And hell provide the board with any needed legal advice tonight. At the controls is gary quintera, and im cynthia, the boards executive director. Sitting at the table in front is scott sanchez. Hes the Zoning Administrator, and hes also here representing the Planning Department and Planning Commission, and next to him at the table is senior building inspector joseph duffy, representing the department of building inspection. The board requests that you turn or off silence all phones and Electronic Devices so that they will not disturb the proceedings and that you carrie on conversations in the hallway. Appellant, permit holder and Department Respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include their comments within this seven or three minute period. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebut impractical. Please speak into the microphone. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked, but not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to board staff when you come up to speak, we have speaker cards on the podium for your use. The board welcomes your comments or suggestions and we have Customer Satisfaction surveys on the podium, as well. If you have any questions about requesting a rehearing, the board schedules or rules, please speak to the board staff before or after the meeting or come to our office. This meeting is broadcast life on sfgovtv cable channel 78 and will be rebrought friday at 4 00 on channel 46. Now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any in the audience may testify without the oath under the sunshine ordinance. Please stand if youre able, raise your right hand and say i do after youve been sworn in or affirmed. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . Thank you very much. President honda and members, we have three housekeeping matters this evening. The approximate first has to do with item number five, which is appeal number 17560 which is having to do with two food permit. The permit holder has withdrawn his permit application, and the Public Works Department has cancelled that permit, so the appeal has been administratively dismissed at moot. Item number 7, the parties have jointly requested that that matter be delayed for one more week in order to allow them additional time to settle the matter, so we do need a vote in order to move it to january 17th. If you are open to doing that, this is appeal 17161 recording 21 rosemont place. Ill make a motion. Okay. Too. Whos making the motion . Ill make a motion. Okay, so the president , youre making a motion to continue this to january 17 . Right. Interes there any public co on that motion . I just wanted to say thank you for that patience. Representing the appellant, and john kellan representing the appellant. We are on the brink for signing the agreement, so thank you for getting there. There is only our third extension, please. Thank you. Okay. So on that motion to reschedule to january 17th. [ roll call. ] okay. Thank you very much, so well move that item to next week. Then, the next housekeeping items has to do with appeals 8 a and 8 b, 17161 and 17169, those have been withdrawn in the last half hour, so those items will not be heard tonight. Interesting. Okay. So your evenings have just changed a bit. Dramatically. So were going to move back to the regular calendar then. Item number one is general Public Comment. This is for anyone here who would like to address the board thats within the boards subject matter jurisdiction but not on tonights calendar, so is there any general comment . Okay. Seeing none, item 2 is commissioner comments and questions. Anything else, commissioners . Sure. One of the convenient opportunities that was going to present itself for us on on the food truck item today, which was just pulled was was the opportunity to hear to get clarification from fire, health, and department of public works on how they come together and adjudicate amongst themselves before they allow a permit to be issued or considered, and i think one of the the big important points of hearing that, along with reaching a decision, had it been our decision, was to hear from those those three departments on how they come together on this very important issue because it is going to come again, so how are we going to get them to appear in front of us and and educate us and counsel us or provide information related to how they Work Together on specifically things like that . And it was the gas tanks, it was the obviously the locations, and generally how they come together. So id like to suggest that maybe we ask them to come together at some point to counsel us on that or inform us on how they Work Together so we can handle these things better in the future. Well, if youd like, commissioner, we can add with the president s consent, schedule an item on a future calendar to have them come and present information on those points to the board. If thats okay with the president and my fellow commissioners thats fine. Okay. I wont be a president when they get to us, but i am now, i guess. All right. Well, well get that as an item for a future calendar. Perfect. Any other counselor comments . Welcome back. Its been three weeks. Yeah, almost a month. Any Public Comment on item 2 . Okay. Seeing none, then item 3, commissioners, is your consideration of the december 13th, 2017 minutes. Unless we have any changes, deletions, may i have a motion to accept those minutes . So moved. Okay. