tv Government Access Programming SFGTV January 15, 2018 11:00am-12:01pm PST
-- if you require that this house no longer looks like the film set it will make a difference for fans coming and taking photos and showing up all throughout the night in droves like this. we really ask for your help. thank you. >> president honda: thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. cloirk yocloirk you also have 1. >> good evening, i'm jeff frank lip and the executive producer of the show "full house" and "fuller house" which is now streaming on netflix. over the last 30 years these shows have been seen by a billion people worldwide and have served as a welcoming global ambassador on behalf of san francisco. i bought the home in augus august 2016, because i had a great fondness for this house as it has been closely associated with this show that i've loved
since 1987. i gave one interview 18 months ago that was picked up by dozens and dozens of news outlets and in my initial excitement i made a few comments that were not thought through that i regret having made, but that my neighbors have seized upon to falsely claim that i am planning on opening up some sort of commercial enterprise in this home, something that would require a special use permit that i have not sought. my neighbors also claim that i am seeking to build an exact replica of the tv show inside my home. that's physically impossible. i would have to gut the entire house and start from scratch and build it completely new to accomplish this. the neighbors' fears are simply unfounded. when i first bought the house i invited all of my neighbors over to an open house to meet them and to hear any concerns. i told them that i plan on commencing a much-needed
renovation, opening up the floor plan, do a seismic retrofit and add decks to increase the house's enjoyment and value and update the infrastructure. and i said after the work was completed that the house would be rented out in accordance with the law. i do understand and sympathize with the neighbors' anger over the increased visits from tourists and i'm sure that at times it is a major pain in the butt, but "full house" fans have been coming there for the last 30 years and as fan visits are increasing i do not believe that it's because i own the house or what color it is, it is because the new show has become a hit and "full house" and "fuller house" are currently significant in pop culture. as time goes by these visits will decrease just like they did after "full house" finished its run on abc back in 1995. my neighbors are saying that i've already turned an empty home with a demolished interior
into some kind of commercial enterprise. that's just not true. yes, netflix, not i, but netflix chose to use the exterior of the home for two promotional events, both approved by the film commission but those activities took about six hours out of the year and a half that i have owned the house. what's important to note is the fact that fans visiting the house to take a souvenir photo, even if they post it on their social media, that does not generate any money and it is in no way a commercial use of the property. just because people take photos of the house from the sidewalk which i cannot control that does not mean that this home is no longer a single family home. the public cannot change the use of my house uni unilaterally. they asked that i get rid of the bay windows on the side of the
house and i have done other things to improve the situation but this house has sat empty, this house has sat empty and uninhabitable with the interior demolished for almost one year. it is a fire hazard with no sprinklers and the upper floors are supported by temporary shoring which is not designed to support them for months on end. the recent earthquake makes this situation especially dangerous. if the upper floors fail, it will be because my neighbors have held up these basic remodel permits unreasonably. i respectfully request that you allow me to move forward with the previously permitted renovations. thank you, and my attorney elizabeth bridges would like to make a few additional comments. thank you. >> good evening, elizabeth bridges with s.s.l. law firm for the owner. so i would like to make a few points tonight. i think that most importantly what i'd like to say is that this building permit is
completely ordinary and it's fully code compliant and consistent with the ongoing residential use of the property. so although the neighbors have made some issue about the design elements in the house, it's actually fully code compliant and the interior renovations are nothing extraordinary. mr. franklin has agreed to remove the roof deck and the two-story bay window that would have added value to the property and he's doing that in an effort to work with the neighbors and i would like to address the additional conditions that the neighbors have asked in their papers for you to apply and i just want to remind you that your ability to condition the permit is constrained by well-established case law that encompasses what the police power has for the city. you know, i have detailed these cases in our papers but i just want to remind you now so if you're going to put conditions on the permit they have to be
reasonably related and roughly part of the permit we have an ordinary remodel, seismic upgrade and plumbing improvements and things like that. the impact of that permit are not related to visitors coming and being on the street. another constraint that is important here is that your conditions have to be related to the type of permit that's being sought. so you can't -- you can't put conditional use conditions on a building permit. they have to be appropriate for the type of permit, for building permits you typically have things that deal with code compliance for structural issues and major design changes and restrictions are a conditional use permit and not for a building permit. the final constraint in play in this particular case is that any condition that you apply has to be related to the property or the project and not the owner.
