 According to Corrections, as of November 13, 2007, it had expended approximately $19 million for professional services related to the currently proposed CIC at San Quentin. Thus, these costs are included in
the stacked design, site-specific for the currently proposed site. Because these costs have already been incurred, they are included as sunk costs at each of the other alternative locations, as one of the costs
of building the CIC at these alternative locations would be to forego the benefit of the expenditures for professional services that have already been provided at the currently proposed site.
§	 Total capital project costs for the currently proposed CIC at San Quentin are $361,346,632 plus $34,201,909 in escalation costs, for a total of $395,548,541.
ll	 These amounts represent costs that are specifically related to a new CIC or net new operating costs, including the costs of paying salaries and benefits for new CIC staff and the costs of major repairs or
replacements.
#	 The increases in project costs are to account for the projected construction start dates anticipated for each alternative. At San Quentin construction of the two-story design at the currently proposed site
is projected to start August 1, 2010, while the stacked design at the alternate site is projected to start August 1, 2011. Construction is expected to be able to start February 1, 2014, for the other designs
and locations.
**	An escalation factor is applied to construction estimates to account for the price of construction materials and services at a future point in time. The projected start date for the currently proposed stacked CIC
at San Quentin is November 1, 2008, and the escalation cost associated with this start date is identified separately for the purpose of comparison to the other alternatives.
††	Total does not match the $1,601,539,134 reported in Chapter 1 due to rounding.

Escalation of capital costs**
Increases in transition and
activation costs
Increases in 20-year operating
costs
Subtotals
Increases in projected costs as
a percentage of total cost
Totals

$392,321,693
$344,582,340
$390,076,299
$359,117,655
$317,573,778
$312,712,984
$379,806,136
$354,162,793
18,965,760
18,965,760
18,965,760
18,965,760
18,965,760
18,965,760
18,965,760
18,965,760
Subtotals
$411,287,453
$363,548,100
$409,042,059
$378,083,415
$336,539,538
$331,678,744
$398,771,896
$373,128,553
Transition and activation costs
$6,786,332
$6,786,332
$6,786,332
$11,562,446
$11,562,446
$13,740,969
$13,740,969
$11,341,605
$11,341,605
20-year operating costsll
1,198,650,497
1,198,650,497
1,198,650,497
1,198,650,497
1,198,650,497
1,198,650,497
1,198,650,497
1,198,650,497
1,198,650,497
Subtotals
$1,566,783,461 $1,616,724,282 $1,568,984,929 $1,619,255,002 $1,588,296,358 $1,548,931,004 $1,544,070,210 $1,608,763,998 $1,583,120,655
Increases in Project Costs Due to Projected Construction Start Dates#

Project Costs†
Capital costs
Site-specific costs
Sunk costs‡

Component

Currently
Proposed Site:
Stacked Design*

San Quentin State Prison

Cost Comparison of the Currently Proposed Stacked Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin State Prison to Design and Location Alternatives

Table 10

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

49

July 2008

50

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

As discussed in Chapter 1, transition and activation costs are
certain types of nonconstruction costs associated with opening
any new prison and include the costs of recruiting, hiring, and
training of new staff and moving inmates from their current
location to the new facility. The adjustments to these costs for
the projected start dates are calculated starting with the base cost
shown in the top portion of Table 10, increased at 4 percent per
year, and compounded annually to represent Corrections’ staff
salary and benefit increases over time. In the case of transition
and activation costs, the end point of the annual cost adjustment
is February 2016, when each of the CICs at these sites would
be expected to open, and 20-year net new operating costs are
calculated as the sum of staff and major maintenance costs for
20 years from the date that the CIC is expected to open.
If the current law had been amended
in 2003 to permit condemned
inmate confinement at Donovan,
the cost of constructing a stacked
CIC at Donovan may have resulted
in cost savings of 13 percent, or
approximately $49 million.

The Donovan site best illustrates the effect of a later construction
start date on the ultimate cost of a new CIC. If the current law,
which for all intent and purpose prohibits the confinement of male
condemned inmates at locations other than San Quentin, had been
amended in 2003 to permit their confinement at Donovan, the cost
of constructing a stacked CIC at Donovan may have resulted in cost
savings of more than 13 percent, or approximately $49 million. As
Table 10 illustrates, the capital project costs of building a stacked
CIC at Donovan, excluding escalation costs, are nearly $49 million
less than those for the proposed facility at San Quentin. However,
due to the necessity of postponing the construction start date to
February 1, 2014, to allow time for the Legislature to change the
law and approve funding, for the EIR process to take place, and
for design and bidding to be completed, Donovan is estimated to
cost much more than the currently proposed CIC at San Quentin.
The escalation and other cost increases of $425 million due to the
difference in construction start dates makes Donovan much more
costly than the currently proposed San Quentin stacked design.
Various Other Factors Also Contribute to Cost Differences Among Sites
Although the delay in start dates for using a different design at the
current site or for building a CIC at an alternative location accounts
for most of the differences in the cost models developed by our
consultant, there are other factors that result in cost differences.
For example, as shown in Table 10, the capital project costs,
excluding the cost of escalation, vary significantly among the sites.
Capital project costs include site preparation work, construction,
equipment, and professional services. When comparing the capital
costs of the currently proposed CIC project to each alternative,
sunk costs must be considered. According to Corrections, as of
November 13, 2007, it had expended approximately $19 million
for professional services, including design, program management,

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

construction management, and other project-related costs. These
costs are part of the $361.3 million site-specific costs for the
currently proposed San Quentin stacked CIC shown in Table 10.
In order to account for these past expenditures, we included them
as sunk costs for each alternative location, as one of the costs of
building the CIC at these alternative locations would be to forego
the benefit of the expenditures for professional services that have
already been provided at the currently proposed site.
Except for Donovan, once the sunk costs are added to the capital
costs at each alternative site (shown as the subtotal for capital costs
in Table 10), the capital costs are greater for all alternatives when
compared to the currently proposed CIC at San Quentin. As
discussed later in this chapter, the variances in capital costs are
largely attributable to differences in the physical characteristics
at each site. Appendix C shows a detailed breakdown of
the differences in capital project costs and other costs for each
of the alternatives developed by our consultant.
According to our consultant, if the CIC is constructed at a location
other than San Quentin, transition and activation costs will increase
by between $4.6 million and $7 million, depending on the location,
primarily because Corrections would need to hire more staff at
these locations than it would at San Quentin. As discussed in
Chapter 1, Corrections has identified that it would need 505 staff
to operate the CIC. If the CIC were constructed at San Quentin,
the net new staff required would be 336, since San Quentin plans
to transfer 169 existing correctional officers to the new facility.
However, according to our consultant, other locations would
need to hire all 505 staff, which would increase training costs at
these locations by $4.5 million. Additionally, if the CIC is built
elsewhere, the condemned inmates would need to be relocated to
the new prison, which accounts for the remainder of the increases
in transition costs. As shown in the top portion of Table 10, both of
these factors would result in higher transition and activation costs
at the alternative locations, net of the increases in project costs
associated with later construction start dates.
Operating costs would also be higher at each of the alternate
sites than at San Quentin. However, these increases are directly
attributable to the later project start dates. Although Corrections
would need to hire only 336 new staff if the CIC is built at
San Quentin, as opposed to 505 new staff for an alternative location,
assuming that no existing San Quentin staff transfer to the new
site, the net differences in Corrections’ overall staffing costs over
time are likely to be zero, because Corrections would have staff at
San Quentin available for reassignment as a result of the transfer
of the condemned inmates to another location. Therefore, as
the noncondemned inmate population at San Quentin increases

Operating costs would be higher at
each of the alternate sites than at
San Quentin; however, the increases
are directly attributable to the later
project start dates.

51

52

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

over time, Corrections would not need to hire as many staff to
meet its needs. Ultimately, any additional staff hired beyond the
amount needed at San Quentin would likely be offset by future
declines in hiring at San Quentin. As a result, the 20-year net new
operating costs shown in the top portion of Table 10 are the same
for all alternative locations. If some or all of the staff transferred
from San Quentin to the new site, there would be additional costs
associated with the relocation of staff but a reduction in the number
of new staff needed; however, it is not known how many, if any,
staff would transfer. Therefore, we did not attempt to estimate
these costs.
There May Be Other Costs Associated With Building the CIC at a Site
Other Than San Quentin

The cost of transporting condemned
inmates to medical and other
services is not likely to be materially
different among the sites.

According to documents our consultant obtained from Corrections,
condemned inmates require and receive significant amounts of
health care services. These services are typically provided both at
San Quentin and at Bay Area hospitals and clinics. Additionally,
under certain circumstances, condemned inmates may receive
health care services at other Corrections’ institutions, such as
the California Medical Facility. Although condemned inmates
represent approximately 12 percent of all inmates at San Quentin,
they receive approximately 23 percent of all on-site specialty clinic
appointments. Moreover, during the first five months of 2008,
San Quentin’s transportation unit scheduled an average of 56 trips
by condemned inmates to area hospitals and clinics per month.
Providing on-site and off-site health care services to condemned
inmates is not achieved without a cost to the State. However,
given that the three alternate sites and San Quentin are similar
in terms of their proximity to urban areas, transportation hubs,
hospitals, airports, and other amenities, the cost of transporting
condemned inmates to medical and other services is not likely to be
materially different among the sites. Therefore, we did not evaluate
these costs.
We also do not expect there to be increased costs related to inmates
traveling to courts. Since condemned inmates do not typically travel
to courts, the cost of transporting them for legal services is
minimal. However, building the CIC at an alternate location
may impact legal counsel currently representing condemned
inmates, and could result in fewer attorneys accepting these cases
in the future. As discussed in the Introduction, several entities
(stakeholders) provide legal services to condemned inmates. Many
of these stakeholders visit inmates at San Quentin and work from
offices located in the Bay Area within a short distance of the prison.
To determine the impact that building the CIC at a site other than
San Quentin would have on these stakeholders, we interviewed

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

each of them for their feedback and opinion. The California
Supreme Court had no official position on the location of the CIC,
but pointed out that moving death row out of the Bay Area may
have an impact on the processing of death penalty matters, both
appeals and habeas corpus, and may adversely affect the court’s
ability to attract counsel for condemned inmates.
Representatives from the Public Defender, Habeas Corpus Center,
Appellate Project, and California Supreme Court all cited increased
travel time as a factor that could impact attorneys’ ability to
represent condemned inmates. All of these stakeholders are located
in San Francisco, with the exception of the Public Defender, which
also has an office in Sacramento, and according to the director of
the Appellate Project, 45 percent of the attorneys who represent
condemned inmates have their law practices in the Bay Area. As a
result, building the CIC at a location other than San Quentin would
mean increased travel time, and attorneys might reduce the number
of condemned inmate cases they accept in the future. According to
a 2007 review by the University of Southern California, condemned
inmates in California remain on death row for an average of
17.2 years, mostly due to a lack of qualified attorneys to take their
cases.11 If fewer attorneys were to accept their cases, this wait time
could increase.
The director of the Appellate Project stated that the habeas corpus
litigation would be most affected by relocating death row, because
the work is inmate-intensive, and involves interviewing inmates,
their families and others, and bringing psychiatric and other experts
to the prison to examine the inmates. He stated that locating
condemned inmates in a remote facility is likely to make the wait
for counsel longer by creating further scheduling and economic
disincentives for attorney’s to accept habeas corpus work. In
addition, according to the director of the Habeas Corpus Center
moving death row would increase the cost of bringing in experts,
such as psychiatrists, to see inmates during their habeas corpus
litigation. He stated that a network of qualified experts has grown
up in the Bay Area, and if a CIC were built at another location, the
experts would incur greater travel costs, which would be passed on
to the Habeas Corpus Center.
Although the chief assistant public defender stated that his office
might consider opening a satellite office in Los Angeles if the
CIC were built in Southern California, he would not relocate all
operations to Southern California, because he would lose most, if
not all, of his experienced staff, and recruiting qualified attorneys

11	

Arthur L. Alarcón, “Remedies for California’s Death Row Deadlock.” Southern California Law
Review vol. 80, no. 4 (May 2007): 697–752.

