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 show, and again, broadcast all of this at the "full house" house to all the world. so the idea that they're creating chaos for this all the rest of the time. the six hours is minimal, the time that it took to film it. it's the after math of the program. i'll just let commissioner swig's comment stand. the sign is a joke. that has done nothing. and the tour -- talking with tour companies about visitor behavior, i don't think he either didn't do it or it's not working. i picked up dirty diapers, used baby diapers in front of my house. i've picked up big gulp cups full of throw up. there are tour buses coming up and down the street, and whatever he's doing -- what he says he's doing is not happening or it's not working. >> president honda: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good evening. my name's henry pratt. i live at 1704 broderick street, number 4. to go along with my neighbor's comments, mr. martin, some of the things that mr. franklin says he's been doing to alleviate contact, the supervisor's staff encouraged mr. franklin's team to hire security many times as early as february of 2017, and no security was hired until september of 2017, after a summer of thousands of visitors. the security guard that was hired for some time but is no longer there, the security guard sometimes stopped double parked cars in front of the house, but he did not stop large gatherings of people anywhere else on the block. the security guard rarely stopped one neighbor driveways from being blocked; two,

traffic building up in the street, three, noise, four, litter and in fact kicked litter in the street. the guard appeared to have no supervision or training. he often disappeared into his car to watch something on his phone. sometimes he slept. he at one point got a ticket from a meter maid, and he screamed at the meter maid calling her fat and old. while some wanted security, they wanted it to be professional, it was far from. in conclusion to the neighborhood rebuttals to his claims, he's failed to alleviate the chaos he created. he has no plans to use here or to use the building as a residence. he does not have to deal with the daily disruption and violation of our privacy that he's created, those of us that are residents of broderick street and residents of san francisco. thank you. >> president honda: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i've lived on broderick street for 12 years, and i work from

home. my kitchen and living room face the "full house," as does my garage. as such, i feel that i'm in the privileged position to talk about the changes that have taken place since mr. franklin has purchased the property and started marketing it. before mr. franklin's ownership it was at most a minor inconvenience. but now, living across from the the "full house" it has been a cause of ongoing stress which could easily be called a type of harassment. whenever i was in my kitchen or my living room, i was a given that i will hear car horns, and slammed breaks. many fans socialize on the sidewalk. sometimes they bring alcohol and linger around 30 minutes or more. for these reasons, i can't ever conduct work from my kitchen or living room any more. i've been woken at night by noisy and drunken fans out of the property.

coming out of my garage is no longer simple either. fans blocking my driveway will just stand there. at times my polite requests to move have been met with rude gestures, hostility or just ignored. this has led us to feel our street is a giant pressure cooker, ready to explode. since last year, we've seen the entire block mobilize around this issue because all of us see that mr. franklin's actions severely impact the quality of life. mr. franklin is not a neighbor. he does not live here, he does not intend to live here. he does not have to live the consequences of his actions, but we do. >> president honda: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> my name is stephanie fillbrandt, and i live at 2721 bush street, and i live at 2829 california street, so my exact path of travel is down broderick any time all day, and i do that walk probably four to eight times a day, back and forth to get my lunch and so forth. and during my walks, it's -- it's sort of constant. like, i either get the aggressive fans or i guess the dangerous drivers or i've even seen vandals. it's just become -- it's sort of a show up and down every day on that street as i walk back and forth. i also have two children. i have an eight-year-old and an 11-year-old, and they're very often dropped at my office and we walk home pretty much every

night. and on three separate occasions, we've almost been hit by cars. generally, what happens is -- on the first occasion, it was at the corner of pine and broderick, and it's a car that's sort of speeding to either get to the house and pause and double park or seize a parking place or something, but they clearly didn't even see us, and we sort of walked up behind them sort of expecting an apology, and my boys are like, are they going to say something, and it's nothing. they're so unaware that they literally almost knocked my eight-year-old off the street. it's something that, you know, i have to explain to the kids as which walk by. it's much like rachel said. i have to explain why we're so rude, why they're giving us dirty looks. i walk on the other side of the street, even though our direct path of travel would take us on that side of the street for the shorter route. i also believe that someone is going to get hit or hurt, and i

