Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permits And Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Joseph Paul Trust permit dispute to allow City Attorney records review
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board continued a case involving 68320 Eighth St after the appellant said a prior court settlement resolved older violations; DBI said four permits remain expired and the board agreed to seek additional City Attorney documentation before deciding jurisdiction.
The Abatement Appeals Board on Sept. 17 continued hearing on 68320 Eighth St after competing claims about whether earlier litigation and a recorded satisfaction of judgment resolved the permits in question.
John Hinton of code enforcement told the board that four permits tied to a horizontal addition at the property had expired and had no final inspections, and staff recommended upholding the order of abatement and assessing costs.
Appellant counsel Gordon Macaulay said the matters had been litigated, that the client paid the City and County of San Francisco $700,000 in settlement and that a satisfaction of judgment was recorded; he urged the board to accept the court documentation and close the matter. "Mr. Pohl paid the City and County of San Francisco $700,000 to settle this," Macaulay said, arguing the permit issues were part of that resolution.
DBI responded that permits remained open and that certificates of final completion (CFCs) were not on file; staff noted it had recently received additional court documents from the appellant but that several items were not in the commissioners’ packet. Commissioners expressed concern about whether the board has jurisdiction where matters were previously adjudicated and asked for City Attorney records to clarify what the settlement covered.
Commissioner Walker moved, and the board voted unanimously, to continue the matter to the next abatement meeting so the City Attorney and staff can review the submitted court documents and advise whether the current violations fall within the scope of the prior judgment.
The continuation preserves the status quo while the board seeks a fuller administrative and legal file to determine whether DBI may proceed on the expired-permit violations or whether they are precluded by the earlier settlement.
