strongly support the department's recommendation as it stands. i'm curious what the rest of the commission is asking for, otherwise i would take d.r. and approve the project with the department thoroughly vetted by recommendations. >> commissioner richards. >> i second. can. >> go ahead. >> i second. >> i read this report cover to cover because i found it incredibly interesting. we find ourselves sometimes siding against the rdat when we take the d.r. and change projects and find ourselves like that the rdat had given on constraints. i think the roof deck in the back and front is significant. and usable. i think it takes the project sponsor's

need for open space to the point where they'd be satisfied. i don't think the sloping yard is useable opening space especially since all the eyes are on you in the backyard. i think it's constrained. 8 feet versus 8'6" i can't concern what the difference is going to be. commissioner moore, if you can educate me on that i'd support the motion withouted second recommendation. >> i believe the 6" is significant and visible. i think it accentuates seeing there is indeed a building addition which doesn't even really talk in properly -- tuck in properly. i would not allow for the 6 inches. when you look at the corner, this is a static shot rather than when you see

it in motion at different angles. this corner is far less visible. i think that is extremely important. when you break the roofline of an adjoining building, it becomes more visible and you look at it and try to figure out what is going on here. >> can i ask staff a question. you made a recommendation on the height of the third floor, but i didn't see any -- was there a specific recommendation on that? >> yes, the recommendation was to either slope it from one end to the other because it's more visible from one side compared to the other or to drop it to 8 feet floor to ceiling height. >> if you sloped it what were you proposing? >> we're leaving that up to the dmoition make a ruling ton. -- up to the commission to make a ruling on. >> i'm supportive of eliminating the roof deck but to me, i don't think the 6 inches does eye lot for the neighborhood but does a lot for the livability of the third floor.

i don't like building new structures that have 8-foot tall ceilings. i don't think they're great and livable. reminds me of my department in college which was in a basement. i think that has an impact. i'd be supportive of the elimination of the roof deck, but not necessarily of the 6 inches. commissioner koppel. >> i think the difference is eight foot. if you and i were to stand up and raise the feelings we would touch the ceiling. 8'6", we would not touch the ceiling. i would be completely supportive of eliminating the top roof deck and going with the 8'6". >> commissioner richards. >> i completely understand the view issue, commissioner moore, when we had the issue south of market where they tried to add an extra floor in the

55 -- six floors in the 55-foot height limit etc., we ruled against the fact of an 8-foot ceiling because that's where they saved the space. i agree i mean, i have rooms down right now in my -- where i live. and i think the ceiling is like 7'6" or 7 '08 and it's cramped. -- 7 p 7'8" and it's cramped. commissioner moore. >> what ceiling heights do we get? a higher ceiling height concept the building itself tapers back as it comes to the property line. >> we had in mind something that might be lowerdes%4y at one side and up to -- so you would have a little more i think,

volume in the room. on certainly on one half of the room, i think. it might be lower than 8 feet on the one side and higher on the other. we didn't have anything specific, but it would be a way to address the issue. >> commissioner richards. >> so you're saying one end of the roof would be 7'6" and the other at 10 feet? >> or 8 to 9. >> something like that. i think it could be done in a way that wolwould make the massing appear less from the street. while still giving some volume inside. i think it's a way to address it. >> commissioner moore. >> if you take this particular drawing as an example and you look over to the third building where there is a spring

line at x feet and you taper back from there, the room itself gets higher rapidly but you are relieving the massing instead of coming down like it lays on property line. it creates a more graceful transition in the building style that this neighborhood is set up in. that's what it does. you see that third building in the right, which would be where it tapers back. it's not the best example, but it shows how that would work. >> again, i'm still -- i think you're going to see this edition addition from the street. it's going to change the view a little bit. i think it's set back and rdat has done a good job of setting it back to where it is. the roof deck on it would have stuck out more like a soar thumb so i think we're

splitting hairs on the 6 inches. i think for the livability, it makes a vast difference at 8'6". commissioner moore. >> the disclosure about the building is why i'm insisting the applicant has into themadeany concessions as to what rdat is asking for. there is no disclosure on windows or anything. take it or leave it. it's for that reason that i'm kind of like wanting to put more scrutiny on the project. >> commissioner richards. >> how would you perceive it if you're standing in the room? the slope? >> the sloped roof. >> like massively sloped? >> one foot would not be massively sloped. i have a problem with changing the

