Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jurisdictional Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds 68320 Eighth St. appeal in abeyance pending Superior Court jurisdictional ruling
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board unanimously held the continued appeal for 68320 Eighth Street in abeyance after lawyers argued a prior settlement/injunction may give the Superior Court exclusive enforcement jurisdiction; the department said current notices of violation remain outstanding.
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board unanimously voted to hold in abeyance the continued appeal for 68320 Eighth Street while the parties seek resolution from the Superior Court over whether prior litigation and a settlement bar the board from taking action.
John, the department representative, told the board that four permits for the property had expired and that the department issued a notice of violation and a subsequent order of abatement this year. He said the department has not received permit renewals or certificates of final completion and recommended upholding the order of abatement and imposing costs.
Gordon Macaulay, attorney for the property owner, presented court filings and sworn declarations—he cited an amended injunction and a settlement agreement he said showed the Superior Court retained jurisdiction and that the city attorney had previously represented the settlement. Macaulay argued the court had authority to enforce or confirm that required work was completed and noted there is a satisfaction of judgment in the court file.
The department responded that the superior-court documents cited by the appellant relate to a 1997 abatement and do not resolve the notice of violation issued on 04/02/2013 or the abatement issued this year; the department maintained the current violations remain outstanding unless a certificate of final completion is produced from DBI records. The City Attorney advised that factual disputes over the prior injunction and compliance should be first addressed by the Superior Court, which retained jurisdiction per the court documents shown to the board.
Commissioner Lee moved to continue the item until the Superior Court rules on the preliminary jurisdictional issue; Commissioner Walker seconded. The board took a unanimous roll-call vote to hold the matter in abeyance. Appellant's counsel also asked that a $1,669.50 fine imposed at the Director's hearing be refunded because, he said, the Board lacked jurisdiction to issue that fine.
The Board did not resolve the underlying permits or the merits of the violations; it paused further administrative action pending judicial clarification.