permits run with the land and they don't run with the permit holder and any permit condition that is targeted at an individual is invalid. so requiring conditions in excess of these constraints would be an abuse of discretion. so, nonetheless, in order to get this ordinary residential remodel permit to move forward we're asking that you accept the appeal and apply the conditions that the planning commission recommended and your zoning administrator, i believe, is going to provide you with a revised action memo that reflects the actual motion that was voted on by the planning commission and we'd ask that you accept those conditions as indicated in the revised action memo. since the planning commission hearing my client and our team have undertaken good faith efforts to look into the recommendations by the commission and i'm happy to speak to those if you'd like but i'd like to move on. so i'd like to address the claim by the neighbors and the appellants that there's been a
change of use. there hasn't been a change of use. this is still a residential property. no change has been proposed. and there's nothing in the permit that would indicate that this is a change of use. mr. franklin has not actively promoted or advertised the house. he conducted one ill-advised interview and allowed netflix to do two permitted promotional events that were daytime events and were six hours of the 18 months that he's owned the property, and, frankly, the show doesn't invite anyone to visit the house more than it invites people to visit the painted ladies or the golden gate bridge which are both featured in the credits. so the main point here is that the members of the public can't on their own change the use of the property. you know, someone standing on the sidewalk perhaps taking a picture doesn't change that this is a house. it's a public area, it's a public street street, what the s of the public do there is their business but they don't own the
house and they don't have an interest in it and they can't unilaterally change the use of the house. "fuller house" premiered in 2016 and the neighbors claim that since then the fan visits have increased. you know, whether or not that's true, it is coincidental timing with mr. franklin's ownership of the house. so i'd also like to address the idea of revoking the permit and i just want to make a couple comments about that. you know, the house, as mr. franklin mentioned, is demolished inside and there's a risk of water intrusion and it's a fire hazard without sprinklers and we'd like to make the house livable again and make it available for residential use. if the permit is revoked, mr. franklin would have no choice but to reapply for a permit and we'd be back here in six months or nine months or however long that takes to get through so i don't think that revoking the permit would solve any of the issues and it just puts us in a due loop of coming back before you and that's a
waste of everybody's time. i'm happy to answer any questions about the specific constraints that the board is facing in conditioning the permit. i'm available to do that or any of the specific conditions that the appellants have requested. we also have our communications team here and they're available to answer any questions or let you to know more about the activities that we've undertaken to fix the situation in the neighborhood and to work with the neighbors. thank you. >> president honda: thank you, are you done. i have a question, so when did "fuller house" start airing on netflix? >> i believe that it was february 2016? is that correct? february 2016. >> president honda: okay. when were the statements made in regards to, you know, your client being excited and -- >> when he had the interview -- i believe that the interview was december 1st -- >> it was actually done...
>> president honda: i'm sorry, if you are going to speak come to the podium, sir. sorry. >> i did the interview when i closed escrow, which i believe was in july or august of 2016 and the interview was -- was banked for the release of season 2. >> president honda: so when do you think that was released, sir? >> that was in december. >> president honda: so december 2016? >> yes. >> president honda: okay, thank you. and then the last question is -- the concerns for safety on the building, the appellants had showed a picture indicating that there was support on the property and that you had removed the support. >> well, i'm not the contractor. >> president honda: is anyone from that team here this even something. >> all of the shoring up to him. but inside of the house has significant shoring all over the place. >> president honda: so the concern is not safety that it's going to come down? >> it is a concern, i believe that we attached some -- an
affidavit from my contract. >> president honda: because that's a concern, if the concern is that it's going to come down i don't understand why you would remove additional shoring on the property? i think that your attorney wants to chime in here. >> i'd like to address that. so i'm not the contractor and we do have a statement from our contractor in your materials and a signed affidavit regarding the safety and the structural soundness of the shoring and what it's intended to do. i don't know about the particular element of shoring -- >> president honda: the question that i had specifically is why was that particular shoring removed? >> i don't know about that particular piece. >> president honda: okay, thank you, thank you. okay, thank you. >> any other questions? >> president honda: no. >> mr. sanchez? >> president honda: is that two ipads? just kidding. >> no, just a very thick docket. thank you, board members sanchez and the board.
