Board of Appeals denies CityView appeal, allows CCDC seismic retrofit permit to proceed

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to deny CityView Restaurant’s appeal of a seismic retrofit permit obtained by the Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC), allowing the retrofit work to proceed. Vice President Rick Swig moved to deny the appeal; Commissioners Lopez, Lazarus, President Honda and Commissioner Chang voted Aye.

CityView’s attorney, identified in the hearing as Mr. Wiegle, said the restaurant was not challenging the original 2005 permit but objected to a recent revision that replaces a previously discussed steel moment-frame approach with a concrete moment-frame. He argued that the change was made without prior discussion and that the revised plan will cause “toxic debris,” heavy noise and significant disruption to restaurant operations. He urged the board to consider whether the building department was misled when the new permit was obtained and to enforce the parties’ earlier settlement arrangements if appropriate.

Tyler Ferguson, representing the Chinatown Community Development Center, said CCDC’s permit was validly issued and that CityView’s dispute over contractual settlement terms belongs in mediation under Judge David Garcia, not before the Board of Appeals. Ferguson said the retrofit involves mandatory structural improvements to protect residents and patrons and that CCDC had notified CityView of the work repeatedly.

Design engineer Drew Cressfield told the board that steel moment frames have become difficult to use with existing wood diaphragms because of lateral torsional bracing and attachment limitations; he said a concrete moment frame better integrates the front of the building and provides the supplemental support needed where steel frames attach to unreinforced masonry walls. Senior Building Inspector Matthew Green summarized the permit history: an original 2005 permit issued Sept. 20, 2005, partial work in 2006, expirations and a notice of violation in 2013, an order of abatement in 2019, and the permit under appeal filed in October 2019 and issued Oct. 29, 2021; DBI said it believes the permit was properly issued.

After hearing testimony from both sides and technical explanations from DBI and the engineer, the board concluded the permit had been properly issued under current code standards and that the dispute over prior settlement-agreement expectations should be resolved through mediation or private proceedings. The motion to deny the appeal carried 5-0. The board adjourned after closing remarks.