Download - 1673 Sacramento Street - Notice of Decision
-
7/24/2019 1673 Sacramento Street - Notice of Decision
1/4
~~P~
CdUNTyO
N
u ~ ~ ~z
{ ~
x
~
~ a
w
~y ~s~,o~
5i
SAN
FRANCISCO
P
LANNING
DEPARTMENT
1 6 5 0
M i s s
S
eptember 0,
015
S u i t e 4 0 0
Sa n F r a n c i
C
A
9 4 1 0 3 -
ng
Jing Li
R e c e p t i o n :
29016th Avenue
4 1 5 . 5 5 8 .
S
an
rancisco,
CA
4118
NOTICE
OF ECISION
4 1 5 . 5 5 8 .
S
F dministrative Code Cha
t e r
41A
hort
Term esidential
Rental
P l a n n i n g
p
n t o r m a t i o n
4
1 5 . 5 5 8 .
Si t e
Address:
1673 Sacra mento
t r e e t
A
s e s s o r s
Block/Lot:
0644/019
Zoning i s t r i c t :
RM-3: e s i d e n t i a l , Mixed Low
ensity
C
omplaint
Number:
2015-006183ENF
H
earing Officer: Audrey Butkus,
415) 75-9129
or
DECISION
T
he
i r e c t o r s
appointed hearing o f f i c e r , Audrey Butkus,
ha s
determined that
Ming ing L i , the owner
f
16783 Sacramento
S t r e e t ha s
v i o l a t e d Administrative Code
hapter 41A o r i l l e g a l l y o f f e r i n g a
dwelling
u
n i t
f o r rent a s a Tourist
or
Trans ient use.
The e t a i l s
of
the v i o l a t i o n
an d
decision
are
discussed
below.
Th i s decision s based
on
he
n t i r e t y of the record
before
the
hearing
o f f i c e r , including
but not
limited to
testimony
of
witnesses
an d
the
responsible
p a r t i e s
an d
information submitted by
Planning
Department
s
t a f f ,
the
responsible p a r t y / i e s , an d
other witnesses.
T h e
record may
be
found
a t
1650
Mission S t r e e t ,
S
u i t e
400,
San Francisco.
Although
f a c t u a l
information from the record i s
summarized below, t h i s
d
e c i s i o n i s
based on he record as a
whole.
DESCRIPTION OF
VIOLATION
The
subject property contains
three dwelling units a s
well
a s
a n l l e g a l l y constructed
bas ement which the
Department of
Building
Inspection
has
determined
i s part
of
the
unit at
1669
Sacramento
S t r e e t .
T he
Planning Department
received
a
complaint
on
May
,
2015,
l l e g i n g that
the property
was
eing used o r
short
term
r e n t a l s .
S t a f f
found
the
property
advertised
online
f o r rent
on
a
nightly
or
weekly
b a s i s
through the websites, Airbnb
www.airbnb.com).
U
NLAWFUL
CONVERSION
C
hapter 41A of
the
San Francisco
Administrative
Code
r o h i b i t s the
o f f e r i n g
of
r e s i d e n t i a l units
f o r
To u r i s t
or Transient
use
(which
i s a
r e n t a l f o r
l e s s
than 30
ays),
unless
the
units
are
r e g i s t e r e d
on
the
S
hort-term Residential
Rental
R e g i s t r y .
Under
dministrative Code
ection 41A.6, f the Hearing
O f f i c e r
d
etermines
that a
v i o l a t i o n
ha s
occurred,
n
administrative
penalty
h a l l be
assessed
as
ollows:
w
ww.s~planning.org
-
7/24/2019 1673 Sacramento Street - Notice of Decision
2/4
1661-1673 Sacramento Street
C
omplaint
No.
