Abatement Appeals Board upholds order and fees for 3655 Twentieth Street

The Abatement Appeals Board voted unanimously on April 17 to uphold an order of abatement and the assessment of associated monitoring costs for the property at 3655 Twentieth Street.

Code enforcement presented the case, saying a notice of violation was issued on Sept. 8, 2022, for deteriorated retaining-wall conditions at the rear east property line and that an emergency permit had been issued to remove a 4-by-3-foot portion that posed collapse risk. "Staff recommend uphold the order of payment and impose the assessment costs," said Joe Ng of the Code Enforcement section.

The appellant’s agent, who identified himself in the hearing record as Henry Cornelius, said the immediate hazard cited in the complaint had been removed and that the owner was working with engineers on a redesign for other perimeter walls. "It's not a life safety issue," the appellant's agent said, arguing that the original emergency permit addressed the immediate failing portion and that the remaining cracks had existed for decades.

A neighbor who called in said a privately paid survey—filed with the city—shows the wall is spreading and that the condition has caused water intrusion into their basement. "The surveyor report... demonstrated that the wall is actually moving," the neighbor said, and urged enforcement because young children live below the wall.

Board members questioned whether the appellant had provided an engineering report to substantiate the claim that the remaining walls were not an imminent hazard and reviewed the administrative record. Commissioners noted the case included a director's hearing on Sept. 5, 2023, which resulted in a 30-day advisement requiring the owner to obtain permits and complete corrective work; the record indicated the owner did not complete the required work within that period.

Multiple commissioners said the board’s task was to assess whether notice and administrative procedures were properly followed and whether the record showed compliance, not to rework an engineer’s design. Some members expressed sympathy for the owner’s desire to re-engineer the solution and discussed whether a temporary stay could be appropriate to avoid further monitoring fees while the owner sought revised plans, but ultimately concluded there was insufficient documentation to cancel or modify the order.

President Chavez moved to uphold the order of abatement and the assessment of costs; Vice President Newman seconded. In a roll-call vote, Chavez, Newman, Commissioner Summer and Commissioner Williams voted to uphold the order. The motion carried unanimously.

The board did not take additional public comment on the motion. No stay or modification was recorded; fees assessed to date remain in place. The board adjourned at 10:19 a.m.; the Building Inspection Commission meeting was scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m.