architecture. i don't think you get a ton out of going from 8 to 9 feet. if you go bigger, like a 7'6" to 9'6", i don't want it to stick tout. i think it sticks out more in the backyard where some people here testifying about their view in the backyard. >> question for the architect. please. can you come up to the mic? what we're looking at here on the 8'6" drawing where the building clearly tucks behind the neighbor, where would i be standing? >> that's across the street on the sidewalk directly across from the house two doors down. other image i showed was directly across from the house one door down. additionally, if you would like, the difference between 8'6" and 8 8'0" is 23%.

the room feels a quarter inside where as it only feels feel this much caller taller outside. >> commissioner moore. >> i would ask the applicant to work more closely with the department, one to submit a complete set of drawings of what is being asked for and work on the subjectsubtly of the elementf6.ohxñ where the heights come together. drawings as they stand, i would like to see this not looking from the bottom up but from the top down. that's when the massing will be far more explicit than from the bottom up. i'll be making a motion that we take d.r. and -- >> we have. >> you want to amend it? >> i would add that the applicant works with the department for further refinement of currently not even expressed in the drawing. >> and taking out the six inches. >> i'm saying that the department

should look at that again. >> so it's not a requirement. >> i'm not quite sure, i'd rather have a specific height. >> president hillis for clarification, i'd ask commissioner knorr restraight the motion she's proposed. but what i think i hear from commissioner koppel and yourself is keeping the height at 8'6" and the removal of the roof deck? >> i think we're -- commissioner is taking staff's recommendation butter in specificity on the height. the height of that addition --

>> from a feasibility. >> -- >> either 6 or 8. >> what is the motion? >> the motion is 8-foot. it's staff's recommendation with the top floor being 8-foot with the elimination of the roof deck. commissioner melgar seconded that. that's the motion currently on the table. we'll call if there is no further comment. >> i call it. >> so we're eliminating the 6. >> the current motion has it at 8-foot. >> very good. the motion or -- there is a motion that that's been seconded to take the d.r. and approve the motion fong. >> no. >> missioncommissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner richards. >> no. >> and priz president hillis. >> that fails 2-4 with fong, koppel,

richards and hillis voting against. >> commissioner kopp approximately. >> i'd like to make a notion take the rdat recommendations without the floor being the 8'6" with the removal of the deck. >> second that. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to ask that the project will be reviewed -- final drawings will be reviewed by the department before they go further. >> that's okay with -- >> that would happen of course. >> that is okay with the motion maker? >> yes. >> on that motion, commissioners, to take d.r. and remove the roof deck, but allow the 8'6" floor to ceiling height commissioner fong. >> eye. >> commissioner koppel. >> eye. >> commissioner melgar. >> aye. >> commissioner richards. >> eye. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis aye.

>> that is 6-0. this will place us on item 148. broderick street. this is the request for discretionary review. there are twofje d.r. requesters. but through the chair, the d.r. requesters both d.r. questions will have a total time of five minutes and product sponsor will have a total time of five minutes. >> then we'll take public comment whether you're supportive supportive opposed to the project after the comments. >> and so, commissioners, if i may briefly describe a bit of the posture of this permit. it's different, we've had thees situation notice poos, but in this case the permit was issued by the -- we did not do a bbn notification on file for the property at that time. we subsequently suspended the permit

and it was given to the board of a appeals. it's pending before the board nks month. we wanted to bring this matter to you as the d.r. request was filed during the bbn period that we did after the permit was issued. we wanted to get your feedback on the project and we'll take that to the board of appeals when it is heard next month. i wanted to reassure you that the decision of the commission today will be implemented and we'll find a way to work with the project spons where the department building inspection to make sure that any changes you have are implemented through the course of the review process. >> good afternoon president hillis and members of the commission. i'm with department staff. as jonas said, the item is discussion of the permit 17050 broderick street. it proposes the following changes to the single-family dwelling. the construction of the rear deck