hope we can do something about it. >> president honda: thank you. >> thank you. >> president honda: next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is taya hassagan. i lived on broderick street until several years ago. my mother and sister still live there. i'd like to read a letter on above of the pacific heights housing association. pacific heights association agreed with the appellants about the inadequate notification of residents of that block, and the disharmony of the proposed exterior exchange changes. additionally, the proposed interior modifications would encourage inappropriate uses of the building, such as film shoots, promotional uses of the building and rentals. it is our understanding that

the new owners of the property encourage the tourist activity and are connected with the television series. it is our fear that the home will be put to inappropriate commercial use in this otherwise calm or residential block. thank you for your consideration as a neighborhood's interest. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good evening and welcome. >> hello. my name is marry cantini, and i live at 1730 broderick, and my husband and i have lived there since december 1985, and we live directly across the street. our living room is just -- has full view of 1709 broderick. when we first moved to that block, we were delighted that it was such a quiet block. broderick street does not go all the way through to geary, so it's always been a really quiet, traffic-free block until a year ago, when mr. franklin

bought that property and promoted it. it's -- it's just so critically changed. it's become a theme park, and it's full of tourists and it's very dangerous. the traffic is terrible. there's people double parked on both sides. a lot of the visitors are not city folk. they're not used to parking, to having other automobiles on the street. i personally have been in an accident. i hit a parked car when parking in front of my house. a family with three small children ran out into the street and startled me and i hit a car. i've also witnessed two other accidents. i think if -- i would like to see the permit revoked, but i'd also like to see the house painted ann entirely different color and a gate out front so it's not just an attraction to

tourists. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. >> good evening. you're still smiling, and you're the second to the last public speaker. >> my name is andrea scott finney, and we are the residents of 1703-1703 broderick street. a native of san francisco, we have enjoyed the neighborhood and the uniqueness of san francisco. personally, i have witnessed the beginning of the "full house" project, the 1980's where the single snapshot photo became a part of the fall out and fiasco more than 46 years. the change on broderick street has worsened as a massive amount of strangers by the thousands walk in front of our homes.

trespassing on the property, double parking across our droif way, parking in directions against traffic, jaywalking in the middle of the street, loitering, littering, disturbing the peace continually with loud noises and increases during and after 10:00 p.m. additionally, repeating the noises and the gestures from the upper pacific height neighbors as they attempt to pass through bush street to geary, and traffic violations are broken daily. according to mr. franklin, some 30 million people have arrived on broderick street, but no one has manned the ship. there's been no one at the helm. we need a break.

in the early 1940's, my family had children, and we played safely on the street. a quiet and respectful neighborhood. now, i have seen neighbors move away. there's no room for anyone to currently walk past, let alone children to play outside. real, real people -- >> i'm sorry, ma'am. your time is up. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. we saved the best for last. >> well, i don't know about that. >> and good evening, sir. >> good evening to you. my name is leslie finney. i'm a san francisco native somewhat. i've been here 23 years. i would like to say something about the littering and the profanity that we hear on broderick street daily. it's getting to a point now where it's just getting out of hand. mr. franklin made several

statements, and one statement he made is my neighbors. he's not our neighbor. he doesn't even live in the neighborhood. if he were our neighbor, he wouldn't want this going on, any way, but he's not our neighbor. he lives in los angeles, and i heard another lady say that he was concerned about another project going on next door to his home. what about us? we need quietly. we need quiet, we need caulkness. we want -- calmness. we want to return to where we were: a quiet, residential street. i have no figures for you, i have no numbers for you, but i do have this for you: please, we implore you, we need help. thank you. >> thank you, sir.