and this is an unusual posture for a case and we have had a few of these before you in the past and the issue here is that the building permit application was issued without a b.b.n. notice. that was required because it did require planning department review. we, upon being informed of this, subspended the permit and this was last summer and i will go through some of the cro chronoly and there was questions about work that may be underway. in december 2016, a building permit was issued to replace the foundations, and then around that same time later in december was the permit that is before you now and it was for the interior model, seismic retrofit of all -- of the new side bay window, deck, and rear and new roof deck and that permit was issued on march 22nd, 2017. we suspended it on march 28th,
2017. and the appeals were subsequently filed on march 31st and april 6th. as you know we suspended it just six days after the permit was issued so i would assume that no work had begun under this permit in those six days but i can't say for certain. and i mentioned the foundation permit and there's a permit to replace the existing bathroom and kitchen in kind, no exterior alterations and that does not require a planning review so it was not subject to the b.b.n. requirement. and there's another permit that is showed and has triage from last year, to replace bathroom in kind, and exterior... it seems that there may be two permits related to the same scope of work. but it seems that what is issued so far is foundation and kitchen and bath remodel. the permit that is before you does have the seismic retrofits and more encompassing construction activities. to address the issue of the
failed block notification and we gave that to give to the planning commission and i had discussed this path with the parties at the time that we suspended the permit, both mr. patterson and miss wade and from the permit holders office as the appropriate path. we were hoping that there one a resolution and that the parties would be able to meet and achieve resolution to the issues that have been raised. obviously, that is not the case. so the item was brought before the planning commission to get their feedback. we do have conditions that they have imposed and as such we would ask that this board impose those conditions. i do have the updated discretionary view action memo for that if i may submit to the board and they have been provided earlier this week to the parties and so everyone has the same information if i can submit, pass those forward.
>> do you want to accept that memo? >> it has the additions to be added to this. >> president honda: sure. do both parties have -- >> yes. so the conditions that the board did imposed are as follows... require removal of the roof deck, of also the proposed two story bay window be removed. so the roof deck, the two story bay window and the southside sit back of the building and to consider installing a gate at the front of the building and the commission did not require that it be installed and i clarified this with the commissioners at the hearing that the installation of the gate would require environmental review by our preservation staff
and so they had suggested that the applicant consider installing or reinstalling that gate. and they suggested to consider the possibility of employing to mitigate traffic generated by visitors to the subject property and to continue to work with the neighbors to mitigate these issues. so we would request that the board actually grant the appeal and add those conditions. so i'm available for any questions and it may be better to have questions asked and this is somewhat of a complicated matter so we can answer the questions. >> president honda: go ahead. >> any back tgo back to your cot the planning review is not required for the foundation perit? >> it was not reviewed by the planning department, yes. >> how about the bathroom and the kitchen? >> no. that's just -- the kitchen and bathroom models are not reviewed by the planning department.
and the addition of kitchens as an issue that is reviewed by the planning department but simply remodeling kitchen and bath is not routed through the planning department. >> somehow i recall planning department require a review -- especially when this building is in excess of 54 years old? >> not -- the building may be a resource but that does not require review of interior kitchen and bath remodels. >> the next permit or excuse me, this permit is -- that's been appealed -- is for the continuation of the seismic rehab interiors and some of the interior work. or all of the interior work? >> it's more comprehensive. so the scope of work stated is interior remodel, seismic retrofit at all levels, new side bay window, deck addition at rear and new roof deck.
so that's the scope of the permit as it was issued. >> so i'm a little confused, you said that the permit was suspended several days after it was issued when you recognized it with the b.b.n. notice. so the work that's been done, because it sounds like the interior is pretty well gutted -- >> some new information, hearing tonight, yeah, the scope of work that has been issued is that there's two permits issued and one for replacing the foundations and one for replacing existing bathroom and kitchen in kind. there's a $30,000 value on the kitchen and bath and $90,000 on foundations. >> so arguably the interior work that is unfinished relates to that second perit? >> i would assume so. yes, i think that maybe the
project sponsor may want to elaborate more since they raised that tonight at the hearing. >> okay. thank you. >> so, let's take three and four first, as action items from -- >> yes. >> how is considering installing and consider the possibility of employing, how is that a condition? >> it's a -- >> is that like think about it and if you think about it, that's okay? >> yes, the commission is not requiring that they do it but that they investigate that. >> think about it. >> advising, yes. >> so there's no real there there, is there? >> it's advising them to investigate that, yes. but it's not a requirement that the commission is imposing. >> that's something that is not really enforceable, right? >> excuse me?