set back from each property line by three feet. a deck at the rear portion, construction of a two-storey bay window on the south side setback that is 10 feet from the front building wall. they do not require section 311 notice or constitute a change of use. since the subject building is a category h historic resource a plan rear viewed the permit and determined that a categorical exemption could be issued. about concerns to the physical changes the project was reviewed by the advisory team who found that a portion of the roof deck should be set back from the south side property line and second floor of the bay window should be removed. the project sponsor indicated they'll remove the roof entirely and the second floor of the bay window. the d.r. requests have a number of other concerns regarding the building's

use ow the bbn was processed and interior modifications and lots of privacy as a result of the decks and limiting the building's future use. at this time, the building's use is not proposed to be changed from the current single family status. should a permit be submitted to change the use, it will be reviewed for compliance with the regulations within the planning department's jurisdiction. the d.r. requesters have been provided due process. they filed discretionary review against it and a hearing is held. the treatment of historic properties permits changes to historic resources. the proposed bay window was appropriately reviewed by preservation planner and is minimally visible from the right of way. removal of the second storey of the bay window will reduce the volume of the element from when it was originally

permitted. the proposed interior modifications do not indicate a use other than the existing and permitted single-family dwelling. the planning code does not o control elements such as kitchen layouts and replication of tv sets. the project sponsor indicated they'll remove the roof deck and residential israeli team reviewed the deck and found it to be consistent with the guidelines. as the plans do not suggest and unpermitted use will be established on the premises, the department does not believe a notice of restrictions is necessary. at this time the department recommends that the planning commission recommend to the board of appeals that they require the roof deck and second story of the bay window be removed. thank you and i'm available for any questions that you might have. >> thank you. so d.r. askers -- requesters, there

are two in this case? >> there is interesting information. if we can combine with the full-time allotment of 10 minutes for two requesters. >> you can review it otherwise. there are two requesters so they can have 10 minutes and we'll have project spons where 10 minutes. then public comments. i was thinking five for each d.r. requester. sorry, i apologize. go ahead. >> all right. so you're combining the 10? >> yes. >> or the two five minute. >> ryan patterson on behalf of the d.r. requesters. this is an interesting and unusual case. i have been advising the neighbors on resolving the problem user' going to hear about today. unfortunately we reached pt point of having to come to you. i think it's important for to you hear from the neighbors directly.

we'll start with that. >> good afternoon commissioner hillis and other commissioners. sorry, i'm a little nervous. this is not my usual thing. i'm carla hagen. may i have the computer, please. i've lived at 1713 broderick for 27 yarys. 27 -- years. i live two doors from subject property. brief background on the situation. the sponsor filmed the front of the house in 1987 for "full house" running from 1987 to 1995 and is still in wide syndication. starting in 2016 the same credits were used in his netflix spin off "fuller house" now in the third season. he bought the house in august of last year. no one in the neighborhood knew who the new owner was. from august through october last year,

the project sponsor restored the exterior of the house to the look of the show. he painted the exterior tan and installed custom red front doors, removed the gate at the bottom of the stairs and removed trees. in mid-november, neighbors received a mailing from yef franklin productions identifying mr. -- jeff franklin productions. he had filming and publicity events at the house in december and may 4th of this year. beginning december first, a year ago, the project sponsor widely promoted his purchase and restoration of the house. articles appeared in print and on line. this ba barrage made it clear he restored the house as a gift to the fans. we found over 30 articles available. i'm sure there are more. in september this year, a video promoting the 30th anniversary of "full house" was released and shows the

house extensively suggests that the fans visit and suggests that the shows were actually filmed there. what are the problem fowrs neighborhood? the -- problems for our neighborhood? the problem is fan visits. we've had thousands of visitors. theythey are swarming our neighborhood. because they've been made welcome, they don't just take a picture and keep going, they stay and go up and down the stairs and yell to each other as they take pictures, sometimes from across the street. they play the theme song, make videos and sometimes drink. they leave trash all over. they not only visit 1709 broderick, they trespass at our homes and sit on our stairs and planters and e and leave trash at -- and leave trash at our homes. they come in the night often waking neighbors. i've looked at the overnight video and for a recent stretch of 30 nights, there were visitors at the house at very

late hours for 28 of those 30 nights. they blocked the street block our driveways and stand in the street. they arrive on foot, in ubers and lifts. tour buses, bicycles, go carts motorcycles and mostly private cars. horns are honked and at busy times the sound of car doors slamming slamming is constant. last month there was an accident between a car and a large delivery truck. actually that was october. commissioners, someone is going to be hurt or killed. at peak times weekends, holidays, summer days school vacations there is often a steady stream. two of us have counted visitors. they come at the rate of 250 and 300 people per hour at peak times. we easily have 1500 people per weekend day. and on busy days more.