anymore speakers? >> seeing no other public comment, then we'll move into rebuttal? >> oh, owner of this property is intentionally creating a public nuisance. he's doing it for his own commercial gain or at the least for his own entertainment. this is simply wrong, and i hate to say it, but if you allow this permit to go forward as it is, the city will be sanctioning that activity. this is completely unlike the

doubt there doubtfire house. this is the producer of the show buying the house to use it for promotions. it is turning it into a billboard. i think it's akin to a billboard at this point, promoting his show. he said that revocation will harm the house because of the condition it's in, torn up. well, that's only because he did serial permitting, which is of course disfavored. and the shrine as you might ask inspector duffy, is stable. mr. franklin's counsel said that there's a nexus issue. you need to look at the nolar and dolan cases, she's talking about eminent domain, and the explanation that that applies to these cases is, all due respect is pretty silly. this is an issue of the conditions requested applying very closely to the harms of this permit.

the color of this facade of this house is drawing these fans. change this color. there's no gate here so the fans come up on the steps. we're asking for a locking gate. it's one of the most important features here. the

this, however, is a change of use without the correct permit, and commissioners moore and

melgar recognized that at the planning commission. in fact, the one vote against the conditions that were placed on this permit came from commissioner moore because she wanted to revoke it as a change of use illegally. this permit here completes the transformation of the house into a replica of the film set, into this quote, unquote, shrine for the fans. this plan is causing additional harm to the neighborhood where there has already been so much harm. so far it's just been a few changes to the outside. if it's changed into this, this opens it up for the doors to be cast open and the fans to come inside, as well, and it's going to be that much worse and that much more permanent. and to mr. franklin's concern that an nfr would apply to him rather than to the property itself, we're talking about a condition for the property to run with the land into the if youture. so one of our real concerns here is he's going to sell it to an associate of his, perhaps

to netflix, and that's why we need an nfr. you need to say no promotional commercial use. no filming permits for this property. because they're not just filming on the sidewalks, they're filming on the stairs. and if you look at the promotional shots that we've shown in our exhibits, they're shooting this on the stairs of the property, so that's really not a concern about, you know, the public right of way being regulated. this house has to be regulated. the house is what's attracting the nuisance, on purpose, i would say. there were some questions about the timeline here, and mr. franklin's giving quotes to the media, when the crowds started to come. i want to make sure that's completely clear, because i think there was some intentional obfuscation here. craig if you could address the timeline really briefly.

>> okay. the -- when my wife and i looked at the property, it was probably in august or september. we didn't even initially know that the "full house" was next door because there were no fans. when we moved in, it was not an issue. a month after, it coincided with mr. franklin's december 1st comments to the press. >> thank you. so lastly, i would be very happy to talk about why the dr action memo is incorrect. happy to give you a transcript. the fact is we need permanent help from you. >> thank you, counselor. >> and happy to answer any questions. >> sure. i'll ask you a couple of questions. >> so when we have to wrestle with is what i spoke of before, and it's confirmed by zoning administrator, confirmed by mr. duffy. this is a -- this is a residential home.

the owner of the home has made a request to make some changes that he wants to make. if he wants to put a bathtub in the garage. that sounds stupid, but if he wants to be stupid. that's fine. i don't mean to call the -- the project sponsor stupid,

middle because that plumbing has not been able to be completed in connection with the permit that has been suspended. with regard to the sign, my understanding is it has been

removed and has not been replaced, but regardless of whether it exists at this moment, you know, the sign was really intended as a -- as a mode of conduct. we have no control over who comes to the house. this is the first moment that we would have any ability to communicate with the fans that come to the house, and that's something that the neighbors had said that they would want when we had initial conversations with them. i do want to address a couple things that mr. paterson discussed. one is he used the big, bad word of public nuisance, and that really highlights an issue for me that you know this permit is a building permit. again, it's a residential remodel. it's fairly ordinary, and if there's a different forum to deal with some of these issues, then there's a different forum to deal with some of these issues, and it's not appropriate to be dealing with them through conditions on a

