unzuckerberg san francisco general constitutional people andrew's on suspension of a crime are held in jail unless at the pay money as collateral those amounts are a bail schedule and state law requires the supreme court judges in each certificate of occupancy and the sheriff enforce if you can pay you, get out of jail if you cannot you don't get out of jail that is a reflex to the community whether you can pay for your freedom a two tier stop one with money and one without not right and in keeping with the constitution it is time for it to stop to echo u.s. attorney general loretta relinquish no price tag on justice i believe the states bail system

specifically the bail system before arrangement is unconstitutional that's why my office filed papers in supreme court we'll not defend that law we are innovate taking issue with the law but about the existing bail process prior to the point of arrangement at arrangement a judge has the opportunity to review the circumstances and make an individual bail determination based on all the facts a bail schedule that lists the price of freedom without consideration of the individual circumstances is not serving the interest of the government or the public and unfairly discriminates against the poor government entities in other states tackle the problem in lawsuits like alabama, kansas, missouri and mississippi and louisiana have

reformed their action but my action is the first time that a government entity has refused to - dangerous people need to remain incarcerated how much money someone has is not picture measure of the 245e9 right now we have a system that someone can be locked up for days because they can't pay for your freedom and someone dangerous what about free someone for marijuana for sale can be locked up and not by a bail but someone paying one and 50 thousand can be out for rape that needs to change that's why we're taking this step this is decades in robert f kennedy were attorney general only one factor determines whether a defendant stays in jail not guilt or

innocence but the nature of the crime not the character of the defensive that is money in testifying in congress the attorney general told a store 54 days in jail one person couldn't afford a bail for the maximum penalty was 5 days in jail two years later congress passed its the bail reform act in 1968 that polishes - the federal system uses a model that cantonese those people that are a flight reflex or danger to others maybe condition a dna sample or curfew and bail cannot urban design set in an amount a person couldn't afford in 1987 our society liberty that the norman and detention prior to trial or

without trial is the exemption states, however, have not necessarily followed suit as an example report this issue by the nonprofit non-partisan prison found 6 hundred and 36 thousand people locked up and in more than 3 thousand jails in the united states 70 percent are held pretrial meaning not convicted of a crime or legally presumed innocent in february 2015 did u.s. department of justice arguing a bail that carding people before trial solely because of they're not able to pay for this is violating the fourth amendment the u.s. department of justice said they must not cause people

to be incarcerated solely because they can't pay keeping people locked up for no reason they can't post bail has other consequences people loss jobs and family fall apart and taxpayers don't need this in terms of the current bail some h system is not only unconstitutional but bad public policy the district of columbia has been very pro-active in the area and don't use prearrangement bail it workouts well, in the district of columbia and in fiscal year 2017 the district of columbia were realized 98 percent avoided arrest for violent crimes and 88 percent made all air scheduled court pioneers that is an issue

that has gardened national attention and the chief court justice convened a working group to come up with recommendation by december of 2017 to deal with that situation which everybody knows needs to be reformed we're hopeful with our action we'll give impetus u tuesday and make sure we have a reformation of a bail system no doubt here in california unconstitutional you may note a need for reform for the bail system and the laws governing it we plan on working with the senator to make sure that the today's action has impetus to have reform at the state level to have a bail system here in california it is constitutional and fair and workable and

protects the public that is it is intended to protect thank you all for coming i look forward to any questions question. >> bob. >> (inaudible). >> there will be two options number one the states attorney general can step in and defend the snuflt of the state law or number two already been a motion intervened by and bail bondsman that motion was denied i would anticipate that they'll renew that motion either the attorney general or the interskweern and rogers will make that determination and i think that is likely they'll be someone to step up to

defend the uncomfortably. >> (inaudible). >> no i don't think that is likely their won't be changes tomorrow are today bob alluded it to say likely that something else will make an effort to defend the law we'll have to wait and see how that litigation plays out this is a pretty good big statement the first time the city has stepped up it sends a message allowed there is changes in the future i think that at