we estimate there have been at least 250,000 visitors to our block in the past year. the numbers were a fraction of that before mr. franklin started promoting and changing the house. what's the source of all the problems? that's an easy question to answer. the source of the problems is the house and prompt sponsor. the owner is the creator and producer of the two shows. he bought the house for commercial purposes. he's made it clear he will never live in the house. he has promoted his ownership of the house and invited fans to visit. he has filmed at the house. he has changed the use from residential to commercial. everything he has done is for the promotion of his television shows. in one article, mr. franklin says he hopes his ownership of the house is a write off. a write off is a business expense, so he must be conducting business there.

mr. franklin is dealing with social media, social buzz increases attention and demand for his shows. that buzz is his currency. mr. franklin's attorney claims a long list of mitigations that they've offered. we don't have space if the brief time here to we neum rate enumerate but they're long and they're misleading and untrue. none of them would work as well as if he had not done this in the first place. i'd like to now introduce my neighbor, ruddrudy muller. >> i have live at 1705 broderick street two doors down. i bought my house in june of 2013. what is this permit really about? we believe it's about replicating the full house. the objective is to replicate the full house not only the exterior but interior

of the house and to use the house for commercial filming and fan visits. this permit will make that problem a lot, lot wrs. -- lot worse. the exterior has been completed. approval of this permit will allow the project sponsor to establish a complete "full house" shrine. this shows the elements of the show will be replicated at the house. the living room and kitchen will be redesigned to match the with a layouts in the tv show set. allowing the sponsor to replicate it outside and inside will exacerbate the problem and destroy our neighborhood. the sponsor has claimed he has no intentions to turn it into a public shrine for "full house" it's not believable. it's half complete and approval of the permit will make it 100 percent complete.

just a quick summary of what we've presented, project sponsor bought this house with the intention of using it for commercial filming promotion and fan visits and he's undertaken the activity. his actions harmed the health and well-being of the neighbors. it's destroying the residential character of our neighborhood and driving us of basic rights to privacy clean air and clean access from dangers all as provided in the planning code. it's inappropriately using a single family residential permit to change it for commercial permit. approval of this permit would allow him to complete the interior replication of "full house" and establish a shrine and destroy our neighborhood. there are other issues with this permit. there is the failed bbn notice file for the property. it was issued over the counter without proper notice being given to the bbn owner. the appeal is also at the board of appeals and that hearing is suspended

until this hearing has occurred can. we learned this is improper as the d.r. hearing should be before the permit is issued. this ask an historic block. this is one of nine historical 1883 victorian homes. the code states clearly that existing housing and neighborhood character be protected to preserve the cultural diversity of our neighborhood. the proposed bay window at the side will rise to 18 feet and be clearly visible from the street and be inconsistent with the row. the ceqa exemption is not correct. it's on the basis that the proposed bay window would not be visible from the public right-of-way and that is false. i remind you this is an historic structure. what are we asking you to do? first, require normal alterations

to the property, not film set. two, dleement the design for the "full house" tv set. third, if the project sponsor refuses to delete the commercial elements, deny the permit. lastly planning soda section 101 does not allow what is being proposed by the project sponsor. we implore you to protect the neighbors in the neighborhood. thank you. >> project sponsor. welcome. you have 10 minutes. >> good afternoon president hillis and commissioners. i'm jeff frank lip, the owner much 1709 broderick and creator and producer of "full house" and "fuller house."