building permit. you know, respectfully to mr. paterson, the nolan and dolan cases deal with this. they dale with conditional uses, they deal with a number of things related to your scope of police power and the scope of your ability to put conditions on a permit. and again, to board member swig's comments, the interior changes are code compliant. they're fully code compliant. there's no intention to film the interior. any connection to the show or any decorations that look like the show. it doesn't matter. mr. franklin has the prerogative to make the house look like what he wants on the inside as long as they are code compliant. you know, with regard to the nsr and why we would object to it, you know, this board has mentioned, it would reiterate existing law, but more importantly, it would lower the

property value, so if mr. franklin would ever like to sell the house, which he's expressed to the neighbors that he would like to do, it would lower the property value, and that's a significant reason to object to it. with regard to the due process issue and the flaw in the process, i think it's important to recognize here that you know the appellants have asked you to adopt the planning commission's recommendations. we've asked you to adopt the planning commission's recommendations. the zoned arrest or hing admin asked you to adopt the planning commission's recommendations. that would make the planning commission actions meaning full. i do want to have brent davis fromberg-davis coming up. i do think it's important that you understand the efforts that that we've taken to try to

address the issues and sort of the issues that we've faced in doing so. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. yvette davis, berg-davis public affairs from the very beginning as a communications professional, we've tried to figure out what are the things we can do to try to ameliorate the things that are going on. we've tried to -- i'm very interested in hearing your reaction to the sign because we were in the process of trying to throw 50 tools out on the table and try to understand what are good tools to use. we don't have the same people coming to the house, it's always different people. that sign was one attempt to try to get people to behave. we've met with sfmta, parking and traffic enforcement repeatedly. we had those no double parking signs printed and placed exempt to public commercial vehicles. we've explored white zones somewhere else. we've met repeatedly to the tour groups. we've had them come into our offices. we've been on facebook.

i actually tried to remove the yelp page twice and it was put back up twice. it's not connected to mr. franklin in any way. we live in a time where streaming and internet tv pose challenges. i will acknowledge that our attempt at security was not satisfactory, but to say that we're not trying, i think would not be true. we are, but we have to continue to try to look at solutions to try to manage this. we were able to get traffic control officers out over the holidays. i did call the mayor's office to tell them. i thought that that was a really important time. i do know that meter maids were out there before christmas trying to do more enforcement, so i just want people to know we are not dismissive by any stretch, but it is a challenging situation, and we acknowledge that and are doing

what we can to continue to try to be helpful. >> president honda: are you guys finished? are you finished with your time? >> i believe we are. >> president honda: i have a question for you. so you've just stated that you've given a lot of effort in working with, you know, the city departments and to try to mediate the issues that have arised. at the same time, when you duplicate and replicate a popular show, as you have, like, we cannot dictate the design and form you use, but evidently, it's to replicate the prior show. what was your expectation? i mean, if you send out -- you said social media, and you send out a social media invitation to millions of people, what was the expectation that you were going to get? >> well, i did not send out an invitation. let me issue a clarification. if i know that people are visiting the house, and i can see it, then, what i did is say we can see people visiting the house. we want to remind you that this is in a residential neighborhood. >> no. the question was -- sorry to

interrupt you. the question was the owner of the property, mr. franklin inadvertently said whatever he said via social media to evidently millions of people. i mean, what was your expectation, especially on duplicating and replicating the "full house" original format? >> well, i think you have to separate out what i'm talking about from just doing interviews with the media prior to our firm being engaged to be a part of this process. so our firm was brought on before he gave those interviews. >> president honda: okay. so you don't have any input on that. >> but what i want to say is -- >> president honda: no. i asked a question. that's fine. thank you. >> vice president fung: miss bridges, is there a historical resource report on this? >> there is a -- it's part of the here today survey, i believe. so here, this is a clat a historical structure. all the houses are painted sort

