>> i am jeff idakia, and i provide legal representation to 20,000 people every year. it is our goal to ensure that we have the best legal representation possible. we started this nine years ago, to increased consciousness and awareness of the issues that affect public safety in criminal and juvenile justice reform. i am proud to say that this is the ninth summit. we take on issues like closing the california youth authority.

and we in the confinement of youth -- young children in -- and the prisoner re-entry program and abolishing the death penalty. we take on three critical issues. the first panel has a riveting discussion about gangs. and reducing gang violence. on our panel are former gang members, gang intervention workers, police, public defenders, and researchers. we talk about strategies to reduce gang violence. i will introduce the keynote speaker in a moment. the second panel is a cutting edge -- cutting edge discussion

about the relationship between the human brain and criminal behavior. we have top experts from all parts of the country to talk about what the brain research shows. that is the key to understanding how human beings behave, and why they may commit acts of violence. the afternoon's panel will have a debate about a proposed law that would reduce felony drug possession crimes to a misdemeanor. this is what 13 states have done. we not only bring these issues to the forefront, but have the opportunity to participate -- and we have cards that you could fill out and questions. this promises to be a year of reform and change like we have never seen, and we now see

prisoner reentry programs being implemented. we're still spending too much money and resources and not enough on rehabilitation and reentry. this november, the voters will decide on limiting the three strikes law. issues and measures long overdue. it is clear there is much more that needs to be done. according to a study that was published this month -- since 1989, 2000 people have been wrongfully incarcerated and they served collectively, 10,000 years. an average of 11 years person. i would like to thank the people who made this summit possible.

memoranda -- amy devon -- many volunteers and all of our speakers and panelists. i would like to thank the co- sponsors, and the bar association of san francisco. i would like to thank them for their help and support. it is my pleasure to introduce the president elect of the bar association of san francisco. they provide conflict attorneys to handle cases when a defender is not available. >> i am the president elect of the bar association. we're very proud to co-sponsor

the justice of it. on behalf of the 8000 members, and all of those who -- dedicate their careers -- we are very fortunate to have his leadership with top-notch legal representation. for those who were charged each year who are innocent. an important part of the mission is providing equal access to justice. this is shared by his office and all the public defenders. we're proud of the conflict panel that he described, and we also provide the top-notch representation in matters that his office cannot handle. we applaud you for what you do and for those of you who could

not make it, thank you very much. this year's public defender simon will be an interesting day, full of cutting edge issues. gang violence and brain science and crime, these are issues at the forefront and deserve all of our attention. this is a greatat>> your going p with me because i liked to wander around and see faces. you have learned more about me that a lot of people know. for the last 10 years i have been married to someone who was a deputy chief of the lapd and i now refer to him as being in recovery. at the same time, i have been

working extensively with home with industries, and my brother said, if he had dreamed i would be married to a policeman and working with a priest, somebody would be lying. i have been working with gangs and been involved with gangs, trying to figure them out for 34 years. i began as a young social worker in south los angeles. with gang infested housing projects that are now almost mythic, jordan downs and nickerson gardens, and i worked in these projects during what is referred to as the decade of death, when crack and unregulated gun availability laid waste to communities of

color. in los angeles during the late 1980's and early 1990's, there were 1000 homicides per year in the city of los angeles, not the county, the city. now, we have between 203 hundred homicides per year. people talk about the gang problem having been addressed. i want to share with you, what i experienced, what i have learned, i am not a typical academic. i will not quote statistics to you or talk about theories. i will talk with you about practicality. pragmatic approaches, and i will talk about reality.

sanion. an example of an interpretation might be with the original condition which refers to paths, public accessible pedestrian paths. somebody might say that means three. somebody might say that means two. the zoning administrator exercises discretion to say two. the zoning administrator does not have discretion to interpret that condition by changing it to something that does nothing for people trying to get to the muni railway, and i will reiterate no notice of that change, that modification, was given to us, but if it came to a letter of

determination 2007 look at who we gave notice? everybody, congregations and various churches and armenian church and kzv armenian school, brother hood of christ. masonic temple and others. there is a utter break down of law and it's up to this board of appeals to enforce the laws that was written by the board of supervisors. we ask that this permit thereby be declared null and void and be revoked. thank you. >> mr. nedel. >> thank you commissioners. i am on behalf of the project sponsor and permit holder. although the 2008

interpretation and the zoning administrator is not before you i wanted to correct a factual error. that letter of determination still requires two paths, not one. if you look at exhibit c on our brief you can see the location of the two paths at this location and at this location, so the zoning administrator didn't reduce the path one. that was determination was final four years ago. what is before you is the 2012 determination whether we abandoned the use of this property for three years or more conscience period. let me go through the permits that were issued during this time. a tree removal permit. a map in 2008. a second tree removal permit.