53

54

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

The director of the Habeas Corpus
Center stated that although it
may be possible to fully staff a Los
Angeles office over a long period of
time, it would not happen quickly.

could pose a challenge. He also stated that it is more difficult to
recruit attorneys to the Sacramento office, despite the fact that the
attorneys in both the San Francisco and Sacramento offices are
paid the same salary. The director of the Habeas Corpus Center
stated that his office has consistently decided against opening a
Los Angeles office, because of the time it would take to bring new
attorneys to the experience level required to represent inmates on
habeas corpus petitions. He stated that although it may be possible
to fully staff a Los Angeles office over a long period of time, it would
not happen quickly. He also stated that creating additional offices
would require substantial expenditures for the additional operating
and administrative costs that are currently avoided by maintaining a
single office.
To provide some context as to the fiscal impact moving the CIC
could have on the State for compensating attorneys who represent
condemned inmates, we asked the stakeholders how frequently
they visit their condemned clients. According to the director of
the Appellate Project, attorneys visit condemned inmate clients an
average of four to six times per year and are reimbursed at a rate of
$145 per hour. According to the chief public defender, attorneys visit
their clients an average of six times per year. We did not perform
a detailed analysis of the costs that the State may incur if the CIC
were built away from San Quentin for two reasons: We are not able
to determine how many attorneys would relocate to offices near a
CIC constructed at an alternate location, and calculating the cost
in the short term would require too many assumptions to create an
accurate estimate.
Although the Currently Proposed CIC at San Quentin Is the Least
Expensive Option, Potential Revenues From the Sale of That
Site Could Partially Offset the Cost of Constructing the CIC at
Another  Prison
As we discussed previously, the current proposal for a stacked
CIC is the least expensive of the three possibilities our consultant
considered for building a CIC at San Quentin. The other two
options are to build a two-story facility at the proposed site or
to build a stacked facility at an alternate site at San Quentin.
Table 11 shows the results of our consultant’s calculations for
these three alternatives. However, although Table 10 indicates that
building and operating a stacked CIC at an alternate prison site
would cost more than at the proposed site, the State could offset a
portion of the increased cost by selling the land that Corrections
currently plans to use for the CIC. Our consultant estimates that
this land could be sold for between $45.3 million and $117.9 million.
These revenues could also partially offset the cost of building the
CIC at another location, such as Sacramento, Donovan, or Solano.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Table 11
Estimated Costs of Building and Operating the Condemned Inmate Complex
at San Quentin State Prison Under Three Different Scenarios
Component

Capital project costs

Stacked Design
at Current Site

Stacked Design at
Alternative Site

Two-Story Design
at Current Site

$344,582,340

$392,321,693

18,965,760

18,965,760

$361,346,632

$363,548,100

$411,287,453

$6,786,332

$6,786,332

$6,786,332

$361,346,632

Sunk costs*
Subtotals
Transition/activation costs†
Net new 20-year operating costs‡
Subtotals
Increases in project costs due to
projected construction start dates
Totals

1,198,650,497

1,198,650,497

1,198,650,497

$1,566,783,461

$1,568,984,929

$1,616,724,282

$34,755,674

$231,470,516

$123,469,706

$1,601,539,135

$1,800,455,445

$1,740,193,988

Sources:  Our consultant’s analysis of the costs related to each site, and information obtained from
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections).
*	 According to Corrections, as of November 13, 2007, it had expended approximately $19 million
for professional fees related to the currently proposed condemned inmate complex (CIC) at
San Quentin State Prison. These costs are included in the capital project costs for this project.
Because these costs have already been incurred, they are included as sunk costs at each of the
other alternate sites.
†	 Transition/activation costs are certain types of nonconstruction costs associated with opening
any new prison and include recruiting, hiring, and training of new staff and moving condemned
inmates from their current location to the new facility.
‡	 These amounts represent costs that are specifically related to a new CIC, or net new operating
costs, including the costs of paying salaries and benefits for new CIC staff and the costs of major
repairs or replacements.

San Quentin comprises 432 acres on the banks of the San Francisco
Bay. A large portion of the property is already developed and
occupied by components that serve to support the existing prison
facility. Therefore, other than the currently proposed site for the
CIC, the available land on the San Quentin property is limited.
Nevertheless, our consultant identified a potential alternative site
at San Quentin where the new CIC could be built. To fit the CIC
into this site, however, our consultant had to develop a compressed
configuration for the CIC. This configuration reduces the footprint
of the facility from about 30 acres to about 20 acres. Figure 3 on the
following page shows both the layout of the currently proposed CIC
and the layout at the alternative site.

55

56

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Figure 3
Current and Alternate Sites for the Stacked Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin State Prison

Currently proposed site for a stacked 768-cell
condemned inmate complex
Alternate site
Optional 256-cell housing unit
0

1,000 feet

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. Photograph: http://maps.yahoo.com.

Although our consultant believes that the CIC could be built on
the alternate site, several factors make it less desirable than the
currently proposed site, as shown in the text box on the following
page. Additionally, because of the sloping terrain of the alternate
site, a considerable amount of earthwork would be required to
develop a level site for the CIC. Due to the nature of the soil, our
consultant anticipates that a high percentage of the excavation will
be rock. Our consultant also believes that road improvements to
the alternate site would be required for access by staff and
emergency and service vehicles. Building the CIC at the alternate
site would also require grading and excavation work to
accommodate approximately 4 acres of parking for visitors
and staff.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Our consultant did not develop a cost model for
a two-story CIC at the alternate site because the
creation of two separate housing compounds
cannot be achieved, yard space is limited, the
space may not provide enough room for perimeter
roads, and not enough land is available for
support buildings.

Disadvantages of Building the Condemned
Inmate Complex at the Alternative Location
•	 Extensive regrading would be required to accommodate
access, buildings, and parking. The regrading will also
impact existing staff housing.
•	 The existing hill provides a visual barrier blocking
views from the adjacent developed areas to the
San Quentin site.

In addition to evaluating the possibility of building
the CIC at an alternate site at San Quentin and
estimating the costs associated with such an
•	 Development in this area will be highly visible from both
the surrounding developed area and the water.
alternative, our consultant also assessed the
possibility of constructing a two-story CIC at
•	 It is probable that a full environmental impact report
the site where Corrections intends to build the
would be required and that the amount of disturbance,
stacked CIC. Unlike the CIC currently proposed by
coupled with the view issue will extend the development
Corrections, which would consist of three stacked
time and may, in fact, defeat development of this site.
housing units, a two-story CIC with the same
Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.
number of beds would require six housing units.
As shown in Figure 4 on the following page, our
consultant believes that space exists at the currently
proposed location to build a two-story facility, but not without
additional cost.
As shown earlier in Table 11, the cost to construct a two-story
CIC at the currently proposed site far exceeds the cost to build a
stacked facility at the same site. According to our consultant, the
cost differences are due primarily to the additional site preparation
and redesign work that would need to be done, and the need to
update the EIR, and adjust the costs for the projected date when
construction could begin. Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 1,
the two-story model would require the removal of 57 of the 86 staff
residences as well as a schoolhouse building that, according to a
September 2004 EIR, could be listed as historic. Our consultant
also determined that there are areas on the site’s added footprint
that have elevated levels of hazardous substances. Furthermore,
asbestos, lead-based paint, and other hazardous materials are
likely to be present in the buildings on the site. Thus, the two-story
design would require not only the demolition or relocation of these
buildings but also the removal of contaminated soils.
Proceeds From the Sale of the Land Corrections Plans to Use for the
CIC Could Partially Offset the Increased Cost of Building a CIC at
Another Prison
One economic benefit of building the CIC at a prison other than
San Quentin would be the ability to use the 40 acres currently
proposed for the CIC for other purposes. Taking the proximity of

57

58

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Figure 4
Possible Locations for Two-Story Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin State Prison

Proposed site with a two-story, 768-cell
condemned inmate complex
Alternate site (inadequate parking)
Optional 128-cell housing unit
0

1,000 feet

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. Photograph: http://maps.yahoo.com.

the prison into account, according to a land appraisal performed
by our consultant, the current 40-acre site for the proposed CIC
has an estimated market value of $45.3 million. However, if this site
was offered for sale for other potential uses, such as for a residential
community, and was prepared specifically for those purposes, our
consultant estimates that the market value would be as much as
$55.6 million.
Our consultant also valued the site for potential redevelopment
with alternative uses. Under this scenario, our consultant expanded
the amount of land that would be sold to 57.1 acres, which
includes the prison staff housing to the north of the proposed CIC

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

site. The alternative redevelopment scenarios considered are based
on the report titled Preliminary Analysis of Potential Reuse and
Relocation of San Quentin Prison, prepared by the Department
of General Services in 2001. Although this report focused on the
potential uses of the entire San Quentin property, our consultant
determined that the 40- to 57.1-acre parcel, if permitted for
proposed redevelopment for both residential and commercial
uses, would have an estimated value of between $83.7 million and
$117.9 million. The amounts for the various sales scenarios are
shown in Table 12. Appendix D contains details on the appraisal of
the parcel.
Table 12
Value of Condemned Inmate Complex Site as of May 1, 2008
Condition

Revenue Generated

40-Acre Condemned Inmate Complex (CIC) Site
Market value

As-is

$45,300,000

Market value

As if no negative factors*

55,600,000
83,700,000

Transit center

As if entitled‡
As if entitled‡

New town

As if entitled‡

117,900,000

57.1-Acre CIC Site (if Developed)†
Residential community

91,600,000

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.
*	 This assumes that the land is in sellable condition and negative factors have been mitigated. This
is a hypothetical land value, as the land currently has some negative factors.
†	 These values are hypothetical, as the land is not entitled for such purposes at this time.
Additionally, the 57.1-acre CIC site is the western portion of the much larger San Quentin
redevelopment plan.
‡	 As if entitled gives the value of a piece of land or a property if it were zoned or permitted for a use
other than the one for which it is currently approved/authorized.

As previously discussed, the cost estimates prepared by our
consultant show that it would cost substantially more to build a CIC
at a prison other than San Quentin. However, the added cost could
be partially offset by the proceeds from selling this parcel of land.
For example, as shown earlier in Table 10, the total cost of a stacked
CIC at Donovan exceeds the cost at San Quentin by approximately
$368 million. On the other hand, as shown in Table 12, depending
on how the land was to be developed, the increase in costs could be
partially offset by selling the land at San Quentin.

59

60

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Although Donovan Is the Least Costly of the Alternatives
Considered, the Most Suitable Site Has Recently Been Chosen for a
Health Care Facility
As shown earlier in Table 10, of the three alternative locations
considered by our consultant, Donovan is the least expensive site
on which to build and operate a CIC. However, competing demands
and certain physical characteristics of the available land could
hinder Corrections’ ability to build a CIC at Donovan. Specifically,
although our consultant identified two parcels of land at Donovan,
one of which he believes is more suitable, that could accommodate
the CIC, the Receiver has recently selected Donovan as a location
for one of its planned health care facilities. On June 16, 2008, the
Receiver stated that it intends to use the more suitable parcel of
land for the health care facility at Donovan.
If the more desirable parcel of land was available for the CIC, our
consultant estimates that it would cost approximately $1.97 billion,
or $368 million more, to build and operate a stacked facility similar
to that proposed at the San Quentin site. This is approximately
$61.8 million and $69.9 million less than a stacked facility would
cost at Solano and Sacramento, respectively. Table 13 shows the
estimated cost of constructing and operating a stacked and a
two‑story CIC on the more desirable parcel of land at Donovan
over a 20‑year period. Our consultant did not attempt to estimate
the cost to build and operate a CIC at the alternative location
at Donovan because he questioned whether the land could
accommodate a two-story facility and stated that it was also
doubtful that the land could be developed for a stacked CIC.
As previously discussed, the primary reason that the cost to
construct and operate a CIC at Donovan is higher than at the
currently proposed site at San Quentin is that construction cannot
begin at any other location until there is a change in state law,
which, with few exceptions, currently requires condemned inmates
to be housed at San Quentin. Additionally, Corrections would have
to prepare an EIR and design documents for Donovan before any
construction could begin.
Donovan opened in 1987 and covers 780 acres. It is located
approximately 20 miles southeast of downtown San Diego and
two miles north of the U.S./Mexican border. The primary mission
of Donovan is to provide housing and supervision for level I, III,
and IV inmates. As of March 2008 Donovan housed 4,610 inmates,
more than double its designed bed space capacity of 2,208.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Table 13
Estimated Cost of Building and Operating the Condemned Inmate Complex
at R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility
Component

Capital project costs

Stacked Design

Two-Story Design

$312,712,984

$317,573,778

Sunk costs*

18,965,760

18,965,760

Subtotals

$331,678,744

$336,539,538

$13,740,969

$13,740,969

Transition/activation costs†
Net new 20-year operating costs‡
Subtotals
Increases in project costs due to
projected construction start dates
Totals

1,198,650,497

1,198,650,497

$1,544,070,210

$1,548,931,004

$425,140,429

$427,917,498

$1,969,210,639

$1,976,848,502

Sources:  Our consultant’s analysis of the costs related to each site, and information obtained from
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections).
*	 According to Corrections, as of November 13, 2007, it had expended approximately $19 million
for professional fees related to the currently proposed condemned inmate complex (CIC) at
San Quentin State Prison. These costs are included in the capital project costs for this project.
Because these costs have already been incurred, they are included as sunk costs at each of the other
alternate sites.
†	 Transition/activation costs are certain types of nonconstruction costs associated with opening
any new prison and include recruiting, hiring, and training of new staff and moving condemned
inmates from their current location to the new facility.
‡	 These amounts represent costs that are specifically related to a new CIC, or net new operating
costs, including the costs of paying salaries and benefits for new CIC staff and the costs of major
repairs or replacements.

The more desirable location for a CIC at Donovan, known as
the “east parcel,” encompasses a large, relatively flat, and easily
developable area that could accommodate eight two-story
180‑degree buildings covering approximately 50 acres or, as
shown in Figure 5 on the following page, four 180-degree stacked
buildings on approximately 30 acres.12 Our consultant also noted
that development on the east parcel would have little impact on
existing on-site facilities and would provide separation from all
surrounding development.
Although it would cost more to build and operate a CIC at Donovan
because construction could not begin for several years, our consultant
estimates that capital costs, excluding the sunk costs—money already
spent on the proposed San Quentin CIC— and net of increases in
project costs due to a projected later start, would be $48.6 million less
than the same costs at San Quentin, given the same start date.
12	

Corrections’ current plan is to build only three stacked housing units for a total of 768 cells at
San Quentin, and the cost estimates shown in tables 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 show the estimated costs
for the same number of cells for the alternatives to Corrections’ current proposal. We also asked
our consultant to evaluate each site for its suitability for four stacked or eight two-story housing
units. As discussed in Chapter 1, our consultant recommends that Corrections build an additional
stacked housing unit in order to avoid double-celling condemned inmates.

61

62

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Figure 5
Possible Locations for a Stacked Condemned Inmate Complex at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility

Northwest parcel

East parcel

Stacked 768-cell condemned
inmate complex
Optional 256-cell housing unit
0

1,000 feet

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. Photograph: http://maps.yahoo.com.