of a pale pastel color. >> may i ask mr. franklin some questions, please. >> president honda: mr. franklin, could you come to the podium, please. mr. franklin, you'll find that this is a very transparent board, and we'll remind you that you're under oath. and we ask direct questions. please don't take offense, but it's for the obtaability to gee stuff on the record. why'd you buy the house? >> well, it's a house that has been very near and dear to my heart since 1987 when -- it's a show -- it's a house that i look at over and over and over every single day, and it's sort of, for me, symbolic of the show as well as the golden gate

bridge and the painted ladies. ever since 1987, it's sort of been a dream of mine to actually own the house. and so it finally came up for sale, and i was able to buy. >> president honda: so to you, it's a collectible, like a baseball card? >> it just has great emotional value to me, and that's why i bought it. >> president honda: do you have any intent of being a resident on that street? >> no. >> president honda: okay. and so in creating i sa residential plan according to your plans, who's going to occupy the interior of that house? >> a tenant. >> president honda: a tenant. can you character the tenant? is it for the long-term? >> it'll be the tenant that'll be willing to pay the most rent. >> and in renting to that tenant, if -- in renting -- let me ask you another question. if you were occupying the

house, and you were -- you became a victim of your own success -- congratulations on your success, and i say that not sarcastically. if creating your success, if you were to move into that house, you would become a victim of your success by what we've all seen tonight here on video, in stills, and in testimony. how comfortably would you be living in your own house with that activity? >> well, if i -- i sympathize with the neighbors, and if i moved into a home and was not aware that it was used on the show, "friends," for example, and they brought "friends" back, and a whole bunch of people were there that weren't there when i bought the house, i'm sure i would be upset just like they are. personally, if i'm living in that house, i know it's a

tourist attraction. >> and how would you mitigate any discomfort that you might suffer: noise, activity? >> i don't know. >> and in -- >> i don't know what i would do. >> and in renting to a tenant for $5 a month, how is a tenant going to be satisfied to live there with the noise servants -- this is not my opinion. >> yeah. well, first, i need to finish the house and then explore the rental market. i mean it's not something i can do now. i've been waiting almost a year just to get the house in some kind of shape where it could be rented. it's -- you know, it's not my intention to make it a museum or a bed and breakfast, do anything other than rent it out. you know, everybody's extremely worried about what i'm going to

do with the house. i'm either going to sell it or i'm going to rent it to someone under the law, and all the changes that i want to make to the house are changes that all these people here have done to their homes. >> i think that your first intent of selling it would be a very welcome news to your -- >> right. i understand that, and that's a possibility. but i can't sell it until you guys let me finish it. you know, it's just sitting there. it's just sitting there, collecting dust for almost a year. >> thank you. >> and it's not -- there's nothing i'm doing inside that house that's unusual or illegal. >> thank you very much. >> president honda: thank you mr. franklin. i have a question, actually. so a member of the public said that on your own personal residence in los angeles, that there was a development across the street from your property that you opposed or -- or -- yeah, opposed or appealed.

is that true? >> yeah, this feels very familiar. there was a large group of neighbors that were upset about a very large home that was going up in the neighborhood, and i was a part of that group. >> president honda: i mean, so what -- considering, i believe the member of the public said 16, but i'm pretty sure they meant 16,000, so if your home is 16,000, what would you consider a very large home? >> 138,000 square feet. >> oh, very big. >> 20 yards from my home. and by the way, the house was shutdown because their plans were completely illegal. these are not. >> president honda: okay. thank you. >> okay. >> okay. we can have rebuttal from the zoning administrator. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. >> you still have time? six minutes. >> to address the discretionary review action memo. when it was brought to my

attention, the word of the condition related to the gate did not square with my recollection of the hearing. i did not request at the hearing. i reviewed the hearing video, and found that the wording as it was was inaccurate, that the commission did ask them to investigator look at the gate. i forwarded my comments to executive secretary of the planning commission who is the one who signs the motions and makes the final decision on the wording of those decisions, implementing the decision of the planning commission. he reviewed the video. he agreed that there was an error, and he revised it, and that is what is before you. so that is the statement of the executive secretary of the planning commission, that that is -- reflects the being arat decision of the planning commission. so i think that is all. i am available for questions. >> thank you. >> i have a question.