a consent agreement for shoring of the site in 2012. a san francisco mta agreement to install a traffic signal at the entrance of the project is before the mta board later this month. a art's commission agreement and the installment of the scrpture, 2010. a sidewalk ordinance by the board of supervisors to allow a new sidewalk constructed where one does not exist, 2011. sewer and water letters from the puc, again 2012. there's simply no evidence there is any lapse of use over the last three years. there has been continuous efforts to move it forward. there is continuous interaction with city agencies. the zoning administrator was absolutely correct there is no indication of abandonment of use, lapse of use. there is ample evidence otherwise and ask you to upheld the zoning administrator's determination and that is the question before you tonight and

that narrow question whether there is abandonment of the project for three years and the evidence is overwhelming there hasn't been. thank you. >> i have a question for you. what is the outcome of the litigation in answer court? >> there were. >> >> two lawsuits and one was ceqa and negative declaration filed in 2005 and denyed in 2006. mr. lagos a pied that. the other churches and schools did not appeal the court of appeal and dismissed that appeal in 201270 later in 2007 is there was a permit issued for tree removal and this board upheld that permit. mr. lagos and another neighbor filed a second writ petition in 2007. that was denied in 2008 and no appeal to

that denial. >> so neither of the lawsuits dealt with anything relating to the lapse in use condition? >> that's correct. >> okay. thank you. >> counselor, i have several questions. back to the question i asked the zoning administrator. your chronology was quite detailed. it shows mostly end dates as to when you procured certainly types of approvals. can you flush out that period of time what activities were taking place between 08 and 11? there were only one item in that time frame that was an actual approval which was the arts commission approval. tell us what activities took place during that time that justifies your contention there was no lapse? >> there was engineering work --

>> flush it out a little bit. >> i can my client come up who was in the trenches during the work but there was work by the architect, by the engineers. there were efforts to finance the project. that was during a period financing was essentially impossible to get. there was the arts commission agreement to remove the sculpture, store it and reinstall it and protect it during that period. there was further design work on these pedestrian paths. what happened is that the park merced property changed hands, and the new owners declined to get easements for the paths so they're on our property but don't cross the property line, so those are the kinds of things going on during that period. there was design of the new traffic signal on brother hood way and the

synchronization of the other signals there and the design and provide street trees was developed and landscape plan was approved by the board of supervisors in 2011, so whole series of activities. >> understood it takes a certain amount of actions to procure those. the other question was is there anything in the legislation that create a brother hood way that impacts this project's use? >> the legislation that changed the name from stanley drive to brother hood way is one sentence and "hereby changed" period and it's residential zoning on the other side. if the city intended -- >> there are no other codicils? >> it was mentioned that a policy resolution was adopted

by the board of supervisors and the south side should be retained for educational and religious organizations and nothing on the north side and it's zoned for residential. >> further questions commissioners? >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez, planning department. i would like to speak briefly to two points and one of the question of lapse and whether it's a defined term in the planning code and to my knowledge it is not. the planning code contains references when talking about non conforming uses and abandonment and uses but the lapse is not defined so it's subject to interpretation and i believe it was appropriately interpreted in this case for the third time now, the third letter of determination regarding lapse. second, regarding environmental review. when the building permits were submitted

last year i asked the planning staff to ensure that the environmental review was still valid and that discussion be had with the environmental review officer. when i return to the office tomorrow i will confirm that is the case and ask them to double check that the environmental review for the projected is still valid and the letter of determination itself is not a project approval, does not authorize construction so i don't believe there is need for that on that. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> [inaudible] >> no, sir. but i will allow mr. hall one brief comment and if you have one brief comment that's fine. >> very brief. the project sponsor referred as the resolution of 2011. it was april 2001 and signed

unanimously by the board of supervisors and mayor brown three weeks later after i addressed it. the intent of that resolution clearly stated -- it dealt with the south side but anything along brother hood way should be related to religious and/or educational purposes. that intent is explicitly defined in the legislation. thank you. >> thank you. do you have a last comment since i allowed -- >> the only comment i have is that issue was raised in the superior court action in 2008. the judge did address that and specifically found there was no evidence that the residential use of this site was incompatible or violated the zoning or general plan or any particular provision of the code or any resolution so that was addressed in the litigation in 2008 and the judgment stands.