every episode features beautiful shots of san francisco and golden gate bridge and painted ladies and classic homes like the one that i know t now now own. over 30 years "full house" has been seen by over a billion people worldwide. it serves as a welcome em ambassador on behalf of san francisco. now that the new show is up and running, it's gratifying for me to see a new generation of young people embrace the show that shows love and respect for the family. i bought this and i was happy to do so. itch a strong emotional attachment to the house. i gave one interview at the time where i made some spontaneous comments that were not thought through. that interview was picked up by a lot of outlets. i do regret some of the things i said

and none of them have been acted upon. i did invite all of my neighbors over for an open house to meet them and listen to their concerns. and i explained to them that i planned on commencing a much-needed renovation. a mandatory size mike retrofit. i wanted to add deks and bring the infrastructure into the 21st century. i told them after the work was completed, the house would be rented out. much has been said already today about how i've turned an empty house into a commercial enterprise. that is just not true. yes, netflix chose to use the exterior of the home for two promotional events. both approved by the san francisco film commission. those took a total of six hours out of the 500 500 days that i owned the house and that's been it.

most of the photos you've seen were from that six hours of work. i've also been accused of seeking to build an exact replica of the interior of the tanner family home. that is also not true. the house on the show has no ceilings. it has three walls. it's architecturally impossible to reproduce in the real world. the inside of the house will not be a preliminary set. it's not true. and i am seeking to concrete create an open floor plan that is just like the ones i've seen in my neighbor homes. they have open floor plans like you have in front of you. i don't think neighbors, i don't believe are here today because they care about what i'm doing with deks and floor plans. i think they're worried about what i plan to do with the house if i'm ever allowed to finish it.

if i i were to apply for a special use permit which i have not done or have any intention of doing then that would be the appropriate time for them to make their case. i really actually do sympathize with my neighbors. it's clear they're very unhappy about the situation out there. but "full house" fans have been coming there for 30 years. they will be coming for the next 30 years. and if their numbers are increasing, it's not just because i own the house, it's not because i gave one interview 18 months ago and not because of what color it's painted. it's because the new show is a hit. and "full house" and fuller house is familiar in the pop culture. i've listened and tried to be hellful. i posted signs and used social media to encourage fans to be courteous and

follow all parking and traffic laws. most of the fans are very sweet people who mean no harm. they just come by and grab a photo and move on. i've met with local tour companies to discourage evening visits. i've asked them to respect the new no double parking signs that i worked with the sfmta to install and hired on site security services. the neighbor as asked me to abandon by rooftop deck and i'm trying to get along with them. this has sat vacant for a year. it's a fire haferred. there are no sprinklers in there. it needs waterproofing and the wood beams are rotting and the cost of fixing the house are mounding substantially. i respectfully request that you allow me to move forward with the previously

per manipulated renovations. thank you and if there is more time do you -- there you are. this is my attorney, liz bridges. >> you have four minutes. >> liz bridges i'm council for project sponsor. and i'm just going to touch on two things briefly. one the d.r. requesters argued this has been a change of use. that mr. franklin's ownership of the property changed the use of the property. that's not the case here. there hasn't been a change of the actual use of the property, it's still a single-family home and no change of use has been proposed. what has changed actually is the popularity of the tv show that has the likeness of the house. it's clear to me that you have the jurisdiction to control the land use of how the house has been used. it's not clear to me that you have durs jiks --jurisdiction on how the house is used.

that seems to be the issue is how this likeness of the house is used in the television shows and media. the other thing wainted to address -- thing i wanted to address with you is the request to revoke the permit. they bring up the issue of the block book notification. i will noapt that was not any fault of my client's -- i will note that was not the fault of my client's and he should be not be punished for a mistake that was out of his control. revoking the permit would not accomplish anything other than getting us back here in three to six months. there are many improvements that need to be made for life safety, seismic upgrade and electrical and plumbing. the improvements need to be made for the house to become habitable. habitable. if you revoke the permit we'll submit

a new application as soon as it's allowed. i expect that the d.r. requesters would appeal and we'll be back here. so let's resolve the issue today here and now. i would add that our communications team is here if you have any questions on the efforts we've taken to answer the neighbor's concerns. >> thank you. we'll open this item up now for public comment. there are a number of people that would like to comment. you can line up on the screen side of the room so we can move through those who would like to speak. >> may i use the computer. can foorch commissioner. i'm craig and my wife and i live directly next door at 1711 broderick