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on the minutes . Okay. Seeing none, then we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes. On that motion. [ roll call. ] thank you. Those minutes are adopted. Item 4, then, is a jurisdiction request. The subject property is at 278 month monticello street. The appeal period ended on december 15, 2015, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on december 20th, 2017. We will start with the requester, and i believe well be having an interpreter assist, so are are we going to double the time . Okay. So were good evening, and welcome. [ speaking native language ] hi. My name is andy chen, and i am the owner at 278 monticello. I have according to the department of Building Permit, have completed all of the the building, and i have also received the permit to move in. [ speaking native language ] [ through the interpreter ] because of the Group Housing complaint, the city planner matthew dito had notified us that he had incorrectly approved our permits, and so all of the construction has been suspended. [ speaking native language ] [ through the interpreter ] but because weve already spent over 500,000 in the construction and have mostly completed it, but now still have to go back and redo all of the construction and apply for all of the new permits. [ speaking native language ] [ through the interpreter ] we are not we are not living at the property 278 monticello, and we did not receive a letter from the Building Department regarding the notice of violation, and so and we also did not know that we could apply for appeal. [ speaking native language ] [ through the interpreter ] we did not know that Group Housing was illegal, and we and no one had told us that it was illegal. [ speaking native language ] [ through the interpreter ] i have been living in the United States for 26 years. I am a hard worker, and i am a good citizen. The only problem is my english isnt very good. [ speaking native language ] [ through the interpreter ] because the sign, if its around 50,000, that is a lot of money. That is not including the money that i will need to spend to redo the construction because the Building Department had incorrectly approved our permit. [ speaking native language ] [ through the interpreter ] im hoping that i will be able to receive a fair result of this, and thank you very much for your time. President honda thank you. Vice president fung ive got a question. The mr. Chen has indicated that the permits were suspended. Is that the revision permits to resolve the nov . [ speaking native language ] [ through the interpreter ] this was the suspension was on the original permit that was approved, and we had finished all of the constructions based on that permit. Vice president fung but his brief indicated he received certificate of final occupancy on the two original permits. [ speaking native language ] [ through the interpreter ] that is correct. Vice president fung okay. Ill ask the department a question. President honda thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Sanchez . Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. Happy new years, commissioners. The item before you, a notice of jurisdiction request for a notice of violation, that was issued a few years ago. To go through a bit of the history there was a building violation issued in 2012. In addition, the owner of the property is also the contractor of the property. We received a complaint in 2014 that they had exceeded the scope of work under that permit. They submitted a permit to correct that, which is still under review by our staff. We also received complaints of a Group Housing violation. As you know, we send our notices to the owner thats listed of record on the Assessors Office for enforcement notices, we send it both by Certified Mail and regular mail. So in 2014, we had sent an enforcement notice to the property by Certified Mail. The owner whos here before you had the subject address listed as the owner address. They did respond to that. They submitted the permit to correct the violation. They did not make progress with staff, so they sought another permit, and i can put that on the overhead. cause there were two enforcement issues. One was about illegal Group Housing issues. Sorry, mr. Is not chez. Overhead, please. Thank you. One was about illegal Group Housing use let me zoom in there. The approvals there from the various departments. So they had there was issue with the facade that the scope of work had been exceeded. They had done more work to the facade than was on the group plans. So she had submitted a permit to correct the violations in 2014, were not diligently pursuing that. They did obtain another permit, which i believe they are referring to. It stated that the scope of work, and was not reviewed by planning to repair front stucco in kind as the scope of work. Its my understanding that there was no stucco there to be repaired in kind, so that is a new condition on the property, so thats misrepresenting the scope of work. But we did pursue enforcement they had at least on file the application to correct the facade, but we pursued enforcement on the Group Housing because they were not compliant on that. So as i noted, we do the