>> okay. >> [inaudible] are you going to take this under submikz so that mr. wan -- >> ms. hwang. no, we will decide tonight sir. >> what was the purpose of saying he would look at the video of this an hour ago? >> as i explained if that missing vote can affect the decision making we will continue the case ourselves. commissioners. >> well, understanding that the matter before us is the late 2012 letter of determination having to do with lapse in use. from what i have read and heard i believe there has been

continuous -- what i characterize good faith efforts to move the project along given that period had been a difficult one for any project let alone one of this size so do i not see a reason to over turn the letter of determination. excuse me. >> i think i would agree. i don't believe the zoning administrator abused his discretion in minding there was efforts to move the project along and i would also vote to deny the appeal. >> i have a couple of comments if you bear with me commissioners. you know some of the points that have been made here i think i need to respond a little bit to. charter revisions that occurred in 96

pretty much took the conditional use appeal process from this board. there's no doubt that the results of a ceqa, results of a building permit application and all of that all bear some level of -- not only interest, but involvement with whatever cases that we hear here. however, what has been brought forward is the appeal of the conditions of a planning commission decision and that is clearly in my mind that is something that is not before the jurisdiction of this board. secondly, i agree that the primary issue from this appeal is related to what the definition and what occurred

for lapse of use. i'm not quite as acceptance there was a lapse of use given the fact there was a tremendous amount of complexity here. when you have multiple agencies working through them takes a consider amount of time. if you look at the period when they had completed entitlements or decisions from various agencies there was a gap. it looked like the gap was from 08 to 11. getting to the decision making in that time probably ate up a lot of time in between. it's not like when i was sent to hawaii and did four high rises and that was a different time and can we put in a sketch and give level of perpechization of a use. in this case i find

there was significant use and therefore no lapse of use. >> i will move to deny the appeal on the basis there was no abuse of the power of the zoning administrator. >> okay. >> no error or abuse or discretion. >> yes. >> so we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and up hold the subject letter of determination on that basis and the za didn't abuse the discretion. on that motion. vice president fung. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> thank you. vote is four-zero. the lod is upheld on that basis. >> we will call item nine as

people are leaving the room richard and denise wall and department of building inspection approval and 2652 chesnut street protesting the issuance -- if i could ask that you leave the room quietly that would be helpful to the board. protesting the issuance of ronald sires to alter a building and access to roof and remodel and change bath and new bathrooms, new bedrooms and master suite at third floor and application number listed. we will start with the appellant and you have seven minutes and i want to thank you for your patience this evening in waiting for all the other items. >> good evening. >> why don't you wait a second

sir. >> good evening commissioners. i am richard wall and next to the address in the appeal. my wife lived there for 42 years and raised our four comrn in that home. we intend to stay there i would like to split the seven minutes with the architect who can go to the technical issues that i'm not competent enough to address. i can address an overall view. about three years and eight months ago i met the respondent mr. sighers who indicated -- >> can you speak closer to the microphone. >> he indicated he purchased the property and intended to do renovations and live there and that was fine and in the

interest of good neighbors we met with him several times along with his architect and they had a community meeting where we met in the street and not in the house, but in front of the house and the architect described what they were going to do. subsequent do that and that was first of june 1969 and subsequent had another meeting with neighbors that adjoined the property and certain things were discussed and one of which he indicated he was blocking a window on the property line, and that he would put a sky light in which we accepted that kind offer based on my looking at his credibility. the next time i had contact with mr. sires was about a month later and not really contact. i lookedded out my front window and there was

an u haul truck and he was loading it up and some time in midjune or july of 1969. from that point on the house has been rentd and only when i formally got notice this past year that i had two week period to file an appeal that i realized he was going forward with the plans he talked about. i must tell you about our earlier endeavor as a neighbor to resolve things nothing occurred by mr. sires. no information, no follow up. but we went forward based on the representations that he had made that his contractor would take care of that sky light. we opened up the ceiling in the hallway where it was to be located and it remained open for

some time until we close today up because mr. >> >> sires represented something and it didn't happen and he will have an explanation for that and it's up to you to judge the credibility about what people have to say about this issue. the one thing i want to point out to you mr. sires in his declaration and other papers referred to himself as a licensed california lawyer. as of this morning checking with the state bar of california i find that mr. sires is a lawyer but is inactive and for the past several years has been and in a way he's making acquisitions as a lawyer going to a jury on it and just confirms to my mind, and i might be wrong, but i have to believe in the credibility of people and when they demonstrat