>> not enforceable and it's removing the roof deck that you can see and asking someone to consider installing and consider the possibility -- >> it doesn't result in a physical change on this permit. >> commissioner wilson: and to work with the neighbors to mitigate their issues, what does that mean? >> they make good faith efforts to address the concerns that have been raised. i mean, the commission from time to time does include this kind of -- i think that this board may also from time to time ask that the parties continue to meet and to try to work it out, you know, advising them to make best-faith efforts to do so. >> commissioner wilson: and on some of the other issues that are raised by the neighbors in their briefing, did the planning commission consider any of those? >> which -- i mean -- >> commissioner wilson: in addition to these five? >> i think that the appellants gave a very similar presentation to the planning commission as they did to this board tonight. >> commissioner wilson: so the planning commission heard those? >> i think that many of the
concerns would have been raised and as the appel act appellantse ability to make this when this item was heard on december 7t december 7th. >> commissioner wilson: thank you. >> so first of all, i made a mistake and i should have disclosed something which probably won't have any impact on this -- sorry. i went on google to look at the address to get the location and to see a photo of -- while i was doing my work. so disclosure. and -- and when i went on google and you can go on city wifi and you can all join me, there's a picture that is astounding. there are crowds of people in front of this house. it's the first time that i've ever seen anything like this when reviewing in similar fashion other cases and the
other thing that is interesting to me and i'm trying to -- it must fit into this case in some fashion with regard to the commercial use or with regard to what's going on in the house and this is where for me the -- i'm having trouble linking, you know, the permit issue which is let's upgrade the foundation and we're going to do a bathroom and do a kitchen, which is reasonable for residents but there's a big sign, it's on google, you know, you can see it. and it kind of says, it's like saying elvis appeared here but don't tell anybody and, by the way, don't loiter and don't stand and don't bother the neighbors, blah, blah, blah. and it kind of screams of commercialism which is the core issue behind i think why all these people are here. how -- i don't know -- how can you -- how can you tell -- how
are we to tell -- i mean, that's why all these people are here, right? they're claiming that this is going to be a commercial venture and you look at the notes and it says we're re-doing a bathroom and re-doing a foundation for a residential house, fully reasonable. but there's a big sign that sits in front of the house that says, don't tell anybody but this used to be "full house" and please don't loiter and so, therefore, it's like a big commercial sign. how do you know whether that kitchen is not going to be a commercial kitchen? how do you know when that bathroom is being remodeled that it isn't being outfitted for public a.d.a. usage? how do we get by that and dig into really what is the heart and soul of this discussion? >> i mean, there would be no violation of the planning code if they did add an a.d.a. bathroom and it's no violation if they had a six burner stove or a four burner stove. so the planning code doesn't
adequately address the neighbors' concern. and the permit has been suspend bed but i mean that the crowds exist, right? so it's not tied to this permit. if the permit is revoked i have to agree with the permit holder how does that address the issue that is ongoing with the neighbors? i don't know. it doesn't seem to do that. i mean, there is this impact because the building has been represented and it is made famous by a tv show and fans want to come and take a look at it and that is not a land-use change under the planning code because your building appears and we have -- i don't know that another house achieved the same level of fandom, i guess, but it's not a change of use to have your home become famous and be an attraction for people to come by and take pictures of. >> so -- so in good faith, this is what -- and i'm asking your advice on this and council and
how this may have happened in the past. on the face-value of this, this is a residential -- an upgrade to a residential home, bathroom, foundation, kitchen. very reasonable and i think that i have applied for it myself in my own home. nobody complained. but, you know, there are -- you know, it quacks like a duck and it looks like a duck, there's a big sign in front of the house that talks about be nice because this is a famous place. and how do we know that we are not enabling a future commercial use by enabling this residential -- or what can we do to not enable a potential commercial use on this home by just looking at it at face-value when in front of the house
there's a sign that says all these things? this is the hard part for me and i ask council how we can prevent this from converting from simple residential to a commercial use based on this permit. >> and, i mean, that is the million dollar question here. i think that, you know, and an n.s.r. and there's restrictions restating that the authorized use of the subject property is as a single family dwelling, that it is residential use and not to be used as a commercial use. i mean, that is just restating -- >> reiterating the law. >> but that's -- that's all we have. i mean, and until -- if there is a violation of the code -- >> i'm asking your council because you're knowledgeable on the law and you're knowledgeable on the state of things. >> i don't -- you know, i would defer to your city attorney as to -- because the legality of some of the proposed conditions of approval by the appellants and whether or not it may
abridge on first amendment rights but, you know, the special restrictions about preventing filming at the subject property, and using this as a set. i mean, that's the closest that i can think. but, you know, i would ask that you discuss such limitations with your legal counsel but as a non-attorney but as a planner, you know, having on the record and making it very clear what the allowed and disallowed uses are. if they did use this as a set, as a place to film movies, it would be a change of use under the planning code to an arts activity which is generally not allowed under the planning code. >> is that not a futile effort because if i got a knock on the door of my house which sits in a nice location in san francisco, that one of mr. franklin's productions wanted to shoot my house for something, you know, what the hell, who cares.
or anywhere else. or if they went to the film commission and the film commission -- where is the film commission, this is a question for the city attorney as well jointly, where is the film commission's jurisdiction come here? because if we go forward with this and approve this simple residential permit, and we put a condition on it that we don't want -- we want them -- the owner to respect the law and we put a condition that it's not to be used for commercial purposes like a filming and then mr. franklin goes to the film commission and requests a permit to film the facade of the house, where does the law sit here? >> maybe i can address both of those points and to the first, i mean, it is -- the planning code does not clearly address kind of the temporary or the intermittent use of filming.