015-006183ENF
Chapter 41A Notice
of
Decision
S
eptember
10,2015
1
. For
the i n i t i a l v i o l a t i o n , not more than four
times the standard
hourly administrative
r a t e of
121.00
for
each unlawfully
converted
unit,
or
for
each
i d e n t i f i e d f a i l u r e
of
a
Hosting Platform
to
c
omply
with the
requirements
of subsection
g ) 4 ) ,
per day from the notice
of
Complaint u n t i l
s
uch
time
as the
unlawful
c t i v i t y terminates;
2
. For
the
second
v i o l a t i o n by
the
same
Owner(s),
Business
Entity,
or
Hosting
Platform,
not
more
t
han
eight
times the
standard
hourly
administrative r a t e of
121.00
for
each unlawfully converted
u
n i t ,
or
for
each
i d e n t i f i e d f a i l u r e
of
a
Hosting Platform to
comply
with
the requirements of
subsection g ) 4 ) , per
day rom
the
day
the unlawful a c t i v i t y
commenced n t i l
such time
as the
unlawful
c t i v i t y
terminates;and
3
For
the t h i r d and any subsequent
violation
by the
same
Owner(s),
Business
Entity,
or
Hosting
Platform,
not
more
han twelve times
the
standard
hourly
administrative
rate
of
121.00
for each
u
nlawfully
converted unit
or for
each
i d e n t i f i e d f a i l u r e
of
a
Hosting Platform
to
comply with
the
r
equirements of
subsection (g)(4) per
day from the day
the
unlawful a c t i v i t y commenced n t i l
s
uch
time as
the
unlawful c t i v i t y
terminates.
C
OMPLAINT
AND
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS.
On May
,
2015,
Planning
Department
t a f f
received a
complaint
that the subject
property
was perating
as
an
unauthorized short-term r e s i d e n t i a l r e n t a l . S t a f f
was provided
the
l i s t i n g s
by
the complainant
advertising
numerous rooms
n
the building on
he
website
www.airbnb.com for
short term r e n t a l s .
NOTICE
OF COMPLAINT
AND
APPARENT VIOLATION
On
une 30, 2015,
t a f f
issues a
Notice
of
Complaint to the
property
owner
by
e r t i f i e d
and non- c e r t i f i e d
m
i l .
O
n
uly
1, 2015, t a f f
posts a notice
at
the subject
property
notifying the property owner
nd
a l l
interested
pa r t i e s of the hearing.
P
RE-HEARING SUBMISSION
O
n
May
8th,
2015,
Hooshmand Law
Group
submitted,
on
behalf of
Katieanne Moran enant of 1669
Sacramento S t r e e t , a document
etailing
the alleged
violations
in
each
room of
1673
Sacramento S t r e e t .
Additionally,
printouts of
i s t i n g s
through Airbnb
were
submitted.
O
n May 5th, 2015,
DBI
nspector
Christopher
Grady ubmitted
photographs of
the
n t e r i o r
of
1669-1673
Sacramento Street demonstrating
that
individual
rooms
had been converted
to
separate s hort-term
rental
u
n i t s
at the
basement level
of
1669 as well
as at
1673.
A
DMINISTRATIVE
HEARING
On August
12,
2015, the hearing o f f i c e r
convened the administrative
hearing. All
t e s t i f y i n g witnesses
were
sworn
n
and the
hearing
was
udio recorded.
The
earing
was
ttended
by he following
people:
s.
Audrey
utkus, Hearing
Officer
r.
Matthew
itto,
t a f f Planner
r.Ming ing L i ,
property
owner
r.
yson
Redenbarger, epresentative
for
the complainant the
tenant at
1669 Sacramento
t r e e t )
SAN
FRANCISCO
LANNING
DEPARTMENT
-
7/24/2019 1673 Sacramento Street - Notice of Decision
3/4
1661-1673
Sacramento
Street
C
omplaint
No.
015-006183ENF
Chapter 41A
Notice of
Decision
S
eptember 10,2015
.
