Abatement board grants rehearing and upholds abatement for 120 Shakespeare St., gives owner 90 days to comply

The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on Feb. 2015 granted a rehearing after an appellant presented a structural-engineer report and soil investigation concerning a retaining wall at 120 Shakespeare Street and later upheld the property's order of abatement while giving the owner 90 days to obtain permits and complete repairs.

The rehearing request arose after the appellant, identified in the record as Mr. Uy, submitted a structural-engineering assessment and a soil-investigation report that he said show the 4-foot retaining wall is "stable and safe." Mr. Uy told the board the small detached storage structure on the property was about 60 square feet and therefore below the city's building-permit threshold cited by the department. "We have the structural report, which says that it's safe and stable," he said during his presentation.

City staff and department counsel disputed that the new materials undercut the prior finding of hazard. Department representative John Ingen told the board he was "not hearing any new evidence" that would change the earlier decision and pointed to the engineering report language recommending a new engineered 4-foot wall with adequate footing because of lateral soil pressure and observed outward movement.

The department and an inspector also noted drainage deficiencies behind the wall and warned that heavy winter rains could increase pressure on the structure. Department staff said that, while they were not taking issue with the small shed at this time if a filed permit verified it had been removed or reduced, the retaining wall itself remained the primary safety concern.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to grant rehearing for the case so the board could examine the newly submitted materials; the board voted unanimously to do so. When the matter returned for consideration of the abatement order, board members and staff discussed the practicalities of repair and permitting, including whether a neighbor's permit (the neighbor had already filed one and accepted a related order of abatement) could be used cooperatively to remedy the common retaining wall.

Given the department's position that the wall should be replaced and the practical difficulties of financing and redesigning shared work, commissioners said a modest extension for compliance was reasonable. Citing the engineering concerns and the potential for heavy rain, the board voted unanimously to uphold the order of abatement but stay enforcement for 90 days to allow the owner time to obtain permits and complete the required work; the stay includes assessment costs tied to the abatement.

The board noted that if neighbors cooperated on a single permit, that could resolve the retaining-wall obligation for both properties; the appellant said he was willing to cooperate but raised concerns the city had required removal of a foundation element that affected cost-sharing. The board recorded that the department's recommendation to replace the wall remained in effect and that the 90-day extension applied only to the retaining-wall repair portion of the abatement.

No members of the public spoke on the items. The board adjourned at 9:55 a.m. and planned to reconvene briefly as the Building Inspection Commission.

The action taken: rehearing granted on the basis of new structural/soil reports; the order of abatement for 120 Shakespeare Street was upheld, with enforcement stayed for 90 days to permit compliance and assess costs.