Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves fiscal-feasibility finding for Hall of Justice replacement despite three dissenting supervisors
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution finding the proposed Hall of Justice jail replacement project fiscally feasible, 8-3, after supervisors voiced concerns about whether the city should build a new jail before using existing capacity.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to adopt a resolution finding the proposed Hall of Justice jail replacement project fiscally feasible, with the motion passing 8-3.
The vote took place during the board’s April 2014 meeting. Supervisors Mar, Tang, Wiener, Yi, Avalos, Chu, Cohen and Farrell voted yes; Supervisors Breed, Campos and Kim voted no.
The measure was framed by proponents as a procedural step to allow more detailed environmental review under CEQA and to enable further study of replacement options. But several supervisors said they would not support the finding because they believe the board has not had an adequate public discussion about whether a new jail is needed or whether existing capacity should be used instead.
“I just wanted to state again some of my concerns. I know that we are just voting on a finding of fiscal feasibility for the Hall of Justice jail replacement project. I won't be voting for it today,” Supervisor Kim told colleagues before the vote. Supervisor Campos likewise said, “I too will be voting against this item because I think that at this point, we have yet to have a full discussion of the issue of whether or not, we need a new jail.” Supervisor Breed said she also would not support the item, adding she did not feel the city had gathered enough information to move even to the CEQA step.
Supporters of the resolution argued the board was only deciding whether the project was fiscally feasible under Administrative Code Chapter 29 and that further review or approvals would follow in committee and environmental review. After the roll call — recorded in the meeting transcript as eight ayes and three noes — President Chiu announced, “This resolution is adopted.”
The vote advances a multi-stage process. The board’s finding of fiscal feasibility does not itself authorize construction or final design; it enables the city to continue CEQA review and other approvals required before any building contract or construction would occur.
The debate highlighted unresolved questions about how the city will reconcile available existing jail beds, long-term costs, and the role of future environmental review in shaping any final project. Supervisors who opposed the finding emphasized they sought a more robust public and policy-level conversation about size and necessity before committing to the next stage.
The Hall of Justice replacement project was discussed under Item 13 on the board agenda. The resolution’s immediate effect is limited to authorizing the city to proceed with further planning and review steps tied to the fiscal feasibility determination.