Ditto,
the
case
planner,
presented the
information
summarized
in the t a f f report
for 1673 Sacramento
St r e e t
including:
/1/15:
S t a f f
received
a
complaint
against
the
subject
property from the
Department
of
Building
I
nspection
(DBI),
alleging
the
conversion of
1673 Sacramento
Street
to
unauthorized
short-term
rental
u n i t s .
/8/15:
t a f f was
provided
documentation from
Hooshmand
Law Group on
behalf
of
Katieanne
ran, tenant
of
166 9 Sacramento S t r e e t ,
which
outlined the alleged
violations
and
provided
printouts
of
online
i s t i n g s for 1673 Sacramento
t r e e t .
/15/15:
S t a f f
was
provided
photographic
evidence from
DBI
etailing
unpermitted
construction
t
o
convert the
individual rooms to short-term
rental
u n i t s ,
and discovered
f i v e active
online
l
i s t i n g s
for nightly
stays at
1673
Sacramento t r e e t .
/2/15: T h e
property
owner submitted
aShort-Term
Residential
Rental
Registry
application for
1673
Sacramento S t r e e t ;
however, the
application
was
missing
some required
documentation,
and
emains incomplete as
of August 2, 2015.
/30/15:
t a f f
issued
a
Notice of
Complaint
to the
property
owner
of
1673 Sacramento
Street via
b
oth USPS
e r t i f i e d Mail
and USPS
tandard
Post.
t a f f
received
a
return
receipt
of
delivery for
t
he
Certified
Mailing, signed by the property
owner, indicating
t h e i r receipt
of
the
Notice
of
C
omplaint.
/1/15:
t a f f placed a Notice
of Hearing on he
subject property.
/6/15:
S t a f f
was
contacted
by
the property
owner
regarding
the Notice
of Complaint.
The
property
owner ndicated a desire to come
nto
compliance
immediately by
removing the
l i s t i n g s
a
nd
ancelling future r e n t a l s .
/7/15:
S t a f f found that
the online
l i s t i n g s were removed .
No
onfirmation of
the
future r e n t a l s
b
eing
cancelled had
been submitted
as
of
the
hearing
date.
M
.
L i ,
the property
owner,
ave
the following testimony:
he
onducted
a onth
ong remodel
of the
building which concluded
in January of
2015.
After
t
he
remodel
concluded
she had two
short-term
rental
l i s t i n g s
advertising the
building. She
received the
Department s
Notice of
Complaint
on
June 3 0 t h ,
2015
and applied
for
a
r e s i d e n t i a l
s
hort-term rental e r t i f i c a t e with the
Planning
Department
on
une
2,
2015.
.
Redenbarger,
representative for the
complainant,
ave
the following
testimony:
he
complainant i v e s at
166 9 Sacramento
Street
which
i s the
ground
f l
oor unit
of
the
three-unit
building.
l l e g a l
construction
and
excavation
at
166 9 Sacramento
Street resulted
in
the
creation
of
abasement level which
the
Department
of
Building
Inspection
has
determined
i s
part of
unit
1669.
Prior to
the
construction
the
basement was
not
E u l l y
excavated
and was
ot
livable
space;
nstead
used
for
storage
but always
connected
to
1669
according
to
his
c l i e n t .
After the
c
onstruction
of
the
basement,
approximately i x to eight
individual
rooms
were
created
and were
advertised
on Airbnb.com for
short-term r e n t a l s .
A
itchen and other
living
rooms
were
also
c
reated at
the
basement e v e l .
After the
remodel
of
1673
the entire
unit s
l a i d
out i k e a
hotel with
ndividual
rooms
numbered down a
hallway.
Each of
these
rooms
are
available
for
rent short-
term. The
omplainant has
spoken
to
guests who
ave
stayed in these rooms
hort-term.
he
complainant has
observed
t h i s
short-term
rental
a c t i v i t y
at
1669-1673 Sacramento
occurring
since
2014 and
t h i s property i s
not the
property owner s only
short-term
rental
property.