street. my wife wanted to be here today but is an elementary school teacher and is still at work. carla and rudy are showing a brief video of the view from my living room window. we bought our home in october of last year. prior to purchasing, we visited the home three to four times and spent a few hours on broderick street. we didn't initially realize "full house" was next door because there were no visitors there. we spent time visiting our future o home, we maybe saw three or four visitors. we were attracted to our home because it seemed like a quiet street and great neighborhood. we knew the house next door was "full house" but didn't seem like a huge issue. for the first few months it wasn't

a noticeable problem. this changed when mr. franklin announced that he had purchased the 1709 property as a gift to the fans. the fan visits skyrocketed. visitors outside our new home went from a minor inconvenience to a major nuisance. the daily disruptions are countless. we no longer have privacy in our home as fans loiter on from franklin's front steps they have a view of our house. we no longer have a clean property. people leave the trash on our driveway or front steps or tree basins. window no longer have free access to our garage. it is difficult to enter and exit as we have to wait for visitors to move themselves, belongings and cars and we

no longer have a peaceful and quiet street. the crowds of people that come and stay create excessive noise that is a constant issue. had we noh known the mess mr. franklin was going to create we wouldn't have bought our home. mr. franklin has stated he never plans to live in the home. i strongly believe mr. franklin wants the visitors to continue. the more visitors that come, the better for his show. he does not live in san francisco, he does not have to deal with the daily disruption of violation of privacy that he's created for the rest of us. >> next speaker, please.

>> computer please. >> hello i'm kate webster-cox. i'm the next door neighbor to 1709 with my husband. thank you for having us today and for listening to our concerns. we've been living in the home since 1996 and i'm here to talk about the upper and lower portion of the bay window being proposed. this document that wasfo see with the yellow lines, what the extension of the bay window will look like from the street. both bays are going to be visible from the street.fje our 1700 block has a repeated pattern and rhythm of lot wild and side yard spacing. on page 15 of the residential design guidelines it states respect the existing pattern of the side spacing.

next slide. in an exerp from excerpt, it reads, the overall side yard pattern is consistent creating a defining characteristic of the block face. as you can see in the slide, there is a slot of light and air that goes between the two building and you can see a tree in the backyard of one of the properties neighboring properties. not one house on this 1700 block of broderick street has two projections. into the side yard, like this project is proposing. when you look at this sheet that i've concreted for you, you'll see a projection that already exists in the back of the building as well as a bay window that is being proposed for the front section of the building.

like i said, there are no other buildings on this block that have two protrusions into the side yard like this project is proposing. the lower portion of the bay window area under the bay window is going to also be synonymous to the understair nook. it's a key feature in the "full house" stage set. the extension of the bay window or snook not consistent with the air and light quality of side yards and interferes you can look up on the screen here and see this is my home on the left-hand side with the staircase. tourists are going to come up on the stair and take photos of the bay window -- into the bay window. the hisser historic character of our block is documented in the book "here today"

on page 2523, it focuses on the consistency of the massing and arc techal by hinkle from 1883. without careful consideration, this his historic character may be here today, but it's going to be gone tomorrow. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> does the computer have sound? >> it does not. >> it does not? >> is sound possible? >> i think if you put the mic up to it. >> if you turn the volume way up. >> "fuller house house" is a landmark. people make it a destination photo on their trip. >> it feels surreal after all these years. so much history on this treat with this house. >> people relate more and more to the

show. we were like the first modern family of new normal. >> we'll come back as legacy cast. we never want to leave this. it's a special set. it's like a family 30 years ago. it still feels like a family today. >> mr. franklin came up here and said he's done no promotion since that accidental comment. this was in september. he's actively promoting the house. it's a commercial activity plain and simple. i know there was a comment earlier about due process. i think we have a right to due process because he's changed the use of the house. this is clearly demonstrates that they're conflating the use of the show the front of the house with the studio inside. people point at the house. actors point at the house and say, this is where it happened. everybody can see it's on broderick

