Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies jurisdiction request in noise penalty case at Trigger nightclub
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 10 declined to take jurisdiction over a zoning notice of violation and roughly $50,000–$60,000 in penalties for Trigger (2344 Market St.), citing a long pattern of noncompliance and enforcement history; the vote was 4–1.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 10 refused a request to take jurisdiction over a notice of violation and related penalties issued to Trigger, a nightlife venue at 2344 Market Street, after neighbors and city staff described repeated noise and smoking ordinance violations.
Jeremy Paul, appearing for the venue, asked the board to grant jurisdiction so the parties could revisit penalties that he said amounted to about $50,000 (at $250 per day for ~200 days); Paul said recent mitigation work and a new permit application aim to fix structural sound issues and enclose an outdoor smoking patio.
Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department urged the board to deny jurisdiction, saying the venue’s violations dated back to 2008 and escalated through 2010 enforcement. Sanchez said inspectors documented persistent noncompliance, including smoking on an area that should have been closed and failure to respond to enforcement until threatened with revocation of entitlements.
Neighbors and neighborhood associations told the board they had repeatedly sought enforcement for noise and other disturbances. Speakers from the Eureka Valley and DeVoss Triangle neighborhood associations said they supported a meaningful penalty to preserve the integrity of conditional‑use protections and discourage repeated breaches of permit conditions.
Board discussion focused on whether there were due‑process or timing errors that would justify jurisdiction; several commissioners said they heard nothing compelling to grant it and noted the venue had multiple opportunities to comply through earlier enforcement. Commissioner Peterson moved to deny the jurisdiction request; the motion carried on a 4–1 roll call.
By denying jurisdiction, the Board left in place the zoning administrator’s enforcement process and the penalties as assessed to date. Board members urged the parties to continue working through the enforcement channels already used by Planning and the Entertainment Commission.
The Board’s action was procedural: it declined to reopen the merits of the underlying penalty assessment and instead left the enforcement and appeal rights intact under the existing administrative timelines.