return receipts, so we received one for our notice of enforcement. Has a signature here. Does not list a name. We have the notice of violation. The signature is here. Does not have the name. And our notice of penalty, which is after the notice of violation, it says weve issued notice of violation. You have not responded. Penalties are accruing. They will continue to accrue. It was received, signed. In my opinion, the same signatures of the others. Here is the owners wife, and also, the notice of penalty, which was clearly received by the Property Owners does have a copy of the notice of violation. Staff worked with the applicant to resolve the complaint, but there are still penalties due, and were happy to work with them to pay that off. Thank you. I have a question, mr. Sanchez. So did you put up the second return receipt request. I can put them so the first cause i see the first one was 2015. Yes. What was the second one, sir . 2015. So this was the first one, november 9th, 2015. This was the notice of enforcement. We then, after that, 124 12415, the notice of violation. After that. The one issue im having is that going through the brief, i notice the department did submit one. Its just him, so it was kind of hard going through the information because it indicates that he had spoken to staff, and that apparently staff said that if he paid this additional this fee, that it would be taken care of. And then, it went from 1,176 to 50,589. 98, and im wondering how did that get from one figure to the other figure. So i can put on the overhead the documents that have the amounts shown. This is related to department of building inspection violations, not Planning Department violations, and this was paid in march of 2016. And staff had been in communication with the jurisdiction requester. Its our understanding staff has communicated very clearly what that requirement was. And actually after they had paid this money, we had were still trying to seek compliance on the Group Housing use, so we engaged the City Attorneys office, and they issued a demand letter one month after the jurisdiction requester had paid off the issues to the Building Department violation, so i think they were very well affaaware that they had outstanding violations on the property. Do you have something in regards to how the 50,000 was accrued from the Planning Department sfl can that was from the date of violation until notice that the abatement was corrected. Okay. It would have been nice if we got this in our package . Yes. Given the short time frame and holidays, we werent able to prepare a brief, but i do have a timeline here. The Administration Penalties began to accrue on december 26th, 2015, and staff confirmed that the violation was abated on youre talking about the jurisdiction request. Yeah, but i just wanted to know thats part of my basis how i would like to understand the math of where the 50,000 came from. On the overhead, i have a letter that was sent to the Property Owner on december 1st, outlining the timeline of events, the penalty that had accrued, and the how to pay it. But in terms of just the jurisdiction request and given the return receipts, which i was provided by staff this week, i believe it shows that they were aware of the notice of violation and they certainly were working with staff to abate the violation. Ultimately did. Staff communicated they were always on the hook for the penalties. President honda okay. cause just going through the briefs, it seems like they had cooperated every step of the way. Theres still an outstanding permit to correct the violation, which they have not been responsive to our notice of Planning Department requirements, so the permits do remain suspended, they have not been abated. President honda okay. Thank you mr. Sanchez. Vice president fung just to clarify, this is a jurisdiction on the Building Department request on the Planning Department notice of violation that we issued in 2015 december 2015. Vice president fung the copy of which is in here. Yes. Vice president fung okay. Which is related to the Group Housing, correct . Correct, correct. So the notice of violation and the penalties relate to the Group Housing use. There is another violation. Vice president fung i understand, which hasnt been but thats not before us. Correct. So on the Group Housing issue, the abatement would have been ending the Group Housing or in this case, the explanation is students who were renting space while going to school . They vacated the premises, and we abated the violation. Right. And so the violation really continued as according to the the brief, based on based on the the need or the inclination not to stop the lease period in the middle of an agreement and put people out on the street . They chose to collect the rent during that time and yes. But we dont know what its based off because we dont have any of that information. Well, we have the information that it was rented as Group Housing to college students, and it was mentioned that the hardship there was that they were they were in the middle of a term. And were happy to work with the jurisdiction requester on the terms of the penalty payment and possibly reducing that amount. It is 250 a day. We can discuss that with them. Vice president fung i dont know, commissioners. I might request that we continue this, allow the department