According to our consultant, the lower costs result from a
significant reduction in site work and construction costs. For
instance, our consultant estimated that site work costs would be
$25.7 million less at Donovan than at San Quentin. He attributes
this reduction primarily to lower site work and grading costs and a
lower cost to upgrade off-site utilities.
Because of the competing demands for the east parcel, our
consultant identified a second parcel, termed the “northwest parcel,”
as a possible location for the CIC. However, our consultant noted
that the northwest parcel would require extensive modifications of
the basic 180-degree configuration because of limited space and the
triangular layout of the site. The site is bordered on one side by a
steep drop-off and on the other side by the property line. Extensive

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

grading would also be required to fill the existing ravine on the site.
In fact, our consultant questions whether the stacked design could
be effectively adapted to the site, given the additional space needed
for access roads, parking, and support facilities. Our consultant
also concluded that the northwest parcel could not accommodate a
two-story CIC because of the limited space and the configuration of
the site.
The Solano Site Is a Viable Location for the New CIC
In terms of physical characteristics, Solano appears to be another
possible site for a new CIC. However, as with the other locations
reviewed by our consultant, the cost to build the CIC at Solano
would be higher than his estimate for San Quentin. Specifically, our
consultant estimates that it would cost approximately $2 billion,
or more than $429 million more, to build and operate a stacked
facility at Solano. Table 14 shows the estimated cost of constructing
and operating a stacked and a two-story CIC at Solano over a
20‑year period.
Table 14
Estimated Cost of Building and Operating the Condemned Inmate Complex
at California State Prison, Solano
Component

Capital project costs

Stacked Design

$354,162,793

Two-Story Design

$379,806,136

Sunk costs*

18,965,760

18,965,760

Subtotals

$373,128,553

$398,771,896

Transition/activation costs†
Net new 20-year operating costs‡
Subtotals
Increases in project costs due to
projected construction start dates
Totals

$11,341,605

$11,341,605

1,198,650,497

1,198,650,497

$1,583,120,655

$1,608,763,998

$447,937,202

$462,587,760

$2,031,057,857

$2,071,351,758

Sources:  Our consultant’s analysis of the costs related to each site, and information obtained from
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections).
*	 According to Corrections, as of November 13, 2007, it had expended approximately $19 million
for professional fees related to the currently proposed condemned inmate complex (CIC) at
San Quentin State Prison. These costs are included in the capital project costs for this project.
Because these costs have already been incurred, they are included as sunk costs at each of the
other alternative sites.
†	 Transition/activation costs are certain types of nonconstruction costs associated with opening
any new prison and include recruiting, hiring, and training of new staff and moving condemned
inmates from their current location to the new facility.
‡	 These amounts represent costs that are specifically related to a new CIC, or net new operating
costs, including the costs of paying salaries and benefits for new CIC staff and the costs of major
repairs or replacements.

63

64

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

As with Donovan, the higher cost is largely due to factors that
would delay construction at this location for several years—the
need to complete an EIR, create design documents, and seek a
change in state law—thereby increasing the costs associated with
the project.
Solano is located in Vacaville and occupies 146 acres. When the
prison opened in 1984, it was administered by the warden of
the California Medical Facility. However, in 1992, the two prisons
were separated administratively and a warden was assigned to each
prison. Solano is designed as a medium-security institution to
provide housing for general-population inmates. As of March 2008
Solano housed 5,604 inmates, more than double its designed bed
space capacity of 2,610.
Our consultant identified an area to the west of the two existing
prisons as a potential site for the new CIC and analyzed the
site relative to its ability to accommodate either the stacked
or the two‑story 180-degree design. Figure 6 illustrates the
possible location and configuration of four stacked 180-degree
housing units.13
According to our consultant, the site can easily accommodate the
same stacked configuration originally designed for the San Quentin
site. He noted that adequate space is available for parking and
any necessary support buildings. Additionally, our consultant
determined that the site would accommodate the overall 30-acre
footprint without requiring any special grading requirements.
Further, the CIC would be buffered from existing residential
development by the two existing prisons. However, our consultant
notes that the Receiver is interested in a different parcel of land at
Solano for a health care facility. Developing both a CIC and a health
care facility would overtax existing utility systems, resulting in
additional development costs.
Our consultant also determined that the same site provides
sufficient space for the construction of eight two-story housing
units. Specifically, although additional grading may be required,
the site can accommodate the approximately 50-acre footprint
of the two-story prototype. As with the stacked configuration, the
site is buffered from the existing residential development. Further,
compared to the stacked design, the two-story design would be less
visible from adjacent roads and development. However, the same

13	

Although Corrections’ current plan is to build only three stacked housing units at San Quentin,
we asked our consultant to evaluate each site for its suitability for four stacked or eight two-story
housing units. As discussed in Chapter 1, our consultant recommends Corrections build an
additional stacked housing unit in order to avoid double-celling condemned inmates.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Figure 6
Possible Location for a Stacked Condemned Inmate Complex at California State Prison, Solano

Stacked 768-cell condemned
Condemned
Inmate complex
inmate
Complex
Optional 256-cell housing unit
0

1,000 feet

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. Photograph: http://maps.yahoo.com.

concerns exist regarding the Receiver’s plans and the possible effect on
the utility system. Figure 7 on the following page illustrates the location
and configuration of eight two-story 180-degree housing units.
Our consultant estimates that capital costs for a stacked facility at
Solano, excluding the sunk costs and net of increases in project costs
due to a later projected start date, would have been $7.2 million less
than these costs at San Quentin, given the same start date. Although,
as shown in Appendix C, Table C, the estimated cost for site work at
Solano is more than at San Quentin because of improvements to the
city of Vacaville’s sanitary sewer system and mitigation/removal of
a landfill on the site, our consultant attributes the overall reduction
in capital costs to a $14 million reduction in construction costs,
primarily due to the elimination of replacement construction required
at the San Quentin site and a reduction in market factors.

65

66

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Figure 7
Possible Location for a Two-Story Condemned Inmate Complex at California State Prison, Solano

Two-story 768-cell condemned
Condemned
Inmate complex
inmate
Complex
Optional 128-cell housing unit
0

1,000 feet

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. Photograph: http://maps.yahoo.com.

Building a CIC at the California State Prison, Sacramento, Is Another
Possible Alternative to San Quentin
Based on our consultant’s analysis, Sacramento’s site characteristics
appear suitable for building a CIC. Our consultant identified two
possible sites at Sacramento that could accommodate the new
CIC. However, the Receiver has identified Sacramento as a possible
location for the construction of a long-term health care facility.
This may limit the sites available to Corrections at Sacramento.
As shown in Figure 8, the preferred site is a 50-acre parcel of land
north of the California State Prison, Folsom (Old Folsom). Our
consultant favors this site because, among other things, the other
site is currently occupied by staff housing.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Figure 8
Possible Sites for a New Condemned Inmate Complex at California State Prison, Sacramento

Preferred site
Alternate site
0

1,000 feet

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. Photograph: http://maps.yahoo.com.

Although our consultant believes Sacramento has a workable site
for the CIC, it would cost more to build and operate a CIC there
than at the currently proposed CIC at San Quentin because, as
with the other alternative prison locations, construction cannot
begin until an EIR and design documents are completed, and
none of this work can begin until the state law requiring that male
condemned inmates be incarcerated at San Quentin is changed. The
resulting cost adjustments for the projected construction start of
February 2014 would significantly increase the cost of the project.
Our consultant estimates that it would cost more than $2 billion,
or $437.6 million more than at San Quentin, to build and operate
a stacked facility at the Sacramento site. Table 15 on the following
page shows the estimated cost for constructing and operating a
stacked and a two-story CIC at Sacramento over a 20-year period.

67

68

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Table 15
Estimated Cost of Building and Operating the Condemned Inmate Complex
at California State Prison, Sacramento
Stacked Design

Capital project costs

Two-Story Design

$359,117,655

$390,076,299

Sunk costs*

18,965,760

18,965,760

Subtotals

$378,083,415

$409,042,059

$11,562,,446

$11,562,446

Transition/activation costs†
Net new 20-year operating costs‡
Subtotals
Increases in project costs due to
projected construction start dates
Totals

1,198,650,497

1,198,650,497

$1,588,296,358

$1,619,255,002

$450,849,408

$468,536,700

$2,039,145,766

$2,087,791,702

Sources:  Our consultant’s analysis of the costs related to each site, and information obtained from
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections).
*	 According to Corrections, as of November 13, 2007, it had expended approximately $19 million
for professional fees related to the currently proposed condemned inmate complex (CIC) at
San Quentin State Prison. These costs are included in the capital project costs for this project.
Because these costs have already been incurred, they are included as sunk costs at each of the
other alternative sites.
†	 Transition/activation costs are certain types of nonconstruction costs associated with opening
any new prison and include recruiting, hiring, and training of new staff and moving condemned
inmates from their current location to the new facility.
‡	 These amounts represent costs that are specifically related to a new CIC, or net new operating
costs, including the costs of paying salaries and benefits for new CIC staff and the costs of major
repairs or replacements.

Sacramento is located adjacent to Old Folsom, and when it first
opened in 1986, it was called New Folsom. Originally, Sacramento
was administered by the Old Folsom warden. However, in
October 1992 its name was changed to California State Prison,
Sacramento, and it was administered as a separate prison with
its own warden. The facility, which covers 1,200 acres, houses
level IV inmates serving long sentences as well as those that
have proven to be management problems at other institutions.
The institution also serves as the medical hub for prisons in
Northern California, providing a variety of medical services. It
currently has an outpatient housing unit and correctional treatment
center. As of March 2008 Sacramento housed 3,222 inmates, or
59 percent more than its designed bed space capacity of 2,031.
Our consultant focused his analysis on the preferred site for
the stacked design based on the following advantages over the
alternate site:
•	 Separation from surrounding development.
•	 Good buffers, including the river gorge, a new highway and dam,
and steep terrain to the east.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

•	 Opportunity to develop separate access and parking from the new
bypass to the north, thereby lessening the impact on existing facilities.
•	 Limited impact on existing on-site facilities.
Additionally, as illustrated in Figure 9, the available space at the
preferred site can easily accommodate four housing units built using
the stacked design. Sufficient space is also available for any necessary
support buildings.14
Figure 9
Preferred Location for a Stacked Condemned Inmate Complex at California State Prison, Sacramento

Stacked 768-cell condemned
Condemned
Inmate complex
inmate
Complex
Optional 256-cell housing unit
0

1,000 feet

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. Photograph: http://maps.yahoo.com.

14	

Although Corrections’ current plan is to build only three stacked housing units at San Quentin,
we asked our consultant to evaluate each site for its suitability for four stacked or eight two-story
housing units. As discussed in Chapter 1, our consultant recommends Corrections build an additional
stacked housing unit in order to avoid double-celling condemned inmates.

69

70

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Our consultant noted the same advantages for building a two-story
CIC at the preferred site rather than the alternate site and, as with
the stacked design, concluded that the existing space is sufficient
to build eight two-story housing units and any necessary support
buildings. Figure 10 shows the two-story configuration at the
preferred site.
Figure 10
Preferred Location for a Two-Story Condemned Inmate Complex at California State Prison, Sacramento

Two-story 768-cell condemned
Condemned
Inmate complex
inmate
Complex
Optional 128-cell housing units
0

1,000 feet

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. Photograph: http://maps.yahoo.com.

Our consultant estimates that capital costs for a stacked facility at
Sacramento, excluding the sunk costs and net of increases in project
costs due to a later projected start, would have been $2.2 million
less than the same costs at San Quentin if both projects were to
start at the same time.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Building One or More Additional Housing Units to Increase Capacity
at the Alternate Sites Would Further Increase Costs
As discussed in Chapter 1, our consultant estimates that it would
cost approximately $64.1 million to build a fourth stacked housing
unit at the currently proposed site at San Quentin if the unit was
built at the same time as the proposed CIC. Our consultant also
noted that the additional cost would increase to $92.6 million
if Corrections waited five years to build the fourth unit, due
primarily to the delay in construction. Based on our consultant’s
estimate of an increase in the condemned inmate population of
18 inmates per year, adding an additional 256 cells to the CIC
would allow Corrections to single-cell the condemned inmates
until 2028. At that time, if Corrections began double-celling its
grade A condemned inmates, the CIC would reach its capacity
during 2030.
Our consultant estimated that the cost of constructing an additional
256 cells at the other locations is $47.5 million for one stacked
housing unit and $46 million for two two-story units, assuming
a construction start date of November 1, 2008. However, when
adjusted for a more realistic start date of February 1, 2014, the costs
for constructing the additional 256 cells at the other locations are
estimated to be $66.3 million for the stacked configuration and
$64.2 million for the two-story configuration.
Community and Political Resistance May Exist to Building the CIC
Outside of San Quentin
Another potential impact of building the CIC outside of
San Quentin is the potential for community and political resistance.
In accordance with state law, each prison must establish a citizens’
advisory committee (advisory committee) from the surrounding
community to address any concerns about the prison. To
determine the community impact of building a CIC at any of the
three proposed alternate sites, we contacted each of the chairs of
the advisory committees for Solano, Sacramento, and Donovan.
The chairs from both Solano and Sacramento responded. The
chair of the Solano advisory committee stated that an increase
in the number of inmates at Solano would result in exceeding
infrastucture capabilites for water and sewer. He also stated that
anti‑death‑penalty demonstrations would disrupt traffic and
would require law enforcement resources that would exceed the
availability of local resources. The chair of the Sacramento advisory
committee cited concerns with public safety and an increased
workload for the city’s police department.

The chairs of the Sacramento
and Solano citizens’ advisory
committees expressed concerns
over building the CIC in
their communities.