we all have cameras and phones and video cameras and whatever and filming movies on iphones, etc. everyone can be their own, you know, production assistant or director, i don't know the terms. so that is -- that is complicated. the code doesn't address that. i mean, people could film their e.u. tubyoutube clips in their d it doesn't address that. >> what about the film jurisdiction of providing a permit to do formal filming at that house in the future as they might do at my house or anybody's house? >> we have discussed prior to the hearing and they are very responsive and clear and as i understood their responsibility in their jurisdiction is essentially in the public realm and so if there's filming on streets or in city parks or in city buildings, that they seek authorization from the film commission but they do not issue
permits for uses on private property. that's not within -- >> but, mr. franklin and his attorney both stated that the film commission issued two permits to netflix for the purpose of a commercial event at that home. and if we were to, again, not saying that we will, but if we were to put a condition of no commercial use, which is a reiteration of the law, by the way, then could the film commission do what they have already done which is to provide a permit to do what they already did? >> yes, because their jurisdiction is the public right-of-way. and in this n.s.r., this permit, could only regulate the building itself. so the film commission would regulate filming in front of the property as i understand it and the n.s.r. or whatever limitation, you know, city attorney advises you as such, would be within the building itself. >> so it's important for the public to know who is here very
upset, that -- that we could do all of these things -- we could say yes to everything if we possibly could legally and i don't think that we can, by the way, but then in a public right-of-way the film commission could issue a permit and there could be a public media event for the promotion of mr. franklin's productions? >> yes. and that's where the ideal resolution to this is a resolution where the property owner and the neighbors work out how to peacefully co-exist in the future and that is the ideal solution. >> compankumbayah. i'm finished. >> two questions this is r.h.2 and so if there were ongoing commercial activity it's a violation of the commercial code? >> commercial use is prohibited. yeah, there's a question of what use would it even be, i mean, we don't know what they may do with
the building. it's supposed to be residential and that's what it should be. other uses, a museum is principally permitted under the code but would require a neighborhood notification and if it was converted from residential use it a museum it would require conditional authorization for removal of the dwelling unit. but short-term rental would only be allowed if there was a permanent resident on the site. >> another question that we didn't talk about and this issue of sort of due process. could you remind us if we have heard other cases where a b.b.n. wasn't appropriately issued and there was a d.r. requested and then the recommendations came here? >> yes, there was one -- yeah, and the one that i can think of off the top of my head -- i believe for the removal of an illegal dwelling unit and we did the b.b.n. notice and the planning commission disapproved
the permit in that case and so we came back to this board and asked for disapproval and i don't think that the board did disapprove the permit so we revoked the permit to invoke the decision -- >> so you're satisfied that there's a process in place to address the issues even if the planning commission itself is barred from doing other than recommending? >> yes. >> okay, my question, mr. sanchez, so the appellant explained a few things that are rated as hardships on the department, and can you explain what those hardships would be? >> in regards to the first point made about the burden to, you know -- if the four of you don't agree to implement the planning commission's decision then those conditions are not adopted. whereas had this gone through the d.r. first it would have been four votes to overturn those conditions.