street. that is clearly commercial use. it was this september, a couple of weeks ago. that's the main point i want to make. but i'll check my notes for a few other things. so he clearly is not going to live here his people said. he also will be -- he's remodeled the interior of the house to look like a film set. he can claim he's not going to use it as a studio set but does anyone here believe if he remodels the house to look like a film studio, he isn't going to use it? he isn't going to ask for filming permissions to go into the house? the actors themselves say they'd love to come back here in 30 years. he's trying to push this beyond what is reasonable. look i live right next door. i don't want my -- it's a horrible situation with this new window coming out. people are going to be coming up my

stairs to take a picture through that window. if you don't act now, i'm not going to have recourse later. that's the problem that we have and for him, it's rel relatively cheap. it's a destination site for the cost of a residential permit in san francisco. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is william sorrow. i live at 2809 pine street. we purchased our home in 1989. even though we live around the corner from the "full house" house. we suffer through the same dangerous traffic and issues caused by the promotion of the "full house" property as a tourist attraction. the cars not only double park and line up on broderick, but they wrap around pine street and occasionally we can't get in our own garage because there

is a car parked there of people wandering back and forth between the "full house" and their vehicle. again, i said a tourist attraction. i believe this was the plan all along. to create a promotional business structure. very much like a billboard. it would boost the popularity and profits of the "full house" franchise. when a family or visitor visits the house takes a picture, posts it on line, that boosts viewership. for tle "full house" reruns and netflix spinoff. it's as if you took a single-family home in san francisco and shrink-wrapped it with a plastic billboard. that would require city permit and change of use. that is what is happening on 1709 broderick street.

if you do a search or googlalal for "full house" house. it's interesting. it says "full house" house. tourist attraction in san francisco. at the bottom it's interesting. >> 23 you if you could talk into the mic. >> tourist attraction and on the bottom, do you own this business? i think that says it all. i believe the permit should not be allowed. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is valerie. i lived on brok ridiculous broderick street for 12 years. i feel that i'm in a privileged position to talk about the changes that have taken place since mr. frang lin franklin

purchased the property. before his ownership it was only a minor irritation. but now it's a cause of on going stress. whether i'm having breakfast, lunch or dinner there is constant noise. playing the theme song and slamming brakes. many fans don't just take a photo, sometimes they bring alcohol and linger for 30 minutes or mo. for these reasons i can't conduct work. i've byen awakened at night by noisy friends of the property. i used to take naps in my front pain window now it's not possible. coming in and out of my garage is no longer simple. fans park in my are driveway or stand there. sometimes my polite request to move are

met within rude jess tours or ignored -- gestures or ignored. i don't look forward to coming home because i have to deal with the abuse. because of the exponential of fans it's luke a pressure cooker about to explode. i witnessed two violent altercations between fans and passing drivers trying to get to their destination. i'd like to address mrs. bridge's comments regarding the security guard which shows mr. franklin's efforts to mitigate the impacts. after hiring of security guard, no action was taken for seven months. when the guard did arrive in september, incompetent and sleeping in his car hiding in the alleys, talking on his smartphone and taking photographs or socializingsocialize fans and ignoring

the problem he was hired to fix. he told me if we didn't like it, we should move. contrary to mrs. bridge's he made matters worse and since then no new guard has been provided. in the first 11 years i lived here there were friendly interaction between the neighbor bus not a sense of cohesion. since last year, the block has mobilized around the issue because all of us sees mr. franklin's actions impact our quality of life. mr. franklin is not a neighbor. he does not live here or intend to live here. he does not have to live with the consequences of his actions. i do not understand why the commission could choose the owner over the long time residents of this community who have to deal with this on a daily basis. >> next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon commissioner. i'm david. we've lived at our home on 1715 broderick for 46 46 years. in that time we've seen and experienced many changes in our neighborhood. many good some bad. the worst thing is the aggressive efforts of mr. franklin to make 1709 broderick street into a full-time promotion for his tv shows. actions and pro notional -- promotions turned our street into an argument efficiently tourist destination. the sponsor is trying to maintain it's always attracted fan visits. one would understand why they would

