Supervisors press departments for alternatives as hearing on Hall of Justice replacement examines costs, beds and mental‑health options

The Government and Oversight Committee held an extended hearing on July 16 to examine options for replacing the Hall of Justice jails, confronting competing presentations about bed counts, safety, costs and alternatives such as expanded diversion programs, bail‑motion efforts and mental‑health treatment.

Supervisor Jane Kim opened the hearing by pressing city staff to justify "why and whether" the city should spend what she described as roughly $290 million in construction costs alone to build a replacement facility and to explain the appropriate size of any new jail. "If we as a city are only filling 50% of our beds today, why don't we have enough when we still know that we have 1,532 beds available without a new jail facility?" she asked, noting the committee should study alternatives and plan to empty unsafe floors in existing facilities.

President London Breed echoed concerns about the scale and the case presented so far: she said she had not seen "a compelling case" for the current plan and urged staff to examine whether the city should combine jail capacity with mental‑health and diversion services and integrate the DA, probation, courts, sheriff and public defender offices into any comprehensive plan.

Presentations split along two lines. Public Defender Office representatives argued that recent reforms — state realignment, Proposition 47, collaborative courts and intensified bail attempts — have driven down local jail populations and that expanding pretrial and diversion capacity could reduce the need for new construction. A Public Defender presenter said the city could push current utilization toward lower figures and cited opportunities to refer in‑custody people to collaborative courts and expand electronic monitoring.

The District Attorney's Office reported steady declines in the jail population over the past decade and urged the committee to use newer (2015) data and to commission a needs assessment and a classification consultant to better understand the types of inmates and where they could be housed or diverted. "We are in the middle of a sea change," the DA's representative said, and cautioned that a $600 million investment without a clear needs assessment risks misallocating funds that might be better spent on mental‑health or supportive housing.

The Sheriff's Department described the Hall of Justice jails as seismically deficient and unsafe, emphasized the operational limitations of linear jails and presented the Rehabilitation and Detention Facility (RDF) concept with pod design and direct supervision to preserve inmate and staff safety and to provide programming, family‑visitation and medical/mental‑health infrastructure. Chief Deputy Matt Freeman said replacing the aged facilities is ‘‘long overdue’’ and that the RDF would enable modern classrooms, vocational training and dedicated housing for mentally ill offenders.

The Controller's Office presented a jail population forecast with two scenarios hinging on whether County Jail 6 (a 372‑bed dormitory facility in San Bruno) can be used: if CJ6 is usable, the city might not need a replacement; if CJ6 cannot be used, the controller estimated a 2020 need of between 120 and 393 beds. The controller cautioned that population forecasts depend on policy choices and future investments and that some planned actions (such as hiring more police officers) could increase jail population.

Department of Public Health testified that about 14% of inmates (roughly 170 people on a snapshot day) have serious mental illness and described long waits — about 90 days on average — for transfer from jail to residential treatment beds; DPH urged expansion of treatment beds and quick transfer pathways to reduce jail stays for people with mental‑health needs.

More than 40 public speakers — including service providers, formerly incarcerated advocates and community groups — urged the Board to pursue no‑build or reduced‑build options and to invest in alternatives: expanded pretrial diversion, bail reform, supportive housing, long‑term mental‑health and substance‑use treatment, and reentry services. "If you build a new jail, it will get filled," argued one public commenter, stressing that capital construction can undercut political pressure to expand community alternatives.

After public comment and additional departmental exchange, the committee agreed to continue the item. Supervisor Breed moved to continue the matter to the call of the chair; the motion passed with no objection, giving staff and supervisors time to gather additional data on CJ6, needs assessments, and potential alternatives to a full replacement build.

Next steps identified in the hearing included convening an interdepartmental working group, commissioning a jail‑population and needs assessment using 2015 data, and getting follow‑up analyses on the feasibility and security implications of reusing or renovating County Jail 6.

The hearing record includes both broad agreement that County Jails 3 and 4 are unsafe and sharp differences over whether rebuilding, reusing CJ6, or investing in community‑based alternatives is the right path forward. The committee continued the item for future hearings and additional staff reports.