and what i said from the very beginning to the parties is that, you know, if the commission does have conditions and this board doesn't adopt them and it's by a 3-2 voter what have you, then we'd revoke the permit and we would have a new permit filed with those conditions that are imposed by the board and insure that right, that majority would be achieved. so we'll see how the vote may end up, but that is something that we would do to preserve the rights of the appellants in this case to ensure that the commission's decision is implemented. you could be more restrictive and add additional restrictions. or fewer. >> president honda: okay, second question is, as we mentioned this is not the first time that the b.b.n. has not been handled correctly and could you explain how that works and how does the department get around something that should be red tagged on the file? i mean, to me it sounds like
there should be a big b.b.n. on the file and you pick it up and you go i'll discard the b.b.n. and pass it on. i mean, shouldn't it be -- >> yeah, it is highlighted in our property information map which staff are required to utilize when they are reviewing permits at the counter and they should look at that and see that the b.b.n. tab is highlighted and that means that there's a black book notification and they are to apply that. so, yeah, the staff did not review the thing that we had -- >> president honda: i mean, because not just this case but i believe that last time -- and it wasn't the caesar chavez case, it was another case in the middle that this happened to as well, and i believe it was somewhere in the d5 area. but shouldn't there be something that they physically have to remove or maybe your department should look into that, that no further action can go forward unless that b.b.n. notification is addressed? >> yes, i think -- i hate to say it -- but i think that maybe we
work to have a permit tracking system and then we can use some of the features in that to ensure that it's tripped and cannot be undone unless you affirmatively say that you have the b.b.n. notice -- >> president honda: with the planner i.d. and that way we know that the b.b.n. was removed by planner x, y, z? >> i think we can improve that with the new permit tracking system once that is fully integrated with all departments and that would be a possibility. >> president honda: okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> inspector duffy. >> joe duffy, and from a building code point of view, it's a remodel permit of a single family dwelling and we have seen it all the time. there shouldn't be any building code violations there and it was approved by d.b.i. and in relation to the comments about the foundation on the safety of
the building, i did read the letter from the contractor. if there is issues, d.b.i. weren't informed of them and we would typically look for something from an engineer on that if there was a danger to the property. and we would go out and do a site visit maybe with one of our inspectors and an engineer as well. if the foundation has been pieced around the perimeter, i would suspect that the building is save and with temporary shoring in there it would need to be monitored every few months for any movement but i don't think that the building is going anywhere from reading the letter but the shoring would not stay up there permanently. they did say that they had some underground plumbing work to do and that could be done under a separate plumbing permit and enable them to pour the slab on a permit that is related to the foundations, i believe. unless that permit was
subsequently appealed. but i do think that they could finish that work if it's part of the foundation permit that is not under r.p. apart from that i'm available for any questions. >> mr. duffy, was notice given to the adjacent neighbors because of the structural work? >> on the foundation perit? >> no, on this permit? >> i don't have that with me, actually, i didn't check that. >> can you take a look for is f? >> i can't do it unless i'm at d.b.i. and i believe that it would be and seismic retrofit at all levels. >> there's structural work there. >> i don't think that we would be required to do notification on that because it's not the foundation permit that would have been the one where we have done the notification on because it's not impacting the work on this permit and it's a seismic retrofit of all levels. that wouldn't have required excavation below adjacent the property line which is the only time that we do structural
notification generally, but i think that we're okay on this with the notification. sorry i don't have that with me. thanks. >> okay, we'll take public comment. i would ask that if you have not already filled out a speaker card and you're willing to do that that you do that before -- or you come up to speak and after and that you hand it to mr. quentara when you come up to speak so we can prepare the minutes accurately. if you would like to speak, line up on the far side of the room on that wall so we can move through the process as quickly as possible. first person who wants to speak can come up to the microphone. and we're going to give two minutes to each speaker given the number of people here who are going to speak on this item. >> good evening and welcome. >> good evening, and thank you for paying such careful attention. i am carla hasagan, i have lived at 1713 broderick street since 1991 and i have a very carefully
crafted script and i will go off it because i think that i can offer you more information -- i will go through it quickly. he gave more than one interview and i can give you quotes from many places and we contacted netflix and we said, what are you doing here? and he said, netflix told us that the house is mr. frank lip's and we have -- franklin's and we have nothing to do it so i'd be embarrassed to use the excuse that netflix made me do it. and i think that i can add information. we have heard about people taking pictures from the sidewalk. i wish they took pictures from the sidewalk. before mr. franklin purchased the house people did come and there was a gate and they took a picture and they moved on. they now know that they are welcome at this house. a lot of people say, i heard the producer bought the house. they've been here lately and they do this, they do that. and i have left my house and
seen a group on the stairs and gone to the market and come home and 20, 25 minutes later the same group is still there. when 50 people, 30 people, 20 people are outside, it gets noisy. it gets really noisy. i spend my sunday mornings in my living room listening to car doors and people yelling outside. wow, that was a fast two minutes. >> president honda: 30 seconds. >> so pictures from the sidewalk is not what we're talking about. the planning commissioner said interesting things at the hearing and you asked about that and they said if it were them and commissioner hiller said if it was him he would discourage people from coming to this house and he would discourage people from coming to this house. e.uyoutube, anyone could film ad promote things in their house. this hollywood producer was remoting with all of the resources available. >> president honda: thank you, next speaker, please. yes two, minutes, sir.