again, going back to this notion of sort of violating the planning code versus violating the nsr, are there different methoded for resource? >> the benefit if there is one of notice of special restrictions, is it makes it more apparent, rather than having to go look into a planning code and see what the restrictions may be, it's recorded on the deed of the property, not that it makes in any easier to find, but it would make those aware who purchase the property of any restrictions that may be under the planning code. >> so it would fall under a disclosure for a sale. >> okay. so if we were to find tonight, and i'm not saying that a motion will be in this direction, but might, that we're in favor of finding for the appellant based on the fact that the permit was badly issued due to the lack of a

block book notice, period, what would happen? would it just start all over again and go through the proper process of being heard and go through a proper -- get kind of a redo? >> it depends on what the applicant seeks to pursue. i mean, they could remove the exterior changes to the building, just have generally, i think the interior remodel, and it's likely not to even require planning department review, which wouldn't trigger the bbn notice, which just would appeal back to this board. but that is if the applicant chooses that path. the permit that they come through with may not require a view or the bbn notice. >> so follow up question. if that -- if that was a recommendation from one of the commissioners going in that direction, how do we put the consideration of the -- of

the -- not to be used for commercial use restriction on it, even though it's the law? >> if the board votes to revoke the permit, then there would be no conditions imposed on the permit because the permit is gone. but if they did seek a subsequent permit because they want to presumably at least do the seismic work and the interior remodel, that may be approvable without planning department review, depending on the scope of the work, and then, it is before this board a few months down the line and you could then condition it. >> so it would likely come back to us again and then we would have the opportunity to stick a condition on it if it happened to go in that direction. >> yeah. >> okay. that's called a punt, by the way. >> president honda: don't walk away yet, mr away --

>> vice president fung: don't walk away yet, mr. sanchez. one of the questions in my mind is how does a class a historic resource get an over-the-counter -- >> yes, and so the majority of the work is interior work, seismic upgrade. that is something that can be approved over the counter. generally wouldn't even require review by the planning department. >> but this permit has the bay and it has the roof deck. >> yes, but the bay is positionable in a way that it doesn't overlook the street. it's set back enough from the front building facade such that it can be approved over the counter as well, so the condition of the work is such that it can be approved over the counter by staff. >> vice president fung: go ahead and finish. >> but again, also, the commission's decision would have removal of the roof deck, removal of that bay window.

>> vice president fung: understood. but something doesn't quite sit right there. i've never heard of it going that quickly through preservation. >> i mean, this happens every day at the information counter, where -- >> vice president fung: i'd like to stop for the -- yes. we've seen them even pull in for a nondescript, just because it was in excess of 50 years. but this was an over-the-counter. it was very quick. i'd sure like to find who the expediter is and hire them. >> this was by planning department staff, we have rereviewed it. this is well documented, and we have a check list for this. >> actually, it was not properly reviewed because the bbn was not reviewed. >> preservation -- the bbn was not reviewed, but property staff did review the changes to

the building and find that it was categorically exempt. >> vice president fung: i agreed that they reviewed it. >> yes. we could always have more scrutiny on the exterior buildings and perhaps route everything up stairs and perhaps that's the direction we're going to need to go. >> vice president fung: thanks. >> thanks. >> commissioners, unless you have questions for him or anyone else, the matter is submitted. take numbers on who wants to start. rick? commissioner swig, sorry. >> commissioner swig: sure. i mean, i telegraphed the punt. so my intent would be to -- i'm not ready to do it because i'm looking for feedback -- make a motion that the appeal be upheld and the permit denied based on a failure of -- of the planning department to issue a proper bbn notice, but i'm not

making that -- i'm testing the foundation. >> president honda: okay. >> i'm not prepared to support that. >> commissioner swig: okay. >> vice president fung: i think we may want to discuss some of the major points that have been brought up here. as an example, one, i would not consider to be heavily germane to this case is what's been brought up about potential deterioration of the building due to temporary shoring and waterproofing because the building department can obviously provide permitting that allows them to do that kind of protection. there's two issues here that are quite difficult.