make this claim, but it's not true. we noticed fants coming here after the notice on the incompetent net, but they were few in number. a yelp page warned fans away from visiting 1709 broderick, because at that time the house did not look at all like what was seen on fv. after mr. franklin's remake of the house taking it back -- fake it back to the time, we've seen a massive increase in fans. the fonser makes the point that 1709 -- the sponsor makes the point that 1709 is the "full house" house. even if mr. franklin believes that is true, why does he keep ringing bell? the modification mrs. franklin is

proposing is a blatant effort to make the interior closely resemble the house on the tv series. the stated aim is to make the house inside and out look and feel like the characters in his show actually lived there. that he is something he promised in published interviews. the publicity that is sure to follow the trance pourtransformation would draw more nans. we wonder why mr. franklin has to be here at all. in 2016 he built a replica of the house on warner brother's back lot. he's never used it on the sitcom. if he used that instead of 1709 broderick, we might have a normal neighborhood. mr. franklin is no stranger to disputes. in beverly hills a property owner was trying to build next to his mansion and he fought this development.

he expressioned concerns it would damage his quality of life. now we have the same concerns baw the quality of life has been seriously damaged thanks to his action. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commission. i'm pamela. i've lived at 1715 broderick street for over 46 years. i've been requested by one of our neighbors, mr. dave hollister to read his letter to you. dear members of the planning commission i am writing this letter in opposition to the project at 1709 broderick street that is up for for a discretionary review hearing on december 7th, 2017. i live at 2726 bush street and our family lived in the neighborhood since

1997. additionally, my wife has grown up in the neighborhood since 1977. i will be very direct in my letter. since mr. franklin began promoting his new hi-purchased house at 1709 broderick street, the traffic in front of the house has exploded and is nothing less than chaotic. we have four children who walk to school and activities daily. i'm worried about their safety. the inconsiderate and careless drivers driving by the house are of great concern to my children's safety. i have witnessed several careless and reckless examples and i'm fearful of my children being injured or killed. i've requested the planning commission soap the request for discretionary review and require the project sponsor to seek a permit for this change and

alleviate the traffic chaos in the neighborhood. please accept this heart felt and urgent request. sincerely david hollister. as a wife and a mother and a grandmother, i firmly agree with mr. hollister's letter. my husband and i raised two children at 1715 broderick street. in that time period, we never had to worry about what we're having to worry about today. please, please, please consider a very stringent review. thank you. >> thank3you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is lisa depaulis. i live at 1730 broderick street which is across the street from 1709. i have owned and lived in my property for 17 years. first i'll begin by underscoring

everything that you've heard the testimony which is very, very true. i'm here to share how this has impacted by life over the last year. first of all, it has impacted our peace, our lovely, quiet, peaceful neighborhood changed a year ago. where i would have peace, i no longer have peace. this has impacted my ability to make a living and work from my home. it impacted my ability to -- sorry, it's impacted by stress. a few examples, i have to work from home. i was on a conference call with the chief technology officer from sf moma. he called me about software we soda him. we had a dual being horn competition.

i had to put my phone on mute so he could finish the story but he could speak. sometimes it's a russian roulette when i have to unmute my phone because of the horns and sounds. i'm worried about my personal safety. one day i was slowly backing out of my garage. i own a garage and have the same concerns of valerie. a woman screamed. i put my car into park. i thought a hit a child. i jumped out and saw everything was okay. i yelled to the woman, what are you doing? she said i'm sorry, i was yelling at my daughter who jumped in front of your car that was backing up. the horns like valerie i work sometimes 60, 70-hour weeks. sometimes to be able to take a nap on weekend has been a luxury that is long gone. there are always horns.

on thanksgiving day, i must have put my head out the window 13 times to ask people to please keep the noise down. these people are not kind. they're belligerent and scary. i've been attacked. i've had very obscene gestures. this past saturday, i was bringing home a sick cat for a neighbor. i was bringing it back from the vet and someone was blocking my driveway. i got out of my car and asked, is this anyone's car? the one gentleman that said no, actually was blocking valerie's driveway facing the wrong sield of the street. soy start -- side of the street so i started to take the cat out of the car and the girls came to get in the car. i said excuse me they called across does anyone have the car. they said listen bitch, this is our time, we're only here for a few minutes. in summary, the crowds, it's impacted our