>> can i have a computer, please? >> president honda: sure, computer, please. >> okay. hi, i am rudy mueller and i live at 1705 broderick street and i'm one of the two neighbors that filed a d.r. request and an appeaan a.and i want to specifiy comment on the serious flaws -- >> excuse me, he's an appellant. >> he's only a requester -- >> not for this particular -- >> as a reminder anyone that is party to the appeal is not able to speak under public comment and will have time and rebuttal if the attorneys so allow them to speak. sorry for the interruption, sir.
please continue. >> that's okay, and that's one of the flaws that i will mention that i cannot be a party. here's the most serious flaw and two of you already commented about it. the permit fails the honor system. that's not a rule, it's just a time-honored code. there was not a single word of disclosure in the permit application or to the planning department of mr. franklin's intentions for non-residential use. i have to believe that common sense and good faith and obvious facts should prevail and they show that a residential use permit is clearly the wrong category. flaw number two, the permit was issued despite the plans showing an intended commercial use for filming and fan visits and you saw that replicas of the rooms inside, of course they can't be 100% exact and we're not building a filming studio and we can't get rid of the roof but there's enough similarity there for any "full house" fan to love. and flaw number three and before that the commissioners made comments that mr. franklin's
project clearly showed that it was a commercial use and were ready to vote that way. flaw number three, the permit was issued despite the two story bay window and the planning commission wanteds that removed and it was issued despite the roof deck not complying with the setback and without the b.b.n. holder notice, that's the critical thing. it's put everybody in the wrong order and denied them due process that cannot be corrected. there's a flawed exemption that we are appealing and that is pivotal. mr. sanchez, you play a pivotal role in this hearing and i don't think why you are letting this happen. you now have the facts one year later that were not given to you by the permit holder before, use those facts and help to project our neighborhood. so i ask you, commissioners, make mr. franklin start over and follow the rules and get the proper permits. so please revoke the permit and require the permit holder to make accurate disclosures -- >> president honda: thank you, sir, time is up. next speaker, please.
good evening, welcome. >> computer, please. sorry. good evening, commissioners. i am david nature and my wife pamela and i are native san franciscoans and have lived on that street for 47 years. we have seen many changes in our neighborhood, many good, some bad. and the worst thing that we have faced is the aggressive efforts of mr. franklin to make 1709 broderick into a full-time promotion for his tv shows. it has turned our street into an artificial tourist destination the focus which is his "full house" house three doors down from us. they said that it attracted team
of fan visits for 30 years. and i understand why they make the claim but it is simply not true. about 10 years ago the location of the "full house" became known on the internet and we did notice fans visiting the street. but before then, no one had a clue where the house was because the address given on the show, which was 1882 gerard street, was fictitious. the fan visits i spoke of were infrequent and relatively small in number. in fact, the well-paid web page -- the yoke web page warned fans from visiting 1709 because the house in 2013 did not at all resemble what was shown on tv. however, after mr. franklin's re-make of the house and the publicity that immediately followed we have seen a massive increase in fan visitations. and finally, the question is why should mr. franklin be here at
all? he had in 2016, early 2016, this facade built on the warner brothers back lot. it's a direct duplication of the full 1709 and he's never used it for filming and it sits there and it's advertised on -- on website for warner brothers as the full house site. thank you. >> president honda: thank you. next speaker, please. good evening and welcome. good evening. >> my name is pamela nature and my husband, david and i are native san franciscoans and we have lived at 1715 broderick street for over 46 years. we have raised our two children there and prior to 2016, it had been a quiet family block.
it's outrageous that mr. franklin has aggressively changed the quiet residential character of our block to make 1709 broderick street into a crass promotion for his tv shows. what is also disturbing is his dismissive attitude for our concerns as well as his refusal to seriously take responsibility for the damage he's already caused us. since he began his promotion of the house for business purposes we no longer have a quiet enjoyment of our home and it's due to the hoards of fans that visit and the noise and the mess that it creates and the ill-mannered attitude and their treatment of our block as if was a warner brothers back lot, rather than a residential street. as a mother i find it very alarming to see the fans often ignoring common sense regarding the dangerous traffic on our block. thit places they and their children at risk. this influx of fans is a direct result of mr. franklin's promotional activities,
including his invitations to fans of his shows to visit the home. and it's ironic that mr. franklin is no stranger to property use disputes. in beverly hills where mr. franklin resides a neighbor of his was attempting to develop property adjacent to his $34 million, 16,000 square foot mansion and he fought this development as being inconsistent with his neighborhood and he expressed concern that the project would damage his quality of life. these are two of the very same issues that we have with mr. franklin, however, our quality of life has already been seriously been damaged due to his actions. it is most telling that mr. franklin refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of our concerns while at his home in beverly hills he was in a position similar to the one that we face here. it appears -- >> president honda: thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> he feels entitled -- >> president honda: ma'am, thank you, thank you. >> thank you.
