~~P

~O CdUNTyO

Wxu ~: --{~

~"~

~'
w

'~
z

'~

a
~

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT

~y~s~, o~5ti

September 10, 2015

1650 Mission St
Suite 400
San Francisco,
CA 94103-2479

Ming Jing Li
29016th Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94118

Reception:
415.558.6378

NOTICE OF DECISION

415.558.6409

SF Administrative Code Chapter 41A Short Term Residential Rental

Planning
~ntormation:
415.558.6377

Site Address:
Assessor's Block/Lot:
Zoning District:
Complaint Number:
Hearing Officer:

1673 Sacramento Street

0644/019
RM-3: Residential, Mixed Low Density
2015-006183ENF
Audrey Butkus,(415)575-9129 or audrey.butkus@sfgov.org

DECISION
T'he Director's appointed hearing officer, Audrey Butkus, has determined that Ming Jing Li, the owner of
16783 Sacramento Street has violated Administrative Code Chapter 41A for illegally offering a dwelling
unit for rent as a Tourist or Transient use. The details of the violation and decision are discussed below.
This decision is based on the entirety of the record before the hearing officer, including but not limited to
testimony of witnesses and the responsible parties and information submitted by Planning Department
staff, the responsible party/ies, and other witnesses. T'he record may be found at 1650 Mission Street,
Suite 400, San Francisco. Although factual information from the record is summarized below, this
decision is based on the record as a whole.

DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION
The subject property contains three dwelling units as well as an illegally constructed basement which the
Department of Building Inspection has determined is part of the unit at 1669 Sacramento Street. The
Planning Department received a complaint on May 1, 2015, alleging that the property was being used for
short term rentals. Staff found the property advertised online for rent on a nightly or weekly basis
through the websites, Airbnb (www.airbnb.com).

UNLAWFUL CONVERSION
Chapter 41A of the San Francisco Administrative Code prohibits the offering of residential units for
Tourist or Transient use (which is a rental for less than 30 days), unless the units are registered on the
Short-term Residential Rental Registry. Under Administrative Code Section 41A.6, if the Hearing Officer
determines that a violation has occurred, an administrative penalty shall be assessed as follows:

www.s~planning.org

1661-1673 Sacramento Street

Complaint No. 2015-006183ENF

Chapter 41A Notice of Decision

September 10, 2015

1. For the initial violation, not more than four times the standard hourly administrative rate of
$121.00 for each unlawfully converted unit, or for each identified failure of a Hosting Platform to
comply with the requirements of subsection (g)(4), per day from the notice of Complaint until
such time as the unlawful activity terminates;
2. For the second violation by the same Owner(s), Business Entity, or Hosting Platform, not more
than eight times the standard hourly administrative rate of $121.00 for each unlawfully converted
unit, or for each identified failure of a Hosting Platform to comply with the requirements of
subsection (g)(4), per day from the day the unlawful activity commenced until such time as the
unlawful activity terminates; and
3. For the third and any subsequent violation by the same Owner(s), Business Entity, or Hosting
Platform, not more than twelve times the standard hourly administrative rate of $121.00 for each
unlawfully converted unit or for each identified failure of a Hosting Platform to comply with the
requirements of subsection (g)(4) per day from the day the unlawful activity commenced until
such time as the unlawful activity terminates.

COMPLAINT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.

On May 5, 2015, Planning Department staff received a complaint that the subject property was operating
as an unauthorized short-term residential rental. Staff was provided the listings by the complainant
advertising numerous rooms in the building on the website www.airbnb.com for short term rentals.

NOTICE OF COMPLAINT AND APPARENT VIOLATION

On June 30, 2015, staff issues a Notice of Complaint to the property owner by certified and non-certified
mail.
On July 1, 2015, staff posts a notice at the subject property notifying the property owner and all interested
parties of the hearing.