71

72

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

We also received comments from the mayor of the city of Folsom
and a member of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, the
county in which the prison is located. Both expressed concerns with
building a CIC in their community. The mayor expressed concerns
about adverse impacts to neighborhood safety and increased
demands on police and fire personnel. In addition, the Folsom City
Council passed a resolution in 2005 opposing moving death row
to Sacramento. Further, the representative from the Sacramento
County Board of Supervisors stated that access to the prison is
limited to a two-lane road immediately adjacent to residential
subdivisions, and the impacts on those residents by media and
protestors would be extremely adverse.
Although the State Could Avoid Paying Operating Costs by
Postponing Construction of a New CIC, Other Factors Need to
Be Considered
Although the State would avoid paying approximately $93.2 million
in operating costs, or an average of $18.6 million a year, if it delayed
construction of a CIC at San Quentin for five years, there are
unquantifiable costs associated with such a delay. As discussed in
Chapter 1, there will be significant ongoing costs to operate the
new CIC at San Quentin. In fact, as shown in Table 16, Corrections
will incur almost $214 million in additional (net new) staffing costs
during the first five full years of operating the new CIC.
Table 16
Net Cost Avoidance Realized by Delaying Construction of the Condemned
Inmate Complex for Five Years
Fiscal Year

Staffing Costs Avoided

Estimated Cost of Delay

Net Avoidance

2008–09

$0

($4,842,045)

($4,842,045)

2009–10

0

(21,680,798)

(21,680,798)

2010–11

0

(22,985,301)

(22,985,301)

2011–12

39,497,192

(23,081,993)

16,415,199

2012–13

41,077,080

(23,087,568)

17,989,512

2013–14

42,720,163

(23,088,777)

19,631,386

2014–15

44,428,970

(1,947,137)

42,481,833

2015–16

46,206,129

(26,084)

46,180,045

2016–17

0

(27,127)

(27,127)

$213,929,534

($120,766,830)

Totals

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.

$93,162,704

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

According to our consultant, these costs are for the new staff that
San Quentin expects to hire if the new CIC is built. Therefore, if
the decision were made to postpone building the CIC, San Quentin
would not incur these costs. However, as discussed previously,
because of the inherent escalation in construction costs, the CIC
will cost substantially more to build in the future. For example,
postponing construction of the CIC at the currently proposed site
at San Quentin for five years would result in construction beginning
in November 2013, as previously discussed. Assuming it takes
24 months from the date construction begins to complete the CIC,
it would not open until November 2015. As shown in Table 16,
this delay would add approximately $120.8 million to the cost of
the CIC. Yet at the same time, San Quentin would avoid having to
spend nearly $214 million in new staffing costs if Corrections waited
five years to build the CIC, for a net avoidance of $93.2 million. This
estimate is computed based on regular pay for the additional staff to
be hired, and therefore assumes a sufficient number of correctional
officers to minimize overtime.
However, when considering whether to delay construction of the
CIC, other factors need to be taken into account. Specifically,
according to our consultant’s projections of the condemned
inmate population, in 2010 the number of condemned inmates
will exceed the capacity of the facilities currently used to house
them. Consequently, Corrections will need to find additional space
for condemned inmates at that time. Expanding to other housing
units at San Quentin would likely result in the displacement of
noncondemned inmates, which, given the overcrowding that
currently exists in Corrections’ prison system, may prove difficult.
Additionally, in its fiscal year 2003–04 budget change proposal
(BCP) requesting funding for a new CIC, Corrections stated
that because of the crowded facilities, inadequate physical plant
security, and lack of service space at San Quentin, the condemned
population represents a severe threat to the safety and security of
other inmates, staff, and the citizens of California. Corrections went
on to note that the condemned inmates are a violent and predatory
population and represent an extreme escape threat because the
facilities where they are currently housed are not designed or
equipped for a population that, without question, is made up of
the inmates most motivated to escape using force. Corrections also
acknowledged that the existing condemned inmate facilities make
it extremely difficult to manage the inmates from a custody and
security perspective, requiring more staff than maximum‑security
facilities built using newer designs. Finally, Corrections noted
that the growing population of condemned inmates has reached
a crisis point and currently exceeds San Quentin’s ability to
safely house them in accordance with correctional standards and
court mandates.

73

74

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Both Corrections and our consultant believe that the current
buildings do not meet many of Corrections’ current standards for
maximum-security facilities, and our consultant also concluded
that there is an increased risk of escape and a heightened risk of
harm to both staff and inmates. For example, moving condemned
inmates on a daily basis up and down the five-tier East Block,
with its narrow passageways and poor sight lines, compromises
the safety of both inmates and staff. Therefore, while postponing
construction of the new CIC for five years would result in a cost
avoidance of $93.2 million, this dollar amount has to be weighed
against the potential costs and risks associated with continuing
to house the condemned inmates in what our consultant and
Corrections consider to be outdated and inadequate facilities,
which were never designed to confine condemned inmates.
We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Section 8543
et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted government auditing
standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit scope section of the report.
Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor
Date:	

July 29, 2008

Staff:	

Steven A. Cummins, CPA, Audit Principal
David J. Edwards, MPPA
Brooke Ling Blanchard
Vern Hines, MBA

Consultant: Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.
For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact
Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at (916) 445-0255.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Appendix A
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Explanation for Changes in
Condemned Inmate Complex Costs
Table A shows the material changes in costs for various
components of the proposed condemned inmate complex (CIC) at
San Quentin State Prison. Specifically, the table shows the material
differences between the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) original $220 million budget and
the current $356 million proposal. We defined as material any
change—increase or decrease—that totaled $5 million or more.
As a result, these numbers do not correspond with the numbers
in Table 3 of the report, which identifies all changes. We asked
Corrections’ officials to identify the reasons for each of these
changes. Their explanations are provided in Table A.
Table A
Corrections’ Reasons for Material Changes in Cost Estimates to Construct a New
Condemned Inmate Complex
Component and Item Description

Difference in Cost

Agency Response

Site Demolition and Grading
Site grading and soil
stabilization

$14,123,855

The original cost model assumed that average soil conditions existed on the site, requiring
general site grading with soils under building pads overexcavated/recompacted to a
depth of about 3 feet below finish grade. Following completion of a detailed geotechnical
investigation, it was determined that unclassified soils and bay muds existed under
most of the site. Because of the depth of these poor soils below existing grade, the
geotechnical consultant recommended that the most economical method to deal with these
unstable soils is to remove them and replace them with material excavated from Dairy Hill,
a 30‑ to 40‑foot-high sandstone rock hill located on about one-third of the proposed site.
Under some building pads, excavations to depths of 15 to 20 feet are planned, with extensive
dewatering measures in place to prevent migration of sea water into the excavation.
Additional site costs that will be incurred but were not in the original budget include removal
of Dairy Hill. Material from Dairy Hill will be removed, crushed, and reused as general site
fill or in excavations where poor soils existed. Excess Dairy Hill material will be hauled into
an abandoned rock quarry located on the San Quentin site. To prevent settlement in the
recreation yards and under roadways because of poor soil conditions, soil piers spaced at
approximately 8 to 10 feet on center will be installed in selected areas to prevent settlement
of sidewalks and roads throughout the site. In the middle of the asphalt paved recreation
yards, the soils will undergo deep dynamic compaction to prevent settling.

Utility demolition

(6,451,527)

The estimated cost to demolish existing above- and below-ground utilities was less
than budgeted.

Building demolition

(6,482,757)

The estimated cost to demolish the existing buildings and other site improvements was less
than budgeted.

Hazardous material cleanup

(8,986,158)

When the original budget was prepared, it was assumed that there would be a substantial
amount of hazardous material cleanup due to the existence of an abandoned wastewater
treatment plant, very old buildings that would need to be demolished, and a recycling center
and several old maintenance buildings. After a thorough hazardous materials investigation,
it was found that very little hazardous material existed.

continued on next page

75

76

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Component and Item Description

Difference in Cost

Agency Response

$8,352,378

The electrical system consists of tapping into an existing electrical supply to the prison and
extending a 12-kilovolt distribution system to area transformers that service one or more
buildings. The original budget was not sufficient to cover the distance from the power
supply to the condemned inmate complex (CIC) and assumed that emergency power would
be supplied from the existing generation system and that a new generator would not be
required. Based on the final building loads and capacity of the existing generation system,
Corrections determined that a new standalone electrical generator would be required.

5,126,494

The original budget was based on a standard amount of asphalt paving that would be
required for a typical level IV (maximum-security) prison. The biggest increase in this
category was for paving of the 4 recreational yards that encompass approximately
75 percent of the 14.5 acres of asphalt paving that will be installed on this project. The entire
recreation yards will be paved based on the yard layout, activities that occur in the yards,
weather, and cleanliness. Because of the poor soil conditions, the geotechnical engineer
recommended from 12 to 16.5 inches of aggregate base topped by up to 3.5 inches of
asphalt should be placed on all areas to be paved.

48,541,333

The original cost model assumed that Corrections would utilize its standard 180-degree
housing unit, which is a two-story building with a total of 128 ground-floor and mezzanine
cells. The standard 180-degree housing unit is approximately 52,000 square feet and
constructed of precast interior and exterior walls, slab on grade floor with conventional
spread footing foundation. Due to site constraints specific to the San Quentin site,
Corrections decided to utilize the 180-degree housing design but to stack one housing unit
on top of another. Although stacked, each housing unit is designed to operate completely
independently for security reasons. This security requirement resulted in the need for
elevators, dumbwaiters, and additional access and egress stairways that were not in the
original 180-degree housing design or in the budget. Because of the size, configuration, and
weight of this structure, the structural engineer of record reported that this housing could
not be of precast construction but would have to be poured in place, resulting in a significant
increase in the cost of the structure.

Site Utilities
Electrical supply
and distribution

Roads, paving, and parking

Housing and Guard Towers
180-degree stacked
housing units

In addition, the soil conditions at San Quentin required that 3 of the 4 housing units be
constructed on a pile foundation instead of a conventional spread footing. The structure
needed to be completely redesigned because of the stacked configuration, method of
construction, weight, soil conditions, and seismic requirements that added substantial
cost to the building beyond what was originally budgeted. In addition, the entire building,
including individual housing pods and subpods, was heated/ventilated using one large
air‑handling unit requiring multiple dampers and associated controls for temperature control
and smoke/gas evacuation.
Because of community concerns identified during the environmental impact phase, the
exterior of the housing units were redesigned to give the structure a more aesthetically
pleasing appearance from both Sir Frances Drake Blvd. and the Commuter Ferry. Outside the
traditional concrete exterior wall, an entirely new facade was designed consisting of fretted
glazing, stucco, and metal siding. This new exterior was not included in the original budget.
Secure Support Buildings
Yard walls, catwalks, and small
management yards

9,647,290

Security and operational requirements and procedures for a CIC are based on how
Corrections and the correctional staff at San Quentin plan to operate the facility. This
category increased in cost due to the extensive number of yard gun posts around the
recreation yards, elevated catwalk/gun runs for emergency response, and the total number
of small management yards. No small management yards (which are high‑security wire
mesh enclosures with plumbing fixtures) were included in the original budget. Because of
Corrections’ new classification system for the condemned inmates (grades A through E), it
was determined that up to 70 small management yards would be required to provide the
mandated daily exercise time for the inmates.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Component and Item Description

Difference in Cost

Agency Response

$5,576,255

The original budget for the program facility support services (PFSS) buildings (one in each
yard) was based on constructing a total of 32,492 square feet. In the final architectural
program and building design, the size of the building increased by approximately
5,200 square feet. The added space included inmate records in one of the PFSS buildings and
enlarged health service satellites in both PFSS buildings.

Correctional treatment center

13,117,890

The original cost model budgeted a correctional treatment center (CTC) with 33,373 square
feet at a cost of approximately $12,675,055. Based on requirements from the San Quentin
medical staff and revised operational requirements, it was determined that many of
the medical functions (pharmacy, dialysis, etc.) that were provided at other on‑site
facilities would be relocated to the new CTC. This new requirement added approximately
8,400 square feet to the size of the structure, which increased the cost of the building.

Central health services

(5,065,860)

When the original cost model and budget were developed, it was unknown what medical
facilities would be required. Following programming, it was determined that a 24-bed CTC
would be constructed. The central health services building that was included in the cost
model was not required.

Warehouse

7,888,090

A warehouse was not included in the original cost model, based on initial planning
information received from the San Quentin staff. It was later determined that the existing
warehouse space was at capacity and that a new warehouse would be required to store
goods and materials to support the new CIC.

Inmate programs building

(7,841,450)

Based on the type and classification of condemned inmates, it was determined by
Corrections during the programming phase that an inmate programs building was
not required.

Program facility
support services

Correctional Treatment Center

Nonsecure Support Buildings

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ review of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) original and revised cost estimates
and information provided by Corrections explaining the reasons for the cost increases/decreases.

77

78

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Appendix B
Detailed Methodology for Determining
Alternate Sites
As discussed in the Scope and Methodology and in Chapter 2, we
used a two-pronged approach to narrow down our list of proposed
alternate sites. We began by identifying all prisons in the State
with level IV 180-degree housing units, because the California
Penal Code requires the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (Corrections) to evaluate these prisons for suitability
before relocating the identified condemned inmate complex (CIC).
We also developed a list of all prisons within two hours’ drive time
of the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) or Los Angeles to address
the concerns of stakeholders involved with condemned inmates.
Once we had identified these two groups of prisons, we evaluated
them separately, using the following criteria:
Level IV 180-degree facilities were evaluated through surveys of the
individual prisons and a conversation with the California Prison
Healthcare Receivership’s (Receiver) correctional experts, based on
the following criteria:
•	 Availability of land for construction of a new CIC.
•	 Proximity to a major urban area (including airports, freeways,
and public transportation).
•	 Proximity to hospitals and mental health facilities.
•	 Proximity to state and federal courts.15
•	 Accessibility for inmates with disabilities.
•	 Presence of outdoor exercise units.
•	 Ability of the Receiver’s office to recruit and retain clinicians.
Through this analysis, we determined that one facility met enough
of the above criteria to merit further consideration: California State
Prison, Sacramento.