one is, and the permit holder's attorney has brought it up in their brief, is the nexus between what everybody's complaining about versus what the permit provides for. and that's not an easy question to make a determination of either way. the other issue, i think, which perhaps i would be leaning more toward, is similar to what commissioner swig said. that is that the process was also not correct. it's my opinion that the department erred, and therefore, this process needs to be started over again. >> i have a question about that. i mean, there was a process that is laid out when there's a flaw in the bbn notice, and that allows for a dr request.

that then -- i'm looking at you to correct me if i am wrong -- that is then heard by the commission, and they made recommendations, and the next step is an appeal to this board. the alternative would be if you find a flaw, you either sue the planning department or it gets called back, so what's the point of all this, if not to allow for this kind of a hearing and action? >> vice president fung: i think it depends on which side you're on. >> i guess so. >> vice president fung: you know, the -- yes, but remember the fix that the da's referred to occurred after some of these things happened. they didn't occur before. the only thing you can do is sue the department. now, they're allowing it to go there -- that wasn't the process previously. >> but it's the process now. >> it is.

>> that's why it's here. >> but i'm not acceptive of that. >> okay. >> you know, i think that the process should have been followed and unfortunately, maybe they were rushed. you know, and taken action on

permit because of a public health hazard. here, there is significant evidence that -- that a public health hazard has been created here, but the -- the permit holder's counsel would say that has nothing to do with the permit because what we're talking about is residential improvement. but it just bothers me that it's not on the record, and i want to place it on the record that -- >> chicken or the egg. >> -- in some fashion that a

health hazard has significantly been created, and this is a -- the side effect is that we're having this conversation. but i think frank is going to make the proper -- >> vice president fung: but i think, you know, it's incumbent on the permit holder's counsel to do whatever she can to narrow whatever capablities this board may have. i may disagree with her in some of what she wrote, but the fact is one could look at other more general elements of various charter-related documents that we could adhere then, whether it's the master plan or the planning code or other things. the question is whether you feel the need to get to that level of things that are not so specific but are quite general. i think in this instance, for me, it became a question of the

procedural process that needed to be clarified. >> and that's why i invite you to make a motion related to the procedural process. >> commissioner lazarus: i just would like to say one thing and that is this permit has clearly been suspended for a while. it doesn't seem to have had an effect on the number of people that are coming to the neighborhood, so i have to make a complete detachment between the permit and what is going on in the neighborhood. which isn't to say i would want to live there, because it sounds pretty bad. but i can't get from the permit to that situation. >> commissioner swig: which is why that's not going to be part of the motion. >> commissioner lazarus: well, it's going to be a different motion, any way. >> vice president fung: further comments? if not, i'm going to move to grant the appeal and to revoke the permit on the basis that it was issued in error.

madam director, should we make this a motion of intent? >> well, i think it's the reason that it was issued in error is because of the planning department's failure to issue a proper block book notification, we can just include that in the motion now. >> vice president fung: then that would be the basis of my motion. >> so it's to grant the appeals and deny the permit on the basis that it was issued in error because the planning department failed to issue the proper block book notification. >> vice president fung: that's correct. >> okay. on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> okay. with four votes in favor, that motion passes, and this permit is denied. if there's no further business, president honda. >> thank you.

adjourned. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company

and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to develop on treasure island like minded business owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our

supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant community >> chair peskin: good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today, tuesday, january 9, 2018.