The
SAN FRANCISCO
LANNING
DEPARTMENT
-
7/24/2019 1673 Sacramento Street - Notice of Decision
4/4
1661-1673
Sacramento t r e e t
C
omplaint
No.
015-006183ENF
Chapter
41A
Notice of
Decision
S
eptember 10,
2015
c
omplainant
does
not know f
1673
i s
Ms. Li
permanent
residence.
T ' h e
complainant
found
ac t i v e
l i s t i n g s for
1669-1673 as
a t e
as
July
7,
2015.
POST
-HEARING
SUBMISSIONS
T
he
representative f o r
the complainant,
Mr.
Tyson
Redenbarger,
submitted a
packet of
additional
nformation
on
August
18,
015.
ummary
f
the
submittal s
below:
i s t i n g s
dated July
6, 2015 showing
the various
rooms f o r
short-term r e n t a l a t
1669-1673
S
acramento S t r e e t ,
hosted
by
Ming
ing L i .
T
he
property owner,
Ms. Ming
ing
L i ,
submitted a packet of
additional
information
on
August
18,
2015.
Asummary
f
the
submittal s
below:
Proof of
cancelled
bookings o r a l l
advertised
rooms o r any stay
which
would
occur
E o r l e s s than
3
0
ays, as
well
as
proof of
some
f her
stays during
the
course
of
the enforcement
period
were
f
or
at
e a s t
3 0 days.
F
INDINGS
B
ased
on
he
review
of
the
record
as a
whole,
he hearing
o f f i c e r
finds as
follows:
1. That
two dwelling
u n i t s
a t
the subject
property
were
offered
f o r
Tourist or
Transient
use
u n t i l
a t
l
east
July
6, 015.
2
.
T ' h e
property
owner, Ming
ing L i ,
has provided
evidence that both
the unit
a t
1669
Sacramento
S
t r e e t
and the
unit
a t 1673
Sacramento S t r e e t
are
no
onger
being
used
for
t o u r i s t or
t r a n s i e n t us e
a
s of July
6,
2015
based on ooking
c a n c e l l a t i o n s
and
confirmations submitted by
Ms.
i .
C
ONCLUSION AND
ORDER
B
ased
on
he
above
findings
and
the evidence
in
the
record
as
a whole,
the hearing
o f f i c e r
determines
that
t
wo dwelling
u n i t s a t the
property
were
offered f o r Tourist or
Transient
through at l e a s t
July
6, 2015 in
v i o l a t i o n of
Administrative
Code
hapter
4 1 A .
Because t h i s i s an n i t i a l
v i o l a t i o n ,
the hearing
o f f i c e r
may
as s e s s
administrative
p e n a l t i e s f rom the
date of
the
Notice
of
Complaint
(here
June
30,
2015) n t i l
the
da t e the
v i o l a t i o n
i s
cured (here July
6,
2015) on
both a
per diem
and per
unit
b a s i s .
Thus, by
t h i s
d
etermination
the hearing o f f i c e r
assesses
administrative
p e n a l t i e s
against
the property owner
o r a t o t a l
of 14
days seven
day s
per
two
units) t a r a t e of $484
per day.
Accordingly,
administrative
p e n a l t i e s f o r
t
he t o t a l
amount of
6 , 7 7 6 . 0 0 ,
i s now
due
to
the Planning
Department.
Please
submit
a
check
for
the
t
o t a l
amount f
6 , 7 7 6 . 0 0 ,
payable to Planning
Department Code
nforcement
Fund
immediately.
T
h i s
decision
only
concerns the
v i o l a t i o n
of
Chapter 41A of
the
San
Francisco
Administrative
Code
and
d
oes
not
resolve
any other
outstanding
v i o l a t i o n s under
the
Planning
Code, uilding
Code,
or any other
municipal
code.
S
i n c e r e l y ,
C
Audrey tkus
Hearing O f f i c e r
Cc
Matthew
D i t t o , San
Francisco Planning
Department
SAN
FRANCISCO
NNING
DEP RTMENT