to see if they can come to a mutually acceptable resoluti resolution, instead of us decide whether to do it or not. And i think the main issue for for this request for jurisdiction is that 50,000 is a lot of money. And we as i say, we can look at reducing it. I would note the board of peals under the code only has the ability to reduce it to 100 a day. Vice president fung understo understood. President honda which is still a significant amount so to speak. I dont think were done with testimony. If you have questions from the building inspector, you can ask him. Hes not really a party to this, but you can ask him. I do. Vice president fung thank you, mr. Sanchez. Youre looking like you wanted he does. Good evening, commissioners. Joe duffy, dbi, have you got some questions . The permit holder had indicated that the initial permit was issued and he proceeded to work off that initial issue. I mean, im just a little confused about that because theres subsequent nov permits. And so in his brief, he had 13 rooms in the brief that was supplied by the permit holder. But what im the question im asking is the did he build as perthe plans that were submitted to the Building Department, besides the facade im talking about the interior. Yeah. I believe from the research that ive done on the case, and i heard about this around the office two or three years ago. I heard chief inspector speaking about it a couple of times with the senior. Its one of the properties that they put in a bunch of bat roombat bad rooms, and they rent them out. In answer to your question, there was a permit issued, but it was issued in error and was signed off in error, actually, and we rescinded the certificate of final completion. It shouldnt have been signed off. And then, we issued a notice of violation after the fact. And then, the fines that you heard about were all dbi fines. The 1,118. 76, and i think the owner confused those fines with the Planning Department. We are dealing with two different city agencies with two different sets of fines. There might have been some misunderstanding from the owner. He was only paying some fines to dbi. Those fines for dbi, he is still accruing fines of 48 permonth for a monthly fee because the thats better than 250 a day. Exactly, but we still have outstanding issues here with the property. He hasnt taken care of all the permits. We still have suspended permits, as you heard from mr. Is not che sanchez. Theres still issues to resolve. Ok okay. Mr. Duffy, can you give me a timeline when the error was discovered and when there was a correction in issuing these permits. What im trying to figure out in my brain is the intent here. Were all human, and we do make mistakes, but it seems according to the brief that he submitted, that he was trying to be compliant. I think he was trying to be compliant after he got stopped or after it got discovered that this permit shouldnt have been issued the way it was, and planning may have not been involved in some of the permits. I dont have much with me. President honda just when was the permit issued and when did the dbi discovered that there was an issue in issuing the permit, and how was that brought to the dbis attention. Okay. So the permit 2012, raised lower level, split level to raise living floor and create additional living space, that looks like it was the permit that the main permit was 450,000. It was filed in november of 2012, issued in april of 2013, and suspended in november of 2015. President honda thats a pretty long gap from discovering. And how does the Department Come about that . Was that from the planning enforcement or was that from a neighbor . I believe it was a complaint from a neighbor when people started a lot of people started living there. Normally, we get these type of complaints when a lot of cars start parking there, that everybody 13 cars. It starts they dont realize whats going on, and then, we look into it and realize its an issue. Now, i dont know that for sure because i dont have the original complaint. President honda no, i would imagine that 13 individuals would create havoc, but for two years, the gentleman with the permit thought that he had a legitimate permit until it was brought to his attention. Oh, mr. Sanchez wants to come be your savior. Tag team. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. The Building Permit application that started all the work was this expansion permit. That was issued in 20 was submitted in 2012, issued in 2013. The department of building inspection received complaints in 2014 about exceeding the scope of the permit, and this is lets see. August, they submitted a permit to comply with Building Departments permit. Then, they submitted, subsequently, another permit to correct the violation later that year, in, looks like september, which our staff still hasnt reviewed because they have not been responsive to our notice of requirements. They have not completed all the information that we have to approve the permit to correct the violation that they created. President honda no, i get it, but where im coming from is that the issue the permit was issued november 12. It was acted on in april of 2013, and then signed off and a notice of completion or whatever is issued. And that the following year is when the violation occurred, in 2014. Is when it was identified. I think the complaints were identified in 2014, but the permit itself was issued in 2013. President honda okay. Thank you, mr. Sanchez. