Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retaining Wall Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement appeals board grants 60‑day continuance in disputed 19th Street retaining‑wall order
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board granted a continuance up to 60 days on Dec. 17, 2025, in a dispute over a failing retaining wall at 4757 19th Street after the appellant argued the uphill neighbor, not the downhill owner, is responsible. DBI cited surveys showing part of the wall on both parcels and emphasized life‑safety concerns.
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board voted Dec. 17 to continue for up to 60 days an appeal of a director’s order that required the owner of 4757 19th Street to obtain permits and repair a failing retaining wall.
DBI court enforcement presented the case (Complaint No. 202424763), saying inspectors documented a vertical crack and leaning consistent with a hazardous condition and that multiple licensed surveys show a portion of the wall crosses the property line. The department told the board that notices of violation were issued to both 46 Eagle Street (the uphill parcel) and 4757 19th Street and that standard corrective steps include an engineering report, permitting and final DBI sign‑offs.
Appellant counsel Elizabeth Bridal of Brekus Law Partners told the board her client, the Crosley Family Trust, should not be required to make costly repairs because, she said, the wall was constructed to retain historic fill on the uphill lot and the geotechnical report prepared for the uphill owner states the wall primarily benefits that parcel. “We respectfully ask the board to reverse or modify the director’s order to remove any requirement that Crosley Family Trust obtain permits and perform repairs on the retaining wall and vacate the assessment of costs imposed on the appellant,” Bridal said.
A caller, identified in the record as Mr. Liebig, urged the board to relieve the downhill owner of responsibility, saying the wall was built in the 1920s to support the uphill yard and it would be unfair to require the downhill owner to pay for repairs.
DBI staff responded that the department relies on licensed surveys and the building‑safety standard in Section 102A for unsafe conditions. Staff said that when a survey shows any portion of a structure is on a property, the department typically issues notices to the owners involved and that an abatement lien already exists on the uphill parcel. The department also said it would review any new survey evidence submitted.
Board members acknowledged legal and equity issues raised by the appellant and several commissioners stressed there is an admitted life‑safety hazard. One commissioner urged that, regardless of civil‑law allocation of responsibility, DBI must act to mitigate present risks. The appellant argued that state civil‑law concepts governing party walls should assign responsibility to the uphill owner, but board counsel cautioned that civil remedies and title disputes are generally for the courts and not this administrative proceeding.
Commissioner Alexander moved for a continuance of up to 60 days to allow additional briefing and to give the appellant time to submit updated surveys or other evidence; Commissioner McCleese seconded. The board’s roll‑call produced the outcome the chair announced as 4‑2 in favor of the continuance. The board asked the appellant to update the record at the next meeting and invited new survey evidence for DBI review.
The continuance pauses final action on the director’s order so the board can consider additional evidence and legal briefing. If the parties do not resolve factual or safety issues in the interim, the matter will return to the board within the 60‑day period for further consideration.
