Abatement Appeals Board pauses order of abatement for 2119-20 Second Street pending demolition permit and monitoring

SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board voted unanimously on Jan. 15 to continue consideration of an order of abatement for the property at 2119-20 Second Street and to require ongoing monitoring while the owner pursues a demolition permit.

The board’s action pauses a formal decision to uphold or reverse the Department of Building Inspection’s (DBI) October 4, 2022 order of abatement for unauthorized excavation and a failing retaining-wall foundation. The department had recommended upholding the abatement and imposing an assessment of costs; the board instead continued the matter so staff can monitor progress and report back at a later date.

DBI inspector Joe Ng told the board the property contains an unauthorized new basement excavation and a retaining-wall foundation that had failed at the time of DBI’s inspection. “Today, the violation remains outstanding for the unauthorized excavation and the retaining wall foundation,” said Joe Ng, senior building inspector, Department of Building Inspection. Ng said DBI found more than 50 cubic yards of unauthorized excavation and that the current lateral bracing is temporary.

The property owner and appellant, David Buckley, identified himself at the hearing as the purchaser of the building about three years ago and said he is seeking permits to demolish the existing structure and build a new three-story single-family residence. “I just bought the building about 3 years ago. It wasn't me who who did the violations on the building. I'm actually trying to correct them,” Buckley said. He told the board he has removed violations where possible but is unable to complete the remaining repairs until the city approves demolition and new-construction permits.

Board members questioned whether the owner must perform repairs only to demolish them later. The deputy city attorney told the board that any decision modifying an order of abatement for violations that do not constitute a serious and imminent hazard must require the work to begin within 60 days and be completed within a reasonable time not to exceed 18 months.

After discussion about the status of the demolition permit — which the owner said was filed in July 2022 and remains pending — Commissioner Alexander moved to continue the matter to a later time to be set by the chair, with a friendly amendment from Vice President Newman to require ongoing site monitoring. The motion passed on a roll-call vote: President Chavez, yes; Vice President Newman, yes; Commissioner Alexander Toot, yes; Commissioner Ming, yes; Commissioner Shattuck, yes. The board directed DBI to provide status updates and monitoring during the continuance and gave the chair discretion to set the return date.

At the hearing DBI staff said the building is unoccupied and that temporary shoring and bracing had been installed and inspected; DBI staff also warned that temporary supports may not withstand a major earthquake. The deputy city attorney and several commissioners noted that staying the abatement to allow the demolition-permit process to proceed could result in the violations being removed if the structure is demolished.

The board accepted a proposal to monitor the site while the owner pursues planning and demolition approvals and to revisit the matter if progress stalls. Buckley said he has communicated regularly with planning staff and is awaiting their response. “Pretty much every week we're, you know, sending emails. Last week we sent out 1, haven't heard anything back,” he said.

The board did not reverse the order of abatement at the hearing; instead it continued the case with monitoring and set the conditions described above. The matter will return to the board at a date determined by the chair, informed by department updates and the owner’s progress with permitting.