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, commissioners, the matters submitted. Vice president fung i would commissioner lazarus before you do, can i ask council a question . Would you remind me of the standard of jurisdiction . City created i can find it for you really quickly. The board has to find that the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing the appeal. Commissioner lazarus ill just find, i dont find that this meets that criteria. Vice president fung im going to go back to what i prematurely brought forth, and that is that i would ask that we continue this case to allow the Planning Department and appellant to review starting points, endpoints, and see if they can negotiate a mutually acceptable settlement. Im not sure i would agree with my fellow commissioner that it wasnt because that the city did do this. They issued it. Whether and then they completed the work, they got a cfc, and based upon a complaint afterwards, they issued the suspension and revocation of that permit. Well, im sorry, but that doesnt apply to the entire permit, it applies to the portions that went beyond the scope, and i think that was a probably a jump in in the process that shouldnt have occurred. Im of the opinion that this thing would better be handled in an association matter rather than a legal effort. Commissioner lazarus but i thought the city administrator said that that could happen under any circumstance, mr. City Zoning Administrator. Mr. Zoning administrator . Welcome back. Thank you. Commissioner lazarus did you indicate earlier i thought i heard you say that you could negotiate with the permit holder regardless of the action that we took here today . Yes. President honda i think the Vice President is just ensuring that there was conversation prior to that. I would support that if you would like to make a motion, unless anyone has Something Else to put forward. Vice president fung id like to move to continue this case maybe to the end of february , madam director. Okay. Vice president fung february march. February 28th, is that what you want . President honda thats about as end as you can get. Commissioner lazarus can i just ask a question, you, the motion maker . Vice president fung i hadnt finished my motion yet. Commissioner lazarus excuse me. Please continue. Vice president fung february 28th . That works for the requester . Vice president fung okay. Madam . Commissioner lazarus so when they come back with a settlement, potentially or negotiated amount, then, what action can we take . Vice president fung i dont know. Commissioner lazarus just thought id ask. President honda see what happens when were off for three weeks. So the motion commissioner is to continue this to february 28th, 2018 and that is with the encouragement that the Zoning Administrator and the requester meet and confer . Vice president fung thats correct. President honda cant they, if they come to an agreement, just withdraw, and at which point, it will not come before us, and theres no need to make that decision. And 100 is the lowest perday, so i think im fine with that, personally. Okay. On that motion, then, from the Vice President , commissioner [ roll call. [ roll call. ] okay. And the matter does carrie with a vote of 32. This matter is continued to february 28th. President honda no one can accuse us of being pardo par on this board. Well move onto the next item. John sullivan is asking that the board take jurisdiction over a permit which was issued on november 16, 2016. The appeal period ended on october 18, 2017, and the notice was filed at the board on december 4th, 2017. The permit holder is Pierre Martin, and the project is a three dormers remodel bathroom, no change to elevation in floor area, no work on first or second floors, and we will start with the requester. Hello. President honda good evening. Welcome. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you for this opportunity to speak about the property, 1374 page street. The building thats affected by the remodel by my neighbors, Martin Pierre and marie rebodemere. The effect which means according to their attorney, keith yetter of box fair child, i cannot put up christmas lights, stand on my roof, use my fireplaces or use my existing exhaust fleus on my roof. Appendix a documents that i ranned on roof access to my house, and that i have a fire box flue from president honda im sorry, sir, could you pause one second. Im sorry, sir, if you have questions. Vice president fung please take it outside. President honda please take it outside. Thank you. Sorry for the interrupting. Could i give him another 15 seconds to his time, please. He stopped the clock. Yes, so i was referring to the flus. I have a flu on the first floor, a gas heating flu thats visible on the roof, and it goes to the Property Line that is now outside their window that theyre building. My plans called to use the flu for heating on the first and second floors, removal of my central heating, installation of hydronic heating. My neighbors with the reckless disregard of my property or taking control of my roof, unknown to me until the start of december. Otherwise i would have filed here sooner. Originally owned by the president of the st. Joseph benevolent