>> president honda: next speaker, please. welcome. >> hello commissioners. i am william sorrow and i live at 2809 pine street since 1989 our rear yard abu abut abutts 19 broderick. it was bought for the fans as mr. franklin himself has stated. that means that its sole purpose is to provide a back drop for thousands of people to take a picture with the house in the background. if it was to a normal residential property why he would he paint it to match the color scene of "full house" establishing shot to is this and why remove the gate that prevented the fans from going up the stairs? again, it's not just from the sidewalk where people take photographs and tourists are allowed to go up the front
stairs and mingle all over the subject property and that's not normal residential use. he bought this house to be a billboard for his tv programs and the more people who take photos in front of the house the more viewers and the more money that mr. franklin will make off his programs. that's called a commercial use of a residential property. he has flaunted san francisco's use laws and turned this quiet street into his own personal advertising venue. but how is this different than, say, the "mrs. doubtfire" house on steiner or other landmarks? there's real people living at the "mrs. doubtfire" home and 20th century fox did not buy the home to get more people to watch their movie. regardless whether he shoots episodes inside, it's 100% commercial. and when you google "full house" house, it's listed as not residential property, but tourist attraction.
thank you. >> president honda: thank you. next speaker, please. good evening. >> thank you for this opportunity. i am -- my name is lisa depaulis and i live at 1710 broderick street number 10 and i have lived in my property for 17 years and i agree with the others that up to 10 years into living there that it was a pretty quiet neighborhood until the address hit the internet. we did see some visitors, but nothing like we have seen in the last year. and i'm going to skip over what everyone else is repeating and i'm here to talk about the implications. my quality of life has suffered significantly. i am unable to work out of home. i was once -- because of all of the noise and the congestion and honking. i was once on the phone with a chief technology because my company sold him software and at 6:00 p.m. at night he's trying to explain what is wrong with the software so i can engage my
engineers and he kept stopping and i had to stop and apologize and tell him that i had to put my phone on moot because at 6:00 at night there were so many honking horns that he kept stopping. someone is going to get hurt or worse killed. and have a garage and i was backing out and a woman screamed stop! and i thought that i'd have a heart attack myself and i jumped out and i said, ma'am, i'm doing my best and i can't back up any slower and she said, not you, my daughter jumped behind your car. and i put up my garage and trying to pull in and they're on their phones and i'm honking gently two three -- and they look up and then -- so, anyhow, in summary i'm worried that somebody is going to get hurt and we had visitors get in fist fights and have to be pulled off each other and the aggression on brocking driveways and there was a delivery truck delivering refrigeration equipment and another visitor blocked and this
say major thoroughfare to bush to downtown and people started honking and he flipped them a middle finger and said, leave me alone, i'm just a visitor. so there is -- >> president honda: thank you, message. >> is that it? thank you all. >> president honda: next speaker, please. and good evening and welcome as well. >> hi, thank you. my name is rachel hollywoodister and i'm a -- hollister and i'm a san francisco native and i grew up on pine and broderick and i watched the filming for the original "full house" series and saw that and there was never any commotion on the street. i currently now live at 2726 bush which is the corner -- almost the corner of bush and broderick and since 1983 spent many, many years walking up and down broderick to help my dad who is renovating the bush street house -- it's a long story -- never, ever did i
encounter major amounts of traffic until recently within the last year. and i am currently along with my husband raising four children and two of whom have come home completely stressed out and frantic that they at different times were almost hit by cars swerving into parking lots when i think that they realized that they saw the "full house" and in their excitement they didn't look on the sidewalk for pedestrians. and my 11-year-old is very short and he was very closely almost hit. and i also -- they have witnessed as well as myself extremely rude behavior by just as mentioned before, and i think that he chose san francisco, it's a friendly city and i grew up here and i love it and the behavior that my children see around this "full house" is extremely negative. (please stand by). when the
state down the coast from us. somebody's going to get hit, and it's not because they're bad people, it's going to be because they're careless. i have to take for grants thedt comes to the "full house" is doing their best, and to create a magnet for more and more people to be in that space is careless, it's criminal. we've got to do something to ameliorate the difficulty in our neighborhood. thank you. >> president honda: thank you. next speaker, please. good evening, welcome. >> hi. thank you. my name's grant martin. i live at 1708 broderick, right across the street, and been there since 2004. i want to talk approximate a little bit about mr. franklin and his attorney, efforts they
have taken to ameliorate the neighborhood. they have signs in front of other houses down the street to slow down, and half the time, you can't see them because of other cars that are double parked, so they're not really doing any good, and they're not being enforced. this notion that he met with the film commission to alleviate the filming issues is real really specious. apparently they claim we suffered only six hours of inconvenience because of filming, and they act as sort of these passive people that it's happening to as well as us. in franklin said he timed his one interview with the worldwide release of the second season of the show, which is to maximize press, and his attorney said he allowed netflix to come in and film the s a