15	

No reported California State or federal court decision has held that inmates’ constitutional right
of access to the courts is violated as result of an inmate’s geographic proximity to a courthouse.
However, we determined the proximity of sites to courts per the audit request.

79

80

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Facilities that are within two hours of the Bay Area or Los Angeles
were evaluated through surveys of individual prisons and a
conversation with the Receiver’s correctional experts based on the
following criteria:
•	 Availability of land for construction of a new CIC (most
of these locations are not maximum-security prisons, and
therefore existing facilities would not be appropriate for housing
condemned inmates).
•	 Proximity to hospitals and mental health facilities.
•	 Proximity to state and federal courts.
•	 Ability of the Receiver’s office to recruit and retain clinicians.
We did not review these sites for accessibility for disabled inmates
or the existence of outdoor exercise units because these would
be included in a newly built self-contained CIC (based on the
current design proposed by Corrections). Through this analysis,
we determined that four facilities met enough of these criteria
to merit further consideration: Deuel Vocational Institution
(Deuel) in Tracy; California Institution for Men (Institution for
Men) in Chino; R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego;
and California State Prison, Solano. After discussions with
our consultant, we agreed that both Deuel and Institution for
Men would not be appropriate locations because they do not
permanently house level IV inmates, and the transition to housing
condemned inmates could pose a challenge. Prisons that currently
house some level IV inmates would require less training for existing
staff, and therefore staff training costs and other costs would be
reduced. These prisons would also require less transition time.
Table B shows the process of elimination that yielded our
four proposed alternate sites.

Y
N

California State Prison, Sacramento*

High Desert State Prison

Kern Valley State Prison

Y

Salinas Valley State Prison

N

N

N

N

N

Y

N

Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y

California Institution for Men

California State Prison, Los Angeles
County 

California State Prison, Solano, and
Correctional Medical Facility*

Deuel Vocational Institution

R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility*

Mule Creek State Prison

San Quentin State Prison*

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Access to
Mental
Health
Care

Coleman

Sites Chosen for Their Proximity to the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles

N

California Substance Abuse Treatment
Facility and State Prison 

Y

Y

California State Prison, Corcoran

Pelican Bay State Prison

Y
N

California Correctional Institution

N

Ability to
recruit
and retain
adequate
clinical staff

Land
Available for
Construction
of COndemned
Inmate Complex

Level IV 180-Degree Facilities (Per California Penal Code § 3600)

Receiver/
Plata

Department of
Corrections and
Rehabilitation

†
†

†
†

Y

†

†

Y

†

†

†

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Outdoor
Exercise
Facilities
Available

Keenan

†

†

†

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Access to
Americans WIth
Disabilities
ACt Facilities/
Cells

Armstrong

Table B
Matrix Used to Determine Suitable Alternative Locations for the Condemned Inmate Complex

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Accessible
via Public
Transportation

Prison Law
Office

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
(state only)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Near State
or Federal
Courthouse

Audit
Request

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Y

N

N

Near
Major
Urban
Area

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Accessible by
Commercial
Airport

continued on next page

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Accessible
by Major
Freeway

Prison Law Office, State
Public Defender, California
Appellate Project

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

81

Ability to
recruit
and retain
adequate
clinical staff

Land
Available for
Construction
of COndemned
Inmate Complex
Access to
Mental
Health
Care

Coleman
Access to
Americans WIth
Disabilities
ACt Facilities/
Cells

Armstrong
Outdoor
Exercise
Facilities
Available

Keenan

Accessible
via Public
Transportation

Prison Law
Office

Near State
or Federal
Courthouse

Audit
Request

N
N
N
N
Y

North Kern State Prison

Pleasant Valley State Prison

Sierra Conservation Center

Valley State Prison for Women

Wasco State Prison

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Accessible by
Commercial
Airport

Sources:  Documents obtained from and discussions with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Prison Healthcare Receivership’s custody experts, community
representatives, and other stakeholders.
NA=Not Applicable.
*	 Prisons selected to evaluate the costs associated with building a condemned inmate complex.
†	 Undetermined.

Y

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison

Y

Y

Central California Women’s Facility 

Ironwood State Prison

Y

Centinela State Prison

High Desert State Prison

Y

Calipatria State Prison

Y

Y

California Rehabilitation Center

N

N

California Men’s Colony

Folsom State Prison

N

California Institution for Women

Correctional Training Facility

Y
N

California Correctional Center

Y

Avenal State Prison

Accessible
by Major
Freeway

Prison Law Office, State
Public Defender, California
Appellate Project
Near
Major
Urban
Area

Sites Not Considered for Relocation of Condemned Inmates Due to Lack of Health Care Staff in Surrounding Communities for Recruiting Purposes

Receiver/
Plata

Department of
Corrections and
Rehabilitation

82
California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Appendix C
Detailed Comparison of the Costs to Build a
Condemned Inmate Complex at Alternate Sites
Table C on page 86 provides a side-by-side comparison of the costs
associated with building a stacked condemned inmate complex
(CIC) at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations’
(Corrections) currently proposed site at San Quentin State
Prison (San Quentin) to eight alternatives. Specifically, using
Corrections’ currently proposed stacked CIC at San Quentin as a
basis for comparison, the table shows the differences in component
costs associated with building a two-story CIC at the currently
proposed San Quentin site; building a stacked CIC at an alternate
site on the San Quentin property; and building a two-story and
stacked CIC at California State Prison, Sacramento; R. J. Donovan
Correctional Facility (Donovan); and California State Prison, Solano.
The capital costs, transition and activation costs, and 20‑year
operating costs noted in the top portion of the table assume
that construction at all sites could begin November 1, 2008,
and that construction could be complete by November 1, 2010.
This provides a similar basis of comparison, as it places all of the
alternatives on an equal cost footing. Because the alternatives would
not all start at the same time, however, we provide cost adjustments
for the projected start dates in the lower portion of the table.
The costs associated with the currently proposed stacked CIC
at San Quentin reflect the total costs for each component, while
the costs associated with the alternatives are displayed as the
differences in costs when compared to the current proposal. For
example, our consultant estimates that the site work associated
with building a stacked CIC at the currently proposed San Quentin
site would be $63.1 million. In contrast, our consultant estimates
that the site work associated with building a two-story CIC at the
currently proposed site at San Quentin would cost $16.7 million
more than the stacked design. Similarly, the site work associated
with building a stacked CIC at an alternate site at San Quentin is
estimated to cost $6 million less than Corrections’ current proposal.
The total variance is included in the four subtotal lines and at the
bottom of Table C to allow for cross-comparison of the alternatives
to the current proposal. The total variance is the amount by which
the cost of each project is projected to exceed the cost of the
current proposal. For example, the stacked CIC design at Donovan
is estimated to cost $367.7 million more than the current proposal
at San Quentin.

83

84

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

As shown in the table, capital costs include site work, construction,
equipment, professional fees, and sunk costs, which are costs
previously incurred on the proposed San Quentin CIC project. The
costs for site work include such activities as demolishing existing
structures as necessary, grading the site, and stabilizing soils.
Construction costs include the cost of building structures, such as
the condemned inmate housing units, and equipment costs are for
various items necessary for the CIC such as kitchen and laundry
equipment. Professional fees include payments for services such as
architectural design and project management.
When comparing the total cost of the currently proposed CIC
project to each alternative, sunk costs must be considered.
According to Corrections, as of November 13, 2007, it had spent
approximately $19 million for professional services including
design, program management, construction management, and
other project-related costs. These costs are part of the $40.5 million
shown for professional fees for the currently proposed San Quentin
stacked CIC. In order to account for these past expenditures,
we included them as sunk costs for each alternative location, as
one of the costs of building a CIC would be the $19 million that
Corrections has already paid for professional fees for the proposed
San Quentin CIC. As shown in the table, the only alternative that
would receive any benefit from the $19 million that Corrections has
already spent is the one for a stacked CIC located at an alternate
site at San Quentin. Because the stacked CIC has already been
designed and working drawings exist, professional fees associated
with building the stacked CIC at the alternate site at San Quentin
are estimated to be $10.8 million less than the current proposal.
However, the $19 million that has already been spent must be
added to the cost of building a stacked CIC at the alternative
site at San Quentin in the form of sunk costs. Thus, the net costs
of the professional fees at the alternative site are approximately
$8.2 million more than in the current proposal once the sunk costs
are added to professional fees.
As shown in Table C, the most significant increase in the
estimated costs of CICs at locations other than San Quentin is
due to extending the construction start dates to February 2014.
As discussed in Chapter 1, an escalation factor is applied to
construction estimates to account for the price of construction
materials and services at a future point in time. The projected start
date for the currently proposed stacked CIC at San Quentin is
November 2008, and the capital project cost escalation associated
with this start date is identified separately for the purpose of
comparison to the other alternatives. Because escalation is a
function of capital project costs, the estimated escalation costs
differ across the alternatives. These costs are calculated using an
8 percent escalation rate for 2008 and 6 percent for future years,

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

compounded annually to the start date of construction and the
expected midpoint of construction, which for each alternative is
estimated to be 12 months from the date that construction starts.
Transition and activation costs are certain types of nonconstruction
costs associated with opening any new prison and include the
recruiting, hiring, and training of new staff and moving condemned
inmates from their current location to the new facility. According
to our consultant, if the CIC is constructed at a location other
than San Quentin, transition and activation costs are estimated to
increase by $4.5 million because Corrections would need to hire
and train more staff at these locations than it would at San Quentin.
As noted in Table C, the cost of moving the condemned inmates
is also projected to be higher if the CIC is built at a location other
than San Quentin. Further, extending the project start date is
expected to increase the transition and activation costs to adjust for
increases in staff pay and benefits in the future.
Finally, if construction of a CIC started at the same time at all
alternative locations and sites, the 20-year operating costs would
be equal for all locations. However, as discussed in Chapter 2,
extending the project start date is expected to increase the
operating costs, due to increases in staff pay and benefits in
the future. These increases are noted in Table C as project cost
increases due to projected start dates.

85

-

-

($5,996,739)
(10,767,553)
18,965,760
$2,201,468

Alternate Site:
Stacked Design

R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility

$174,857,166
3,707,795
237,528,773
$416,093,734
$437,606,631
$2,039,145,766

3,707,795
237,528,773
$433,781,026
$486,252,567
$2,087,791,702

-

$4,465,514
310,600
$4,776,114

$15,389,726
(15,317,888)
(246,712)
(2,054,103)
18,965,760
$16,736,783

Stacked Design

$192,544,458

-

$4,465,514
310,600
$4,776,114

$48,105,542
(20,957,146)
344,898
1,236,373
18,965,760
$47,695,427

Two-Story Design

237,528,773
$393,161,824
$375,309,367
$1,976,848,502

4,510,731

$151,122,320

-

$4,465,514
2,489,123
$6,954,637

($15,246,121)
(20,957,647)
(1,049,569)
(6,519,517)
18,965,760
($24,807,094)

Two-Story Design

237,528,773
$390,384,755
$367,671,504
$1,969,210,639

4,510,731

$148,345,251

-

$4,465,514
2,489,123
$6,954,637

($25,688,965)
(14,781,957)
(1,140,036)
(7,022,690)
18,965,760
($29,667,888)

Stacked Design

Variance From Currently Proposed Site: Stacked Design

California State Prison, Sacramento

237,528,773
$427,832,086
$469,812,623
$2,071,351,758

3,626,400

$186,676,913

-

$4,465,514
89,759
$4,555,273

$37,951,073
(19,776,669)
147,368
137,732
18,965,760
$37,425,264

Two-Story Design

237,528,773
$413,181,528
$429,518,722
$2,031,057,857

3,626,400

$172,026,355

-

$4,465,514
89,759
$4,555,273

$9,775,028
(14,032,147)
(342,096)
(2,584,624)
18,965,760
$11,781,921

Stacked Design

California State Prison, Solano

Source:  Our consultant’s analysis of the costs related to each site, and information obtained from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections).
*	 In the stacked design, the two-story housing units are stacked one on top of the other, resulting in four stories.
†	 The project costs are estimated assuming that construction of a 768-cell condemned inmate complex (CIC) would start on November 1, 2008, which provides a similar basis of comparison across all alternatives.
‡	 According to Corrections, as of November 13, 2007, it had expended approximately $19 million for professional services related to the currently proposed CIC at San Quentin State Prison (San Quentin). Thus, these
costs are included in the site-specific costs for the current proposal. Because these costs have already been incurred, they are included as sunk costs at each of the other alternative locations, as one of the costs of
building the CIC at these alternative locations would be to forego the benefit of the expenditures for professional services that have already been provided at the currently proposed site.
§	 Total capital project costs for the currently proposed CIC at San Quentin are $361,346,632 plus $34,201,909 in escalation costs, for a total of $395,548,541.
ll	 These amounts represent costs that are specifically related to a new CIC or net new operating costs, including the costs of paying salaries and benefits for new CIC staff and the costs of major repairs or replacements.
#	 The increases in project costs are to account for the projected construction start dates anticipated for each alternative. At San Quentin construction of the two-story design at the currently proposed site is projected
to start August 1, 2010, while the stacked design at the alternate site is projected to start August 1, 2011. Construction is expected to be able to start February 1, 2014, for the other designs and locations.
**	An escalation factor is applied to construction estimates to account for the price of construction materials and services at a future point in time. The projected start date for the currently proposed stacked CIC at
San Quentin is November 1, 2008, and the escalation cost associated with this start date is identified separately for the purpose of comparison to the other alternatives.
††	Total does not match the $1,601,539,134 reported in Chapter 1 due to rounding.