society. Sometime the windows were nailed from the outside and a lot of other things that made the house unable to live there. A social room was added in 1947, but otherwise, the house has been unchanged since its been originally built. Dealing with the neighbors has been difficult. Ive been trying to get my house redone. From the roof gutters not working, trees, and noisy fur in as flu on their house, its been noisy, challenging in working with them. Their exterior wall at my property is just lead paint, bare lead paint. Its been that way for over 50 years, and theyve never addressed it. Pg e is my time up . President honda 30 seconds. Pg e maintained their power lines. Theres a four steeory garbage chute in the back. President honda sir, i have a question. Are your plans approved . I didnt notice that they were at peryour brief. No, they were not. Its not been approved. President honda okay. So what youre saying that the dormers adding to the nextdoor neighbors property will not allow you to do your plans. Yes. President honda and then it says something here about a bill for 200 . Yes. Those are wires that are on my building. They attached the wires on my property, and i asked them to remove them for over ten years. President honda okay. Thank you. And they never would. President honda okay. Thank you. Okay. We can hear from the permit holder. President honda good evening and welcome. Good evening, commissioners. My name is keith yetter. I represent the permit holder, Pierre Martin and his wife who are present. This is a jurisdiction request, and as the City Attorney pointed out earlier, the standard for that is that the board must find that the city intentionallore or inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing the peaappeal, and as he admit in his brief, he in fact received the notice from the city and decided to disregard it because it wasnt important. All the other things that he mentioned are not relevant today. If he had filed his appeal timely, he could have broughten those up. And finally, if the board has any questions about the scope of the project, it is a small project, adding a couple dormers. Theres no increase in Square Footage and no increase in height of the building. So im available to answer any questions, as are the permit holders. He didnt really say he disregarded it because it wasnt important. Thats a little out of context. President honda Something Else to do. He said i was busy doing other things, and the remodel that says no elevation or other changes doesnt seem to be worth going through the trouble of coming down to Mission Street to request the plans, so. President honda off. Any other questions . And then, on the plans, youre adding a garage now. The two levels that are affected, are those just story levels, garage levels . Are there bathrooms, kitchens affected by this, as well . Its a threeunit building. The permit holders only reside in the top unit, which is the top floor, and they are only adding the dormers and remodelling some bathroom. Its all interior work except for the dormers. President honda okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anything from the department . Mr. Sanchez . Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. The scope of work that is authorized in this permit does not require neighborhood notification. Neighborhood notification was not required by the department. I was a little concerned when the requester said they did receive notice, cause none was performed by the Planning Department. I think weve talked in previous hearings about a process that allows you to get permit notices online. Maybe that is what they have. They may have received notice through that alternative, but it does seem pretty clear to me that the scope of work here is calling for the addition of dormer windows, and that is allowed in certain specifications und specifications without notification. Vice president fung a dbi with a structural notification of adjacent neighbor. President honda cause dorme dormers are an over the counter . Yes, they can be approved without notice. President honda thank you. Inspector duffy . Commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. The current approval was add three dormers, new bath. No change to front elevation or floor area. No work at the first or second floor, and it was approved properly and issued by dbi in accordance to the building code. We actually did do a structural notification on this. Im not sure why. It may have been a bonus. Sometimes we dont normally do end notification unless its foundation, but they wouldnt be doing any Foundation Work for this, but probably a good thing that we can do a notification, so i think thats the notification that youre hearing about. Its only required to go to neighbors, as the he noted in his comments. Im available for negate questions. President honda thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, then, commissioners, the matters submitted. Commissioner lazarus im not seeing anything Vice President fung i would concur. President honda i would, also. Unlike the prior case, notification was received. Would someone care to make a motion . Commissioner lazarus move to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis that the city did not inadvertently directly cause the individual to miss the deadline. Thank you. We