>> good evening and welcome to the board of appeals. we're joined by representatives from the planning department and the department of building

inspection. we are joined by a -- representing the department of public health. at this time, if you would please go over the meeting guidelines and then conduct the swearing in process. >> the board request that you will turn off all phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceedings. the rules of presentation are as follows, appellants, permit holders, and a part of representatives each have seven minutes to present and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated must conclude their comments within the time given. those who are not affiliated

with the party have up to three minutes each to address the board. to assist the board in the preparation minutes, members of the public that wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a card. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are comment cards on the lectern. if you have questions about a rehearing schedule, please speak to the staff or call the office tomorrow morning. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, cable channel 78. the meetings are available for

purchase on dvd directly from sfgtv. if you plan to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, and say "i do," after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> thank you. we will move on to item number one, which is public comment. is there anyone that would like

to speak on an item not on the agenda? we will move to item number 2 which is commissioner comments and questions. >> item number3 is the adoption of minutes. before you are the minutes of the meeting of july 27th. >> if not, i will move the adoption. >> is to any public comment on the minutes? >> on the motion to a job the minutes to launch on the motion to adopt the minutes. -- on the motion to adopt the minutes. thank you, at the vote is 5-0. >> the next item on the calendar is a special item, this is a presentation of a resolution

honoring of florence corn field for his service -- a warrants -- this is a presentation of resolution honoring laurence kornfield for this service. >> it is my honor to read this. he first attended the board of appeals meeting in 1988 and went on to serve as a representative for the board of appeals for nearly 20 years. first as the chief building inspector and then as the deputy

director for the apartment building inspection. whereas with great professionalism and technical expertise, he carried out his duty, displayed a deep understanding of the issues and loss associated. and an ability to address the questions posed by the board and the public, clarity, compassion. whereas laurence kornfield uses exceptional problem-solving skills to help resolve a dispute. also helping to amend these, sometimes literally. -- also hoping to amend fences. also working to work with earthquake reduction efforts. there are new responsibilities.

where as the commissioners and staff of the board of appeals will miss the extensive knowledge and good humor that laurence kornfield brought to the meetings. be it resolved that the san francisco board of appeals command laurence kornfield for his many years of service and a member has a staff of the apartment building inspection. the commissioners and staff of the board of appeals express their heartfelt a fishy asian -- expressed their heartfelt appreciation. adopted by the san francisco board of appeals at our meeting on the 18, 2011. [applause]

>> if i could say one or two words. it has always been one of the highlights of my work of that apartment building inspection and this allowed me to combine all of the technical issues with the complex issues that are brought before the board and i enjoy that as one of the highlights of my career. they've you very much. >> let me take a quick second to describe this position. >> we're trying to understand

what the impact will be. they asked me to come off with a plan for earthquake safety. right now, i am finishing drafting a 30-year overview plan which would have been next year. we would try to make some changes. if we're lucky enough to have an earthquake, maybe we can go way ahead. name me -- every little incremental step makes it a better place to live. >> thank you. your testimony is were always --

and i know that we will be in good hands. [applause] >> it is there any public comment on this item? we will move on to the next item, the jurisdiction request. the subject property is at 33 to 44 market street. -- 3344 market street. this is asking the board to dish jurisdiction over notice of violation of an efficient -- issued. the board voted to set aside the decision to deny jurisdiction

of may 11th, 2011. mr. paul, you can start. >> thank you very much. i have three minutes to cover a great deal of information. i want to explain why the trigger is important, why are we asking for a waiver of penalties and fines? what about the citizens who would have liked to have been. the planning department enforcement process has lacked clarity and is getting better. at the time of this violation, the penalty was launched. this is not simply about the finds. this is about a tremendous amount of money that was used to

spend the previous night club. there is a plan now proposed to change the structure and to undo some physical problems that were in transit to the design that went through a three-year approval process that led to the building not being sound tight. most of the sound problems that have been experienced at the trigger have been ameliorated to a large extent and comes from the smoking patio. in terms of why the planning

process is flawed and you ought to take jurisdiction over this, the building department has a violation, they need to cite a business with, they go out and they slapped an orange notice to the door and a notice of violation. it says to file the building permit applications and do this for a number of days. this was issued on may 7th of 2010. this lists of things that needed to be done that were first put in writing on april 28th, 2010. those exact items came up in conversation as things are explored as sound mitigation solutions. these were not an easy solution or an easy fix.

claim asking you to grant jurisdiction so that we can discuss these issues. these penalties are about $60,000 and these are really fair. >> the department has concerns about the board granted jurisdiction in this matter and other matters that have come before the board that are related to the violation of the penalty. the department has been supportive of the board's decision. they do not justify a second chance on the notice of violation and penalties. the case was approved in 2008

and 2009. we had complaints and we initiated the enforcement process. the notice of violation penalty was issued on may 7th of 2010. this is not come into compliance until they had the entitlement revoked. we had to take it to the planning commission for it to change. they did a very simple thing, they closed the door by this outdoor smoking area that they then closed in december and that is why they came into compliance with the conditions of approval. the issue of the penalties was discussed last november with a meeting with supervisor dufty about the project and we informed them that they can come to see board of appeals to request jurisdiction.

they failed to file an appeal. that advice was given in november of last year. they did not file the request until april of this year. then they missed their first hearing on this. it seemed like it was an error on when they put the item in their calendar. we think that the violation had gone on for far too long. they were forced by the planning commission to come into compliance and they finally did so but in the past few months we have uncovered more issues. sound was continuing to be an issue and we sent an inspector out in july. they observed this smoking area which was supposed to be closed. this would violate the city's second hand smoking ordinance

and a violation of state law. they might be able to answer some questions what triggers with the compliance. they have been smoking they're in violation of the law. they are operating in violation of the city law, and they have not made good consistent efforts to come into compliance. with that, we've pressed the board to not grant jurisdiction. >> the roll door that encloses the patio, has any of your staff or other inspectors noticed whether this is up or down? >> we have had inspectors out and we have noticed that it is down. that is good.

it is reported that there still smoking in that area which is a violation. >> has there been recent complaints? >> the most recent complaints were earlier this year. >> what is the final amount of the sanctions you are seeking? >> i believe it was $30,000. >> can i see a show of hands of women and people are interested in speaking on this item?

>> ayman neighbor in the district and i am a board member -- i am a neighbor in the district and i am also a board member of the neighborhood association. the inconsequent noise violations and other complaints that have been violated since the club is open from a random check from my personal records the other day showed over 30 complaints assisted with the cast members from april through september. all of them were told, i will fix it. we're still talking about it. if you will be able to walk

with a penalty that demonstrates that a well-connected businesses will trump city rules. >> i am president of the -- neighborhood association and we serve 3000 houses by the castro market and older. we have been involved in this project since the beginning. we wrote a letter supporting the project. why would like to submit this. we thought that the business was compatible with the neighborhood. in may of 2009, the club opened. i was there on opening night. shortly thereafter, the issues

started to pile up and the file shows that there was probably about a hundred calls over the course of the year regarding this. the zoning administrator went to impose fines. i personally called president dufty's office and asked that the fines not be imposed so we would not be here. i asked for a meeting and we had the enforcement staff, we have the planning staff, we also have supervisor dufty, we have the neighborhood associations, we had mr. paul. coming out of that meeting, we were really hopeful because the project sponsor indicated that they would mitigate the noise. we did not want to come here and talk about this.