Increases in Project Costs Due to Projected Construction Start Dates#
Escalation of capital costs**
$34,201,909
$56,032,081
$70,487,850
Increases in transition and
activation costs
553,765
413,483
562,887
Increases in net new 20-year
operating costs
32,268,468
125,664,105
Subtotals
$34,755,674
$88,714,032
$196,714,842
Total Variances
$138,654,853
$198,916,310
Total Project Costs
$1,601,539,135†† $1,740,193,988 $1,800,455,445

-

20-Year Operating Costsll
Staff
$1,176,150,497
Major repairs and replacements
22,500,000
Subtotals
$1,198,650,497

$16,732,952
9,169,822
5,072,287
18,965,760
$49,940,821

-

$63,120,203
250,577,174
7,157,577
40,491,678
$361,346,632§

Currently
Proposed Site:
Two-Story Design

$5,970,887
815,445
$6,786,332

Transition and Activation Costs
Staff costs for training and
condemned inmate complex
(CIC) activation
Moving inmates
Subtotals

Project Costs†
Capital Costs
Site work
Construction
Equipment
Professional fees
Sunk costs‡
Subtotals

Cost Component

Currently
Proposed Site:
Stacked Design*

Current Proposal

San Quentin State Prison

Table C
Detailed Comparison of Differences in the Estimated Costs of Alternatives to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Current Proposal

86
California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Appendix D
Valuation of the Proposed Condemned Inmate
Complex Site
One economic benefit of building the condemned inmate complex
(CIC) at a site other than San Quentin State Prison (San Quentin)
is that the currently proposed 40 acres of CIC land would then
be available for other purposes. According to a valuation our
consultant had prepared, the current 40-acre site for the proposed
CIC has an estimated market value of $45.3 million. If this site
were offered for sale for other future potential uses and the
land were prepared for that purpose, the estimated market value
would rise to $55.6 million. However, the $45.3 million figure
represents the value of the CIC land as it currently is.
Our consultant also obtained a valuation of the site that included
the potential for certain redevelopment, assuming that the land
were entitled—zoned or permitted for some purpose other than
its current use—for such redevelopment. The site valued for this
purpose is larger, at 57.1 acres, and includes the San Quentin staff
residential homes to the north of the CIC site. The alternative
redevelopment scenarios considered are based on the Preliminary
Analysis of Potential Reuse and Relocation of San Quentin Prison,
prepared by the Department of General Services in 2001. If the
land were entitled for both residential and commercial uses,
the estimated bulk value would be between $83.7 million and
$117.9 million. The full amounts are indicated in Table D.
Table D
Value of Condemned Inmate Complex Site as of May 1, 2008
Condition

Revenue Generated

40-Acre Condemned Inmate Complex (CIC) Site
Market value

As-is

$45,300,000

Market value

As if no negative factors*

55,600,000
83,700,000

Transit center

As if entitled‡
As if entitled‡

New town

As if entitled‡

117,900,000

57.1-Acre CIC Site (if Developed)†
Residential community

91,600,000

Source:  Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.
*	 This assumes that the land is in sellable condition and negative factors have been mitigated. This
is a hypothetical land value, as the land currently has some negative factors.
†	 These values are hypothetical, as the land is not entitled for such purposes at this time.
Additionally, the 57.1-acre condemned inmate complex site is the western portion of the much
larger San Quentin State Prison redevelopment plan.
‡	 As if entitled gives the value of a piece of land or property if it were zoned or permitted for a use
other than the one for which it is currently approved/authorized.

87

88

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

A high-level summary of the property appraisal provided to our
consultant appears in the following pages, including photographs of
the site.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON –
WESTERN LAND
40.0 Acres of Underlying SQSP Land Proposed for
Development of the Condemned Inmate Complex
Project, and for Redevelopment of 57.1 Acres via
Alternative Land Use Scenarios –
Located South of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard,
In the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Larkspur,
Unincorporated Marin County, California.
CBRE File No. 08-231SF-0452

Restricted Appraisal
Report

Prepared for:
Mr. George M. Camp
Co-President
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE, INC.
213 Court Street, 6th Floor
Middletown, Connecticut 06457

VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES

89

90

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES

350 Sansome Street, Suite 840
San Francisco, California 94104
T 415-986-7255
F 415-986-6862
www.cbre.com

May 15, 2008
Mr. George M. Camp
Co-President
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE, INC.
213 Court Street, 6th Floor
Middletown, Connecticut 06457
RE:

Appraisal of San Quentin State Prison – Western Land
40.0 Acres of Underlying SQSP Land Proposed for Development
Of the Condemned Inmate Complex Project, and for
Redevelopment of 57.1 Acres via Alternative Land Use Scenarios –
Located South of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard,
In the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Larkspur,
Unincorporated Marin County, California.
CBRE File No. 08-231SF-0452

Dear Mr. Camp:
At your request and authorization, CB Richard Ellis (CBRE) has prepared an appraisal of the market
value of the referenced property. Our analysis is presented in the following Restricted Appraisal
Report.
This appraisal report has been developed for the Criminal Justice Institute’s project with the California
Bureau of State Audits (BSA) regarding the “Assessment of Costs and Evaluation of the Benefits of
Locating Condemned Inmate Housing at Different Sites” (BSA-C-040-2008).
PROPERTY TO BE APPRAISED
The property to be appraised is the approximately 40.0-acre project site located on the southwestern
portion of the existing San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) property, as identified by the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) entitled “San Quentin State Prison Condemned Inmate Complex
Project”, by environmental consultant EDAW, Inc. dated, September 27, 2004. The 40.0-Acre site is
proposed for development of the Condemned Inmate Complex (C.I.C.) project. The project site also
currently has a minimum security inmate complex (known as “The Ranch”) and related facilities on
site. The historical school building would be reutilized, and the 57 single-family homes would remain
to the north of the C.I.C. site.

2

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

In addition, we have appraised the subject via alternative redevelopment scenarios which are based
on information provided in the Preliminary Analysis of Potential Reuse and Relocation of San Quentin
Prison, by the Department of General Services, State of California, dated June 1, 2001. The 57.1
Acres included in Alternate Valuation Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are the subject portion of the much larger
prospective SQSP redevelopment plan, which encompasses approximately 273 Acres out of the entire
430 Acres of San Quentin property. Alternate 1 – Residential Community contains primarily low
residential uses as planned. Alternate 2 – Transit Center and Alternate 3 – New Town include
applicable residential, commercial and shoreline zoned land for the subject portions of this plan, but
the actual employment center, transit center, parking garage, and other commercial uses are located
to the east of the subject site. The alternate land use scenarios are appraised “as if entitled” for
proposed uses. Since the land is not currently entitled for these alternate uses, these values are
considered to be hypothetical.
VALUATION SCENARIOS
We have identified five major valuation scenarios for the subject property:
1. Current value of the approximately 40.0 gross acres of the SQSP (C.I.C.) project site “as is”.
2. Current value of the project site “as if no negative factors” affected the site.
3. Current value of the project site “as if no negative factors” affected the site, and entitlements
(by the appropriate governmental authorities) for the site were in place for the three alternate
redevelopment scenarios proposed, summarized as follows:
Alternate 1 - Residential Community: For the subject portion, development with low-density
residential.
Alternate 2 - Transit Village: For the subject portion, development with low-medium and
moderate density residential.
Alternate 3 - New Town: For the subject portion, development with moderate density
residential and mixed-use high density residential with ancillary commercial/retail and public
uses. .
Value of the SQSP (C.I.C.) Project Site – “As Is”
The Basic Assumptions for the valuation scenario for the C.I.C. project site “as is” are as follows:
•
•
•
•

The C.I.C. site “as is” is for a land value, as if vacant, i.e. current improvements on site would be
demolished.
The 57 homes on the site must be retained under the “as is” scenario since they are currently
utilized by employees of SQSP. The area underlying the homes will be excluded from the site
valuation – resulting in an area appraised of approximately 40.0 acres.
Current value with all physical features, environmental impacts, etc. as currently affect the site;
the SQSP operations continue on the bulk of the site to the east.
The project site is considered net and clear of any environmental contamination or remediation
required for redevelopment.

3

91

92

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

•
•

The school, which has a historical designation, must be retained on the site, but it is assumed
that it would be re-utilized for public/museum/office types of uses, and could potentially be
relocated.
It is assumed that the land could be sold to other users, i.e. private and public, but the current
development rights remain the same “as is”.

Value of C.I.C. Project Site – “As If No Negative Factors”
The Basic Assumptions for the valuation scenario for the C.I.C. project site “as if no negative factors”
are as follows:
•

•
•
•
•

•
•

This is a current value, but as if there were no negative factors, such as environmental impacts,
etc. as currently affect the site, i.e. both on-site and off-site (this includes removal of the shooting
range). However, this valuation scenario assumes that the SQSP operations continue on the bulk
of the site to the east. The physical features of the C.I.C. site remain “as is”; the entire site may
be redeveloped.
This is a hypothetical value, as this condition does not currently exist.
The school, which has a historical designation, must be retained on the site, but it is assumed
that it would be re-utilized for public/museum/office types of uses, and could potentially be
relocated.
The 57 homes and “The Ranch” on the site are not required to be retained as they are part of an
alternative redevelopment site.
The current western entry to the SQSP grounds would be relocated off this site, as this is a
negative factor. However, the southern portion of the project site, adjacent to the shoreline,
would have roadway easements allowing truck and other commercial traffic to the western side of
the SQSP facility.
It is assumed that the land could be sold to other users, i.e. private and public.
The site contains the current potential development rights, with the potential of acquiring
additional building rights for a medium density (i.e. “transit village”) type of development.

Value of Project Site – “As If No Negative Factors – And Entitled”
The Basic Assumptions for the valuation scenario “as if no negative factors – and entitled” for
alternate land uses (i.e. for redevelopment) are as follows:
•

•
•
•
•

This is a current value, but as if there were no negative factors, such as environmental impacts,
etc. as currently affect the site, i.e. both on-site and off-site (this includes removal of the shooting
range). However, this valuation scenario assumes that the SQSP operations continue on the bulk
of the site to the east. The physical features of the site remain “as is”; the entire site may be
redeveloped.
This is a hypothetical value, as this condition does not currently exist.
The land area for the project site, as if entitled with the alternate land uses, is estimated to be
approximately 57.1 acres.
The school, which has a historical designation, must be retained on the site, but it is assumed
that it would be re-utilized for public/museum/office types of uses, and could potentially be
relocated.
The 57 homes and “The Ranch” on the site are not required to be retained as they are part of an
alternative redevelopment site.

4

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

•
•

•
•

The project site is considered net and clear of any environmental contamination or remediation
required for redevelopment.
The current western entry to the SQSP grounds would be relocated off this site, as this is a
negative factor. However, the southern portion of the project site, adjacent to the shoreline,
would have roadway easements allowing truck and other commercial traffic to the western side of
the SQSP facility.
It is assumed that the land could be sold to other users, i.e. private and public.
The site is assumed to currently have entitlements in place by the appropriate governmental
authorities, for the three alternate redevelopment scenarios proposed, summarized as follows:
Alternate 1 - Residential Community: For the subject portion, development with low-density
residential.
Alternate 2 - Transit Village: For the subject portion, development with low-medium and
moderate density residential.
Alternate 3 - New Town: For the subject portion, development with moderate density
residential and mixed-use high density residential with ancillary commercial/retail and public
uses.

APPRAISAL INFORMATION
This appraisal sets forth the most pertinent data gathered, the techniques employed, and the
reasoning leading to the opinion of value. The analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed
based on, and this report has been prepared in conformance with, our interpretation of the guidelines
and recommendations set forth in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP),
and the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
Property Rights Appraised
The interest appraised represents the fee simple estate.
Purpose of the Appraisal
The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject underlying land and
provide consulting services, as necessary, subsequent to the appraisal.
Intended Use & User of Report
This appraisal has been developed for the Criminal Justice Institute’s project with the California
Bureau of State Audits (BSA) regarding the “Assessment of Costs and Evaluation of the Benefits of
Locating Condemned Inmate Housing at Different Sites”.

5

93

94

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

INTRODUCTION
Property Name
Project Type

San Quentin State Prison Facility - Western Land
Western SQSP Land Proposed for Development of the
Condemned Inmate Complex Project, and for
Redevelopment via Alternative Land Use Scenarios

Location

Western Portion of SQSP, South of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, in
the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Larkspur, in
unincorporated Marin County, California

Assessor’s Parcel Number

Bulk of Marin County Assessor's Parcel 018-154-015

Property History:
Current Owner:

State of California

Current Asking Price:

Not being marketed

Previous Sale Date:

Not available

Previous Sale Price:

Not available

Other Sales - Past 3 Years:

None

Property Rights Appraised

Fee Simple Estate

Date of Value:

May 1, 2008

Dates of Inspection

March 28, 2008 and May 1, 2008

Date of Report:

May 15, 2008

Special Appraisal Instructions:

None

Land Area Appraised:
Western SQSP (C.I.C.) Land

40.0 Acres

1,742,400 SF

Altternate Scanario Redevelopment Land

57.1 Acres

2,487,300 SF

Exposure Time Information:

Range

Average

Comparable Sales Data:
National Investor Survey:
Local Market Professionals:
Estimated Exposure Time:

3-12 Months
1-12 Months
6-18 Months

9.0 Months
6.8 Months
12.0 Months

Western SQSP (C.I.C.) Land

12 Months or Less

Altternate Scanario Redevelopment Land

12 Months or Less

Estimated Marketing Time:
Western SQSP (C.I.C.) Land

12 Months or Less

Altternate Scanario Redevelopment Land

12 Months or Less

Compiled by CBRE

Highest & Best Use
SQSP Land (40.0 Acres) - As If Vacant: For continued ownership by the State of California for the
San Quentin State Prison, the Highest and Best Use is for continued prison operations, with any
development, such as the Condemned Inmate Complex, to be approved by the State and the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Alternate Redevelopment Scenarios (57.1 Acres) - As If Vacant: For privatization of the subject
lands, the Highest and Best Use is to obtain Entitlements and Zoning Approval for All Potential
Developments as Proposed:

6

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Alternate 1 - Residential Community: For the subject portion, development with low-density
residential.
Alternate 2 - Transit Village:
moderate density residential.

