cityview also argues ccdc is required to use best efforts to minimize the disruption to cityview's operation of the premises that is true. but that does not mean ccdc must then use cityview's preferred solution particularly when that solution is not code compliant.cityview's sole focus in this case is making the seismic work as convenient as possible for its restaurant. indeed the most convenient outcome for cityview in this case is for the seismic work to not happen at all and that is why we are here today. that is also whycityview has refused to efficiently resolve this dispute and why they refuse to cooperate in good faith . cityview fails to recognize sometimes convenience and public safety are two mutually exclusive goals you cannot always have both. ccdc has received a valid code compliant seismic work permit and is ready to begin work . ccdc has no obligation to create a workplan that was mutually agreed-upon and no obligation to use cityview's preferred solution.cityview has no complaints about the validity of the permit itself and may not be convenient for cityview it is now time fo

cityview also argues ccdc is required to use best efforts to minimize the disruption to cityview's operationthe premises that is true. but that does not mean ccdc must then use cityview's preferred solution particularly when that solution is not code compliant.cityview's sole focus in this case is making the seismic work as convenient as possible for its restaurant. indeed the most convenient outcome for cityview in this case is for the seismic work to not happen at all and that is why we are here today. that is also whycityview has refused to efficiently resolve this dispute and why they refuse to cooperate in good faith . cityview fails to recognize sometimes convenience and public safety are two mutually exclusive goals you cannot always have both. ccdc has received a valid code compliant seismic work permit and is ready to begin work . ccdc has no obligation to create a workplan that was mutually agreed-upon and no obligation to use cityview's preferred solution.cityview has no complaints about the validity of the permit itself and may not be convenient for cityview it is now time for th

we are now moving on to item number six, appeal number 21 103 cityview restaurant incorporated versuspartment of building inspection. property is 665 clay street and 662 commercial street. appealing the issuance on october 29, 2021 to chinatown community development center of an alteration permit . install ground-floor concrete moment frame on rear wall to complete mandatory unreinforced masonry buildingretrofits under 4099 and associated connections . designed for sf building code 4 a and 4b. correct bolts with a direct irregularities and accessibility upgrade . permit number 2019 10 25 5615. mister legal will be addressing thepoor. you have seven minutes . >> thank you very much. i'd like to clarify it's not our intention to appeal that original 2005 permit. that permit was issued on a cooperative basis after a great deal of back-and-forth and discussion. between both the permit holder and the restaurant.what we are concerned about is this most recent complete revision of the approach to the seismic work on the commercialstreet side of the building . if we look at the statement from