have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny this jurisdiction request. On that motion. [ roll call. ] that motion passes, and the jurisdiction request is denied. Okay. So item number 7 was rescheduled to january 17th. Item number 8 a and 8 b were both just withdrawn, so we are calling items number 9 a and 9 b, appeal number 17050 and appeal number 17052, both having to do with the property at 1709 broderick street and both are protesting the issue wednesday issued on december 9th, 2017. New side bay window, decaaddition at rear, new roof deck. So im just curious if the appellants are going to combine their time and make a presentation together. Are you representing everybody at once . Yes, thank you. We would prefer to combine time. Okay. 14 minutes. Okay. President honda welcome, counselor, again. Thank you president honda and commissioners, and thank you for helping us settle items 8 a and 8 b tonight. Commissioners, Ryan Paterson representing the appellants in this case. This is a case where there are serious legal defects in the permits, but i think it makes sense for you to hear from the appellants themselves first. President honda welcome to you, as well. Thank you. May i have the computer, please . Good evenings, commissioners. My name is craig baum, and my wife sarah and i live next door to the subject properly at 1711 broderick. We moved to the neighborhood in october 2016. While pete and kate and i are the appellants, the proposed project affects the entire neighborhood, and many of our neighbors have made the effort to be here today. This is about changing the house on a previously quiet residential block into a tv show shrine. Our request is you revoke the permit or at the very least, implement the Planning Department requirements, requiring a gate be reinstalled, and undertake other mt. Gas station measures. I know that words are powerful, but a picture is worth a thousand words. Id like to show a time lapsed view of two hours from our living room. This activity is less than 10 feet away from our home. While the permit itself contains numerous issues, we want to be clear that we, the appellants, and the neighbors are not opposed to a normal neighbor making normal alterations to their home. That is not the reason we are standing before you. Mr. Franklin is not a neighbor. He never intends to be a neighbor, and his proposed alterations are anything but normal. Mr. Franklin lives in los angeles. He does not deal with the daily nuisance that he has created, and he will not be forced to deal with the increase in visitors if this case is approved. So whats this case really about . First, there have been several procedural problems that have deprived the neighborhoods of proper due process. We were allowed to file for discretionary review but the Planning Commission no longer had jurisdiction. This process has substantially prejudiced the Neighborhood Group as we now must act as appellants and obtain a super majority vote from the board of appeals when in fact it should be the permit applicant who should face this requirement. In addition as pete will discuss, we believe the permits ceqa determination is fatally flawed. T just as important as the procedural issues, this case is about the use of a Residential Property for commercial purposes. The permit holder bought the house with the intent to use it for commercial filming, promotional events, and fan visits, and hes already undertaking this visit. Mr. Franklin told me point blank, he thought owning the home would be great for his show. Approval of this permit would allow the permit holder to complete the interior replication of the full house and establish a complete full house shrine. So how do we get here . The permit holder filmed the front of the house to use in full house, which was filmed until 1987, and is still in syndication. From august through october, the permit holder alternated the exterior of the house, returning it to the look of the shows. He painted the exterior tan, installed custom front doors, removed a gate at the bottom of the stairs, and planted trees. Mr. Franklin held filming and publicity events at the house in may of 2016. Beginning december 1st over a year ago, the owner widely promoted the restored house as a gift to fans. We found over 30 articles. There are undoubtedly more. Notably while mr. Franklin claims he has not promoted the house for that purpose, a video shows the house extensively, suggests fans visit the house and falsely suggests the shows were filmed there. Dave coulier, aka umpg wincle points to the house and says, this house, so much history with this house. As you can see, when construction started, shoring was placed to protect the house. Incredibly, mr. Franklin actually removed the shoring. Why . Because it would not look good in pictures. Finally, before i turn it over to pete, my wife and i moved to broderick street in late 2016. The timing is important. Mr. Franklin claims the recent increase in visit is solely due to fuller house, not his own promotion. This is simply not true. My wife and i moved to the neighborhood well before the launch of fuller house but before mr. Franklin announced his purchase to fans across multiple media outlets. I can state before we bought the house and when we first moved in, it never looked like this. The significant increase occurred only after