For the subject portion, development with low-medium and

Alternate 3 - New Town: For the subject portion, development with moderate density residential
and mixed-use high density residential with ancillary commercial/retail and public uses.
The alternate valuation scenarios are based on information provided in the Preliminary Analysis of
Potential Reuse and Relocation of San Quentin Prison, by the Department of General Services, State of
California, dated June 1, 2001.
Terms and Definitions
The current economic definition of market value agreed upon by agencies that regulate federal
financial institutions in the U.S. (and used herein) is as follows:
The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all
conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and
assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of
a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best
interests;
3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4. payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements
comparable thereto; and
5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or
1
creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.
Scope of Work
The scope of the assignment relates to the extent and manner in which research is conducted, data is
gathered and analysis is applied, all based upon the following problem-identifying factors stated
elsewhere in this report:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Client
Intended use
Intended user
Type of opinion
Effective date of opinion
Relevant characteristics about the subject
Assignment conditions

1

Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), 12 CFR Part 34, Subpart C – Appraisals, 34.42 (g); Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS), 12 CFR 564.2 (g); Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 4th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal
Institute, 2002), 177-178. This is also compatible with the RTC, FDIC, FRS and NCUA definitions of market value as well as
the example referenced in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).

7

95

96

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

This is a Restricted Appraisal Report that is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set
forth under Standards Rule 2-2(c) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a
Restricted Appraisal Report. As such, it presents no discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses
that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser’s opinion(s) of value. However, we
have utilized an ‘expanded’ version of a Restricted Appraisal Report, that not only states the
conclusions made, but briefly summarizes the analyses and valuation processes performed.
Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses has been retained in the
appraiser’s file. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client
and for the intended use stated herein.
Extent to Which the Property is Identified
CBRE collected the relevant information about the subject from the owner (or representatives), public
records and through an inspection of the subject. The property was legally identified through its draft
environmental report, assessor’s records, and information provided by the client. Economic
characteristics of the subject were identified via an analysis of market absorption data, land market
data and sales, and economic data.
Extent to Which the Property is Inspected
CBRE inspected the subject property, as well as its surrounding environs, on March 28 and May 1,
2008.
Type and Extent of the Data Researched
CBRE reviewed the micro and/or macro market environments with respect to physical and economic
factors relevant to the valuation process. This process included interviews with regional and/or local
market participants, available published data, and other various resources. CBRE also conducted
regional and/or local research with respect to applicable tax data, zoning requirements, draft
environmental impact report, proposed redevelopment plans, flood zone status, demographics,
income and expense data, and comparable listing, sale and rental information.
Type and Extent of Analysis Applied
CBRE analyzed the data gathered through the use of appropriate and accepted appraisal
methodology to arrive at a probable value indication via each applicable approach to value.
Approaches to value used include the Sales Comparison Approach, and a subdivision approach to
estimate the hypothetical (bulk) values of the alternative valuation scenarios. CBRE then correlated
and reconciled the results into a reasonable and defensible value conclusion, as defined herein. A
reasonable exposure time and marketing time associated with the value estimate presented has also
been concluded.
VALUE CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analyses contained within our files and stated in this report, the market values for the
40.0-Acre C.I.C. site “as is” and “as if no negative factors”, and the hypothetical (bulk) values for the
three alternate 57.1-Acre redevelopment scenarios “as if no negative factors” and “as if entitled”, are
presented as follows:

8

Estimated by CBRE

9

Appraisal Premise
Land Status
Interest Appraised
Exposure
Date of Value Value Conclusion
Existing Subject SQSP Land - 40.0 Acre Site:
Market Value of SQSP Western (C.I.C.) Land
"As Is"
Fee Simple Estate 12 Months or Less May 1, 2008
$45,300,000
Market Value of SQSP Western (C.I.C.) Land* "As If No Negative Factors" Fee Simple Estate 12 Months or Less May 1, 2008
$55,600,000
Market (Bulk) Land Values - Hypothetical for
Alternate Redevelopment Scenarios* - 57.1 Acre Site:
Alternate 1 Land Uses: 'Residential Community'**
"As If Entitled"
Fee Simple Estate 12 Months or Less May 1, 2008
$83,700,000
Alternate 2 Land Uses: 'Transit Center'**
"As If Entitled"
Fee Simple Estate 12 Months or Less May 1, 2008
$91,600,000
Alternate 3 Land Uses: 'New Town'**
"As If Entitled"
Fee Simple Estate 12 Months or Less May 1, 2008
$117,900,000
* The land value for the 40.0-Acre C.I.C. site "as if no negative factors" is hypothetical, as the subject is currently affected by negative factors.
** The land values for Alternate Valuation Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are hypothetical as the subject is not currently entitled for the proposed uses. In addition,
** the 57.1 Acres included in Alternate Valuation Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are the subject portion of the much larger prospective SQSP redevelpment plan.

MARKET VALUE CONCLUSIONS**

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

97

July 2008

98

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

THE CONCLUDED MARKET VALUES ARE SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL, HYPOTHETICAL
AND EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS A
WHOLE AND THE INDIVIDUAL VALUE COMPONENTS AS REPORTED HEREIN.
Being a Restricted Appraisal Report, the appraiser’s opinions and conclusions set forth in the report
may not be understood properly without additional information in the appraiser’s workfile.
The report is for the sole use of the client; however, client may provide only complete, final copies of
the appraisal report in its entirety (but not component parts) to third parties who shall review such
reports in connection with loan underwriting or securitization efforts. Appraiser is not required to
explain or testify as to appraisal results other than to respond to the client for routine and customary
questions. Please note that our consent to allow an appraisal report prepared by CBRE or portions of
such report, to become part of or be referenced in any public offering, the granting of such consent
will be at our sole discretion and, if given, will be on condition that we will be provided with an
Indemnification Agreement and/or Non-Reliance letter, in a form and content satisfactory to us, by a
party satisfactory to us. We do consent to your submission of the reports to rating agencies, loan
participants or your auditors in its entirety (but not component parts) without the need to provide us
with an Indemnification Agreement and/or Non-Reliance letter.
It has been a pleasure to assist you in this assignment. If you have any questions concerning the
analysis, or if CBRE can be of further service, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
CBRE - VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES

Roger M. Hodge, CRE, FRICS, MAI, CCIM, NCARB
Vice President
CA Certification No. AG021679

Elizabeth Champagne, MAI, MRICS
Senior Managing Director
CA Certification No. AG025144

Phone:
Fax:
Email:

Phone:
Fax:
Email:

(415) 986-7258
415-986-6862
roger.hodge@cbre.com

10

415-986-7395
415-986-6862
elizabeth.champagne@cbre.com

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

CERTIFICATION OF THE APPRAISAL
We certify to the best of our knowledge and belief:
1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and
limiting conditions and are our personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and
conclusions.
3. We have no present or prospective interest in or bias with respect to the property that is the subject of
this report and have no personal interest in or bias with respect to the parties involved with this
assignment.
4. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined
results.
5. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting
of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the
value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly
related to the intended use of this appraisal, such as the approval of a loan.
6. This appraisal assignment was not based upon a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation,
or the approval of a loan.
7. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in
conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of The Appraisal Foundation
and the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
8. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its
duly authorized representatives.
9. Roger M. Hodge, MAI and Elizabeth Champagne, MAI have completed the requirements of the
continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute.
10. Roger M. Hodge, MAI and Elizabeth Champagne, MAI have made a personal inspection of the
property that is the subject of this report.
11. No one provided professional assistance to the persons signing this report.
12. Roger M. Hodge, MAI and Elizabeth Champagne, MAI have extensive experience in the
appraisal/review of similar property types.
13. Roger M. Hodge, MAI and Elizabeth Champagne, MAI are currently certified in the state where the
subject is located.
14. Valuation and Advisory Services operates as an independent economic entity within CB Richard Ellis,
Inc. Although other employees of CB Richard Ellis, Inc. divisions may be contacted as a part of our
routine market research investigations, absolute client confidentiality and privacy are maintained at all
times with regard to this assignment without conflict of interest.

Roger M. Hodge, CRE, FRICS, MAI, CCIM, NCARB
Vice President
CA Certification No. AG021679
(Expires December 22, 2008)

Elizabeth Champagne, MAI, MRICS
Senior Managing Director
CA Certification No. AG025144
(Expires November 17, 2008)

11

99

100

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON – WESTERN LAND

RESTRICTED REPORT

SPECIAL, HYPOTHETICAL & EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS/LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. A major assumption and underlying premise for valuation of the subject property is based on the
hypothetical condition that the site is clean of any environmental hazards. Any remediation
required for the underlying land is to be performed by the seller, i.e. the State of California and/or
other parties, at their expense (i.e. with no expense to potential purchasers).
2. Per the request of the client, we have estimated the current land value “as is” of the underlying
40.0-Acre site on the far western portion of the San Quentin State Prison facility, which is
proposed for development of the new Condemned Inmate Complex project. In addition, we have
estimated the current value of alternative redevelopment scenarios for the subject land, based on
planning studies performed by Marin County, which are summarized in the Preliminary Analysis of
Potential Reuse and Relocation of San Quentin Prison, by the Department of General Services,
State of California, dated June 1, 2001. Three primary alternative development scenarios are
identified in this study for a larger development site, estimated to be 57.1 Acres. The land values
for Alternate Valuation Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are hypothetical as the subject is not currently entitled
for the proposed uses.
3. The 57.1 Acres included in Alternate Valuation Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are the subject portion of the
much larger prospective SQSP redevelopment plan, which encompasses approximately 273 Acres
out of the entire 430 Acres of San Quentin property. Alternate 2 – Transit Center and Alternate 3
– New Town include applicable residential, commercial and shoreline zoned land for the subject
portions of this plan, but the actual employment center, transit center, parking garage, and other
commercial uses are located to the east of the subject site.
4. Valuation of the various land parcels for the subject, in this appraisal, is based on a “blue top”
condition. A “blue top” condition is based on entitlements being in place and areawide
infrastructure in place (including roads, utilities, etc.); i.e. essentially raw land within the bounds of
the subject property, but ready for development with building and site improvements.
5. The land absorption projections for the bulk sale analyses are based on market data of other
competitive developments. We have made these based on our best analyses of current and
projected future demand.
6. No title report or legal description was provided for the respective subject properties. We have
based our observations and conclusions on the draft environmental impact report and other
studies regarding the San Quentin State Prison facility provided the appraisers, public records, the
physical inspection, client-provided data, and other sources. IT IS STONGLY RECOMMENDED
THAT THE CLIENT/READER OBTAIN A CURRENT TITLE POLICY OUTLINING ALL EASEMENTS
AND ENCROACHMENTS ON THE PROPERTY, IF ANY, BEFORE MAKING ANY BUSINESS
DECISION REGARDING THE SUBJECT.
7. Louis Ragozzino, P.E. with The Louis Berger Group, Inc. provided total land sizes for the subject
land appraised, which we assume are accurate and are the basis of analysis in this report. Should
the land areas change, we reserve the right to reconsider the conclusions of this appraisal report.
8. It is assumed that the subject land could be sold to other users, i.e. private and public.
9. Being a Restricted Appraisal Report, the appraiser’s opinions and conclusions set forth in the
report may not be understood properly without additional information in the appraiser’s workfile.
12

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON – WESTERN LAND

RESTRICTED REPORT

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON

VIEW OF SUBJECT SITE – SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON ON RIGHT

13

101

102

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON – WESTERN LAND

RESTRICTED REPORT

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

40.0-ACRE C.I.C. SITE IN GREEN – LARGER AREA IS 57.1-ACRE ALTERNATE SITE

14

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON – WESTERN LAND

RESTRICTED REPORT

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

AERIAL VIEW OF THE POINT SAN QUENTIN AREA – SUBJECT IN CENTER

NORTH VIEW OF SAN QUENTIN FACILITY FROM THE WATERWAY TO THE SOUTH
15

103

104

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON – WESTERN LAND

RESTRICTED REPORT

MAPS OF SAN QUENTIN AREA IN MARIN COUNTY

MAP OF THE POINT SAN QUENTIN AREA EAST OF THE CITY OF LARKSPUR

MAP OF THE NORTHERN SAN FRANCISCO BAY
16

105

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

(Agency response provided as text only.)
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Memorandum
Date: 	

June 2, 2008

To:	
	
	
	

Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor*
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject:	

RESPONSE TO THE BUREAU OF STATE AUDIT’S DRAFT REPORT ENTITLED CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION: BUILDING A CONDEMNED INMATE COMPLEX AT SAN QUENTIN MAY COST MORE THAN EXPECTED

This memorandum is prepared as the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR)
response to the Bureau of State Audits’ (BSA) draft report entitled California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation: Building a Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin May Cost More Than Expected.
The report evaluates the project plan and estimated costs associated with the construction and activation of
a new condemned inmate housing complex at California State Prison, San Quentin (SQ). CDCR believes the
construction cost analysis conducted by the consultant for BSA was thorough and reasonable. CDCR also
appreciates the recognition that the cost differential is due in large part to CDCR’s adherence to escalation
protocols established annually for all State agencies.
Other construction cost-estimate differences from the original design, as the draft report points out, are
the result of necessary design modifications to the project and related infrastructure of SQ in order to more
accurately reflect the needs of CDCR’s inmate population. For instance, the original cost model assumed
a correction treatment center (CTC) would be constructed to service SQ’s population, including the
condemned. At the time the cost model was developed, it was unknown what other medical functions
would be required and what additional population would be served. Based on the medical Receiver’s
construction efforts at SQ, the amount of medical space planned within the CTC has since been reduced.
However, the costs remain about a third higher as construction costs have continued to escalate.
In addition to fiscal issues, one programmatic concern raised by BSA is CDCR’s decision to double-cell
certain condemned inmates and the risks associated to cohabit this population. The condemned inmate
complex (CIC) project was programmed to double-cell certain inmates who are deemed “low risk.”
A segment of the CDCR condemned population, the Grade A inmates, have been co-mingling with other
condemned inmates for years on the exercise yards. While incidents of violence between inmates do occur
on these exercise yards, these incidents are no different than incidents that occur in facilities housing lower
level offenders. In addition, certain condemned inmates have been assigned to assist with janitorial duties
and participate in contact-visiting. These inmates have unrestrained contact with staff, inmates, and visitors
which presents the same risks as double-celling the population.

