SF committee advances ordinance to close County Jail No. 4, sends measure to full Board

The Government Audit and Oversight Committee on April 30 advanced legislation that would require San Francisco to close County Jail Number 4 at 850 Bryant by Nov. 1, 2020, and sent the ordinance as a committee report with a positive recommendation to the full Board of Supervisors.

Supervisor Sandra Feuer, who sponsored the ordinance, summarized the measure as directing three main steps: set a Nov. 1 closure deadline for County Jail No. 4; require the city to reduce and maintain its remaining jail population at no more than 90% capacity as a precondition for closure; and formally recognize the Safety and Justice Challenge working group as a Sentencing Commission subcommittee charged with producing two progress reports — in August and October — containing data and policy recommendations. "The legislation before you does three things," Feuer said, and she urged colleagues to adopt the amendments she presented to address operational and legal concerns.

The ordinance also affirms the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and includes language requested by the sheriff clarifying the sheriff’s legal authority and preserving the option to renovate or use certain facilities where necessary. Feuer said the amendments revise terminology to person‑first language, remove a meet‑and‑confer deadline per City Attorney advice, and direct the subcommittee to plan for spikes in jail population and public‑health protections related to COVID‑19.

Sheriff Paul Miyamoto said he supports closing CJ4 "for the housing of justice involved persons" but urged flexibility in the ordinance to ensure constitutional housing standards and to maintain critical services such as the jail kitchen if County Jail No. 2’s renovation is delayed. "I support the closure of County 04," Miyamoto said, while noting the need to craft language that allows the sheriff to meet operational needs if CJ2 construction does not finish by the target date.

District Attorney Chesa Boudin reiterated that careful, evidence‑based jail‑population reduction strategies can support public safety and public health; he told the committee that the jail population is down dramatically in recent months, noting it is "down by over 40% since January 2020 when I took office." He and other justice partners described pre‑arrest diversion, reentry planning and faster case processing as central to keeping the reduction in place.

Committee members who spoke in favor of the measure stressed the building’s long history of unsafe conditions. Supervisors said CJ4 was slated for demolition two decades ago for seismic safety reasons and has had repeated maintenance and health complaints. Public defenders and civil‑rights groups pointed to recent raw‑sewage litigation and COVID‑19 cases among staff and incarcerated people as adding urgency to closure.

Public comment on the ordinance included dozens of callers and organizations. Labor representatives and deputy sheriffs raised concerns about potential job loss and asked for redeployment plans; community and public‑health advocates pressed for closure without expanding out‑of‑county transfers, without enlarging electronic monitoring programs and for reinvestment of savings into housing and services for people affected by incarceration.

On Chair Marr’s motion to accept Supervisor Feuer’s amendments, the committee recorded an aye vote from the three members present and voting. The committee then voted to send the ordinance, as amended, as a committee report with a positive recommendation to the Board of Supervisors agenda for May 5, 2020.

What happens next: the ordinance is expected to appear before the full Board of Supervisors on May 5; the measure sets reporting deadlines in August and October for the Sentencing Commission subcommittee to document population reductions, data points and policy recommendations tied to closing CJ4.

Notes: the ordinance, as presented in committee, ties the closure timeline to the operational requirement that the remaining jail system operate at no more than 90% capacity; it also includes provisions addressing public‑health protections and an intent to avoid layoffs where possible.