the lefrs the potentially or the evolve outlet there is a change in the system we have i don't anticipate we won't see anything in the self disease. >> not necessarily a call to action a concrete step it is a further impetus to a movement growing across the country there are other advocacy groups that have a call to action my job to defend the laws and what i think one is unconstitutional i'll not step out and defend this is what we're doing today. >> (inaudible). >> do you know what the plan say you guys are right. >> well the reformation has to starred in the state allergic i don't have the power assemblyman

boca will be the leaders on the reform we'll wait and see there is a state mandate that each court system in each county as 5 bail schedule this is something that has to happen at the state level. >> it is been in - what - >> decades this is the current system been around for decades and it is the combrefrnd as i alluded to nationally robert kennedy was talking about this in 1964 this is the norman in the united states and it certainly the norm in california that is a certain a very, very good step. >> what happened everything you don't have (inaudible) i

guess i'm curious as to the people that have the money they'll basically be required to pay. >> if you look at it - what needs to happen everyone needs to be treated fairly and equally under the law with the current prearrangement bail system a person who has the means just pays the money and walks out the as a matter of fact everybody should be treated equal in post arrangement bail everyone has their case yielding reviewed by the judge that makes a determination if they're a flight reflex what's the risk to sorority of that yield being out on the streets here in prearrangement bails we don't have that we need fair enforcement of justice to make sure that all cases with yielding reviewed by a judge who makes sure that that person does not pose a flight reflex or

minimize the risk to the community and a variety of other ways in which you can assure that yield is make their court appearance and show up for trial i can have all sorts of supervision from check in these with the court to e-mails, to supervised visits to make sure that yield is supervised and make sure they're returning not based on money and everybody has to have their case adjudicated in a fair even way under the provision of a court officer. >> (inaudible). >> well, they're - >> the same standard or still have to pay. >> we'll have to see every case is jashthd should be adjudicated by a judge certain a

bail might not a component but not only the with only way to pay and get out. >> (inaudible). >> the money bail is a bad thing - (inaudible). >> well, i'll say i'm not going to get into policy but certainly a prearrangement before a case it look at by a judge money in and of itself in our view as the only means unconstitutional what roles the money plays down the road as a component after a judge reviews a case we'll have to see but right now what we are doing to

prearranging bail and having money and wealth the only dictator yeah. >> relative to the - a judge adjudicates a case well in a system you know each person stands out in - (inaudible). >> i don't think so no, no washington, d.c. public school don't does that the federal system does that and you know what i've got to say convenience shouldn't be the dictator of what is just and what sorts of justice people charged with a crime get we're all sdiermentd

to equal protection under the law only if it is convenient it does not say or how much money we have that's right. >> you're referring (inaudible) we filed affirming today, we'll nobody be defending the case i'm saying that is unconstitutional. >> (inaudible). >> correct. >> okay tha

>> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by our vice president commissioner fung and commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig we do expect commissioner bobby wilson to be here to my left is thomas owen and gary the local assistant executive director. we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. sitting at the table in the front is scott sanchez the city zoning administrator here representing the planning department and the planning commission as well and in a moment we'll see building inspector joe duffy return to the room representing the

please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission

street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking so if you could your right hand swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner president honda and supervisors we have one housekeeping item has to do with with item 5 appeal 16 danish

zero regardi0 regarding 16th avenue a permit has been cancelled at the appeal is no longer under the board's jurisdiction and will not be heard tonight we'll move on to item one general public comment this is the opportunity time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction any public general public comment seeing none, item 2 commissioner questions or comments commissioners okay. then item 3 is the boards consideration of minutes of october 26, 2016. >> unless additions or changes can i have a motion? >> to accept those. >> so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes seeing none, a motion if commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes on that motion

commissioner fung commissioner president honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig. >> okay. that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero thank you very much item 4 was continued last time for commissioner wilson participation with the presidents agreement we will hold off on that item and move to the next item on the calendar item 5 is dismissed item 6 appeal wang versus the zoning administrator on merry lemon drive of a notice of violation and penalty alleging the code with the use of the the subject property on the limitations for the accessary dwellings and the appellant is the appellant in the room? please step forward