*	 California State Auditor’s comments begin on page 109.

1

106

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Elaine M. Howle
Page 2

2

1

3

BSA correctly points out that CDCR is not the only state to have found that its condemned population may
be safely double-celled. BSA’s report mentions the Oklahoma Department of Corrections has successfully
double-celled their condemned population. CDCR notes while Missouri and Ohio do not double-cell their
population, their nonviolent condemned populations are housed in a general population environment,
rather than an administrative segregation setting, which means the condemned inmates have routine
nonrestrained access to staff and inmates. States such as Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana,
North Carolina, Nebraska, and Washington also allow unrestrained access between staff and nonproblematic
condemned inmates. At least ten states allow the inmates to exercise in groups as does CDCR. While these
states may elect not to double-cell, they afford their condemned inmates much of the same access to staff
and one another as would CDCR.

As mentioned, CDCR’s housing policies do not prohibit double-celling inmates who have been sentenced
to life without possibility of parole (LWOP). These inmates pose many of the same risks as the condemned
population, but CDCR has been successful in managing those risks. Additionally, these inmates have court
documents in their cells that may be as sensitive as inmates in the condemned population. Yet there is
scant evidence in the recent past to suggest any of the CDCR LWOP inmates are more prone to harm their
cell mates or have been harmed due to an inmate learning of the circumstances of their crime. CDCR has
policies for separating predatory inmates from those who may require protective separation for reasons such
as their commitment offense; those same practices are employed with the condemned population.
CDCR has considerable expertise in corrections and decades of experience in managing the largest
condemned population in the United States. Based on this expertise, CDCR knows there is a population
of condemned inmates who demonstrate little or no problematic behavior while in custody. These inmates
are awaiting their appeal process and are focused on remaining disciplinary free as any incidents of violence
would impact their appeal process. In managing this population, CDCR has existing procedures related
to the programming restrictions based on inmate behavior, which is the Grade A and Grade B system
mentioned in the report. The proposal by CDCR to further define the grading system and permit double-cell
housing would further refine that policy.

4

5
6

CDCR’s population management strategies, including overcrowding protocols, are routinely reevaluated
for appropriateness, and the State must balance the risks of safety and security against the costs and other
impacts associated with those decisions. The construction of this new complex will add much-needed
capacity to CDCR’s housing capacity at a time when it is facing significant scrutiny by the federal courts.
Also, while the BSA review reflects there is a one-time cost of constructing additional beds to single-cell
all condemned inmates to mitigate risk, the audit does not account for the ongoing costs for staffing,
maintenance, and utilities for additional beds and buildings should CDCR not double-cell the population.
Another area of concern noted by BSA was the potential to exceed the capacity of the new complex within
a relatively short time frame if CDCR were to single-cell the condemned population. The growth rate used of
18 inmates per year far exceeds actual historical growth figures. Additionally, in the event CDCR determines
it cannot either double-cell as many inmates as projected or experiences excessive population growth
of condemned inmates, the parcel where the complex is to be built has been sized for future expansion,
including providing utility infrastructure capacity for a fourth unit as may be necessary.

107

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Elaine M. Howle
Page 3

CDCR understands a secondary report in connection with the CIC project is scheduled for release by BSA
in July 2008 and will provide supplemental information to this assessment, including another analysis of
alternative sites which presumably will be similar to one conducted by BSA in 2004. CDCR would like to
point out as it progresses with its construction plans authorized pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 900, and
as the federal Receiver progresses with planned expansion and renovation of its medical care facilities to
include the construction of 10,000 medical care beds at up to 7 existing facilities, the availability of land,
and remaining infrastructure capacity, is extremely scarce. Any consideration of alternative sites must be
cognizant of these increasing limitations. CDCR also respectfully points out a considerable amount of time
and money has been spent designing a facility at the SQ location and any alternative site would require a
complete redesign of the facility, with a new environmental study and the delay of several more years to get
to the point CDCR is currently at with the proposed SQ CIC project. Construction delays of that magnitude
will most certainly result in increased costs associated with the construction of a new condemned complex.

In anticipation this supplemental report may materially impact the responses to the BSA report, and risk
further delays and increased costs to this project, CDCR respectfully requests the right to add additional
commentary as it deems appropriate. In the interim, CDCR would like to thank BSA for its continued
professionalism and guidance with CDCR’s goal of meeting the housing needs for condemned inmates.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (916) 323-6001.
(Signed by: Matthew L. Cate)
MATTHEW L. CATE
Secretary

7

108

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Comments
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE
RESPONSE FROM THE California Department of
Corrections and rehabilitation
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the
response to our audit report from the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections). The numbers
below correspond with the numbers we placed in the margins of
Corrections’ response.
We believe Corrections’ discussion of the interaction among
condemned inmates on the exercise yard and between condemned
inmates and staff is not a valid representation of the risks involved
with double‑celling two inmates in a confined space for extended
periods of time. As indicated on pages 35 and 36 of the report,
our consultant stated that he does not believe that Corrections
can sufficiently mitigate the difficulties and risks inherent in
double‑celling condemned inmates, who, more than any other
inmate group, have nothing to lose.

1

Corrections is correct that we note in the report that the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections double-cells condemned
inmates. However, as we state on page 35 of the report, of the
12 state departments of corrections that responded to our
survey, 11 stated that they do not double-cell inmates because of
concerns that these condemned inmates would be more prone to
violence against correctional officers and fellow inmates. Also, while
we did not survey these states, we appreciate Corrections pointing
out that Missouri, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana,
North Carolina, Nebraska, and Washington all chose not to
double‑cell their condemned inmates.

2

As we state on page 34 of the report, the experts we spoke
with—the chief assistant state public defender and the executive
directors of the California Appellate Project and the Habeas Corpus
Resource Center—stated that double-celling condemned inmates
raises serious concerns about maintaining confidentiality during
the preparations to defend them. As an example, our legal counsel
pointed out that a condemned inmate’s cellmate may be motivated
to read the sensitive court documents of the other condemned
inmate in hopes of learning something about the case that he
can potentially use in an attempt to improve the conditions of
his incarceration.

3

While Corrections states that construction of the new condemned
inmate complex (CIC) will add much needed housing capacity,
much of that capacity will depend on double-celling. As we state

4

109

110

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

on page 31 of the report, based on our consultant’s projected
population growth, placing two condemned inmates in some cells
will be necessary beginning in 2014, three years after the CIC
is expected to open. Should Corrections’ plan to double‑cell its
condemned inmates fail, we recognize that there will be ongoing
staffing, maintenance, and utility costs if an additional housing
unit is built. Therefore, if Corrections decides to go forward with
building a fourth housing unit, it will need to develop a staffing plan
and determine the ongoing costs for operating the additional unit,
as this data was not made available for us to review.
5

We are curious as to why Corrections would criticize the growth
rate we used of 18 condemned inmates per year since, as we state
on page 31 of the report, Corrections estimated that the condemned
inmate population would grow by 24 per year. On this same
page, we state that our consultant believes that Corrections may
have overestimated the population growth because its estimate
did not take into account that in recent years fewer people have
been sentenced to death. This change resulted in an average
annual increase of 12 condemned inmates per year rather than
the 24 estimated by Corrections. However, recognizing that
this downturn could be short-lived, but that the annual average
increase might not soon return to the earlier level, our consultant
estimated that the male condemned inmate population would
grow by 18 inmates per year, an amount significantly below
Corrections’ estimate.

6

We are pleased that the parcel Corrections has chosen as the site
where the new CIC is to be built has been designed for future
expansion. However, as we point out on page 37 of the report, the
longer Corrections waits to build the fourth housing unit, the more
expensive it will become.

7

We appreciate Corrections pointing out what it believes are the
various factors that need to be taken into consideration in our
analysis of the cost to build a CIC at alternative locations. Based
on conversations with our consultant, each of these factors is being
carefully considered in his analysis and cost projections.

111

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

(Agency response provided as text only.)
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Office of the Secretary
P.O. Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283-0001
Ms. Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor*
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Howle:
THE BUREAU OF STATE AUDITS’ DRAFT REPORT ENTITLED CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION: ALTHOUGH THE COST TO CONSTRUCT A CONDEMNED INMATE COMPLEX AT SAN QUENTIN MAY
EXCEED CURRENT ESTIMATES, THE COST OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITES MAY BE EVEN HIGHER DUE TO LATER START DATES
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation submits this letter in response to the Bureau of
State Audits’ two-part report entitled California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: Although
the Cost to Construct a Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin May Exceed Current Estimates, The
Cost of Alternative Sites May Be Even Higher Due to Later Start Dates. We are pleased that the Bureau of
State Audits agrees that our current plan to build the condemned inmate complex at the California State
Prison, San Quentin the most prudent, cost-effective, and expedient option for constructing housing for our
condemned population.

1

We appreciate your recognition of California’s need for a condemned inmate complex that meets current
correctional standards for maximum-security facilities. As your report correctly notes, such a complex is
necessary for the safety of inmates, staff, and the public.
Your report goes on to demonstrate why our current plan is now the best approach. You observe
that alternative proposals--such as one to save costs by delaying construction, or another to disperse
condemned inmates to other prisons throughout California--are infeasible or ineffectual. Similarly, moving
the complex to an alternative site would be more costly, you observe, even when offset by the sale of
San Quentin real estate. You write, “because a significant amount of work has been conducted to prepare
for constructing a CIC at San Quentin, we found that Corrections’ current proposal is the least expensive
alternative that we considered.” In short, our plan represents the most economical solution.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would like to thank the Bureau of State Audits
for this report. We welcome your input and look forward to your future efforts to further our mission of
providing safe and cost-effective housing and services for our prison population. Should you have any
questions or concerns, please contact me at (916) 323-6001.
Sincerely,
(Signed by: Matthew L. Cate)
MATTHEW L. CATE
Secretary
*	 California State Auditor’s comment appears on page 113.

1

112

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

Comment
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENT ON THE
RESPONSE FROM THE California Department of
Corrections and rehabilitation
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the
response to our audit report from the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections). The number
below corresponds to the number we placed in the margin of
Corrections’ response.
Contrary to Corrections’ assertion that our report demonstrates
why the current plan to construct three buildings with stacked
housing units is the best approach, we raise several concerns in
the report regarding Corrections’ plan. First, we noted that the
costs to construct the condemned inmate complex (CIC) would
exceed Corrections’ most recent estimate by $39.3 million. In
addition, Corrections’ estimates did not include $7.3 million
in transition and activation costs to open the CIC and did not
include the additional costs to operate the new CIC. Also, we
question the feasibility of Corrections’ plan to double-cell up to
two-thirds of the condemned inmates. As we state on pages 30 and
34 of our report, experts we spoke with and our consultant
expressed concerns about staff safety, inmate safety, and the
protection of confidential legal papers if condemned inmates are
double-celled. Moreover, as discussed on page 31, if double-celling
does not turn out to be a feasible approach, the CIC will reach its cell
capacity in 2014, less than three years after it is scheduled to open.
In addition to the concerns noted above, on page 40 we state that
Corrections did not consider alternatives to building a new CIC at
San Quentin State Prison (San Quentin). Table 10 on page 49 shows
that if construction were to begin at the same time, the capital costs
to build the currently proposed stacked housing units would be less
at each of the three alternative sites we identified. For example, as
we stated on page 50, the capital costs of building a stacked CIC
at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, excluding escalation costs,
are nearly $49 million less than those for the proposed facility at
San Quentin.
However, building a CIC at an alternative site would involve various
processes such as obtaining legislative approval, assessing the
environmental impacts, and designing a new facility, all resulting
in a later start date for construction. Therefore, although it would
have been less expensive to construct a CIC at one of the alternative
locations if construction began this fall, due to the later estimated
start date, building a CIC at an alternate site would result in
increased construction costs, increased costs to open the facility,
and increased operating costs.

1

113

114

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.2

July 2008

cc:	

Members of the Legislature
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Milton Marks Commission on California State
Government Organization and Economy
Department of Finance
Attorney General
State Controller
State Treasurer
Legislative Analyst
Senate Office of Research
California Research Bureau
Capitol Press