mr. Franklin took actions to promote the property. The Planning Commission recognized mr. Franklin has created and the unusual circumstances of our case and issues changes to the permit. I hope you will help put an end to mr. Franklins shenanigans. Hi. My name is pete cox, and this is my wife, and weve lived on broderick street for 20 years. My neighbor craig showed you a video of what the crowds look like on our street. I will attest, as will my neighbors, that this is common. People are swarming the neighborhood. They dont just take a picture and keep going, they stay. They go up and down the stairs, they yell to each other as they take pictures, sometimes from all the way across the street. They play the theme song, make videos, sometimes drink and leave trash everywhere. Horns are honked and doors are slammed. He dont hear the noise in the video, but its significant. Its even there at night. It goes all the way to midnight, 1 00 a. M. , 2 00 a. M. Weve counted the visitors, they come at a rate of 250 people to 300 people perhour. We easily reach 1500 people on a weekend day, and on holidays, much more. All in all, we estimate that there have been as much as 250,000 people on our street in the last year. At peak times, a line will form in front of the house. The block is between the pine bush corridor where people rush down the street to catch the light. This is a car hit by a truck as it tried to get around a car that was stopped in front of the full house. This slide is of a white car where that got swiped by a passing car when someone was about to get out. Someone like this little girl is going to get seriously hurt or killed. Honestly, this may sound like hyperbole, but its not. Its just a matter of time before someone gets hit. The planning code exists for a reason, and its because this kind of activity is not safe on a residential street. This is part of our sending ceqa appeal we filed on monday. The fact that we are doing a ceqa appeal after the permit has been issued is one of the most egregious circumstances of the appeal in this case. 1709 did not look like the full house before. This is important to understand. Mr. Franklin painted it to look like the full house, and then, the press reported his promotion to the house, confirming its use as a shrine to the full house. As you can see in this slide, it says closed to friends during the construction. Its clear he actually wants fans to come into the house. He may deny this in todays hearing, but thats not whats out there in the press and on social media. He doesnt say that its a home. He says its the full house. He does not want a singlefamily to occupy the home. Far from it, but he most certainly does want his project and this permit to be treated like a singlefamily home remodel. He chose to the outside work has begun, but its not complete. The new red door but its not a home remodel, its a replica of the set. The new red door carefully crafted to look exactly like the one on the set was installed but has been stored during construction. Mr. Franklin has said that, too. The plans will show you how he plans to replicate the television house. So this slide shows us two story side bay windows. Its only there to create whats called an understair initia niche. Thats what the architect puts in the drawings, and the only reason its there is because its in the television show. The kitchen layout is an exact replica. It even includes a false window to appear like the set. You can see it doesnt exist. Right between these two pictures, this is the back yard. The rear deck has trim that matches the stage set exactly. Go to the basement, and you can see that the basement plans and that this is not a residential design. The basement shows how the garage can be converted into guest quarters or a staging area for the fans and crew. Why does a residence need a second basement bathroom in the garage . The permit, on its face, looks like a normal permit, but instead, the permit holder is using a singlefamily resident permit to effect a change in use of the property for commercial activity. Approval of the permit would allow mr. Franklin to complete the interior and exterior replication of the full house and establish a full house shrine that will sanction and exasperate the problem. Except for installing the iconic red door, hes completed construction of the house. Approving the permit will complete the transformation. The permit should be revoked. Should the permit be allowed, we ask the board to adopt the recommendations of the super majority of the Planning Commissioners, including the requirements to remove the roof deck, remove the two story side bay window, install a gate at the bottom of the front stairs, considering employing off duty police officers, continuing to work with the neighborhood to mitigate problems. From our experience, any vague language in your decision will be interpreted by the permit holder and Building Department in favor of the producer, mr. Franklin, not the actual neighbors of the block that are here. So we so we beseech you to provide legally binding safeguards for the neighborhood. The permit holder should be required to install to reinstall the locking gate at the base of the stairs. We also ask you to plea fina we ask for a notice of special restriction prohibiting the use of the property as the full if you require tht