Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Land Use Conflict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends Board of Appeals require removal of bay window, staff to seek gate and mitigation at 1709 Broderick after neighbors describe severe fan‑dr
Summary
Neighbors described intensified fan visits, parking disruption, late‑night loitering and safety incidents at 1709 Broderick after the owner restored the 'Full House' appearance; the commission recommended that the Board of Appeals require removal of the second‑story bay (and roof deck), consider a gate, and asked the sponsor to continue neighborhood mitigation work.
A protracted discretionary review hearing focused on 1709 Broderick — the house known from the TV show Full House — ended with the Planning Commission recommending to the Board of Appeals that the project sponsor remove the upper bay window and roof deck, investigate installation of a gate, and continue working with neighbors on mitigation measures.
Neighbors testified at length that restoration and publicity tied to the owner (series creator Jeff Franklin) have produced large, persistent crowds that block driveways, double‑park, leave trash, play music, and sometimes create dangerous conditions. Carla Househagen, who lives two doors down, told commissioners "we have thousands of visitors" and estimated very large peak counts; other neighbors described nightly visits, harassment, and safety incidents. Attorney Ryan Patterson and neighbors argued the owner’s public promotion and filming constitute an effective change in use and have made the house a tourist destination that undermines residential livability.
Jeff Franklin, who appeared in person, said he bought the house to restore it and to perform necessary seismic and habitability work; he denied an intent to convert it into a commercial shrine, said filming events were limited and approved by the Film Commission, and noted he had posted signage, worked with SFMTA to install no‑double‑parking signs, and hired security. Counsel clarified that no formal change of use is proposed; the property remains a single‑family dwelling and any future commercial use would require separate approvals.
After discussion about jurisdictional limits over promotion and visitor behavior, the commission voted 5–1 to recommend to the Board of Appeals that it accept staff modifications (including removal of the second‑story bay and roof deck), and requested the sponsor continue active mitigation with neighbors (gating, improved security or a traffic‑control presence) and work with preservation staff on any gate design. Commissioner Moore voted against the motion, citing concerns about precedent and enforcement. The Board of Appeals will consider the permit appeal next month; the Planning Department emphasized multi‑agency mitigation (SFMTA, Film Commission, SFPD) for visitor management.
