Abatement Appeals Board upholds order for 120 Shakespeare Street, allows 30 days for permits

The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on June 17 upheld an order requiring remediation at 120 Shakespeare Street but put enforcement on hold for 30 days to allow the property owner to pursue permits and inspections. Commissioner Walker moved to uphold the abatement and hold it in abeyance for 30 days to act on permits; Commissioner Marr seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

The department told the board that a rear retaining wall at the single-family property is tilting and showed a vertical crack, and that a permit and inspection would be required either to replace or to remove the wall. John Incheon, speaking for the department, described the site as an unsafe retaining wall condition that was the basis for the abatement order. Ed Sweeney of the Department of Building Inspection explained the code measures a retaining wall from the bottom of the footing, meaning below-grade footing counts toward the wall height.

Appellant spokesman Bert Africa argued the cited detached storage shed measures roughly 10 by 6 feet and sits on masonry on natural ground, and therefore is well under the 120-square-foot threshold that typically requires a building permit. "If it's masonry bricks on natural ground, I don't think we need the permit to do that," Africa said, urging reversal of the abatement and removal of the assessment. Africa also showed photographs and asserted cracks represented normal settlement rather than an unsafe condition.

Department staff responded that both the Shakespeare property and an adjoining property on Flumey Street had filed permits to address the retaining wall; staff said that if one permit is issued and signed off it could satisfy and close both cases. Staff also noted that an inspector would record the shed's size on the job card during permit work, which could resolve whether the shed required a permit.

Commissioners weighed the evidence and the department's plan to work with both property owners on permit issuance. Commissioner Walker said the violations appeared appropriate and the department's solution made sense. The board's motion required action on permits within 30 days and imposed assessment of costs; the record shows the motion passed by roll call.

Next steps: the department will monitor permit activity and inspections; if no permit action occurs within the 30-day abeyance the department may proceed with enforcement consistent with the order of abatement. The board recorded its action during the meeting and closed the item.