PRE-HEARING SUBMISSION
On May 8th, 2015, Hooshmand Law Group submitted, on behalf of Katieanne Moran, tenant of 1669
Sacramento Street, a document detailing the alleged violations in each room of 1673 Sacramento Street.
Additionally, printouts of listings through Airbnb were submitted.
On May 15th, 2015, DBI Inspector Christopher Grady submitted photographs of the interior of 1669-1673
Sacramento Street demonstrating that individual rooms had been converted to separate short-term rental
units at the basement level of 1669 as well as at 1673.

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
On August 12, 2015, the hearing officer convened the administrative hearing. All testifying witnesses
were sworn in and the hearing was audio recorded. The hearing was attended by the following people:

Ms. Audrey Butkus, Hearing Officer

Mr. Matthew Ditto, Staff Planner

Mr. Ming Jing Li, property owner

Mr. Tyson Redenbarger, representative for the complainant(the tenant at 1669 Sacramento Street)

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT

1661-1673 Sacramento Street

Complaint No.2015-006183ENF

Chapter 41A Notice of Decision

September 10, 2015

Mr. Ditto, the case planner, presented the information summarized in the staff report for 1673 Sacramento
Street including:

5/1/15: Staff received a complaint against the subject property from the Department of Building
Inspection (DBI), alleging the conversion of 1673 Sacramento Street to unauthorized short-term
rental units.
5/8/15: Staff was provided documentation from Hooshmand Law Group, on behalf of Katieanne
Moran, tenant of 1669 Sacramento Street, which outlined the alleged violations and provided
printouts of online listings for 1673 Sacramento Street.
5/15/15: Staff was provided photographic evidence from DBI detailing unpermitted construction
to convert the individual rooms to short-term rental units, and discovered five active online
listings for nightly stays at 1673 Sacramento Street.
6/2/15: T'he property owner submitted aShort-Term Residential Rental Registry application for
1673 Sacramento Street; however, the application was missing some required documentation,
and remains incomplete as of August 12, 2015.
6/30/15: Staff issued a Notice of Complaint to the property owner of 1673 Sacramento Street via
both USPS Certified Mail and USPS Standard Post. Staff received a return receipt of delivery for
the Certified Mailing, signed by the property owner, indicating their receipt of the Notice of

Complaint.
7/1/15: Staff placed a Notice of Hearing on the subject property.
7/6/15: Staff was contacted by the property owner regarding the Notice of Complaint. The
property owner indicated a desire to come into compliance immediately by removing the listings

and cancelling future rentals.

7/7/15: Staff found that the online listings were removed. No confirmation of the future rentals
being cancelled had been submitted as of the hearing date.

Ms. Li, the property owner, gave the following testimony:

She conducted a 7 month long remodel of the building which concluded in January of 2015. After
the remodel concluded she had two short-term rental listings advertising the building. She
received the Department's Notice of Complaint on June 30th, 2015 and applied for a residential
short-term rental certificate with the Planning Department on June 2, 2015.
Mr. Redenbarger, representative for the complainant, gave the following testimony:
The complainant lives at 1669 Sacramento Street which is the ground floor unit of the three-unit
building. Illegal construction and excavation at 1669 Sacramento Street resulted in the creation of
a basement level which the Department of Building Inspection has determined is part of unit
1669. Prior to the construction the basement was not Eully excavated and was not livable space;
instead used for storage but always connected to 1669 according to his client. After the
construction of the basement, approximately six to eight individual rooms were created and were
advertised on Airbnb.com for short-term rentals. A kitchen and other living rooms were also
created at the basement level. After the remodel of 1673 the entire unit is laid out like a hotel with

individual rooms numbered down a hallway. Each of these rooms are available for rent shortterm. The complainant has spoken to guests who have stayed in these rooms short-term.
The complainant has observed this short-term rental activity at 1669-1673 Sacramento occurring
since 2014 and this property is not the property owner's only short-term rental property. The

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT

1661-1673 Sacramento Street

Complaint No.2015-006183ENF

Chapter 41A Notice of Decision

September 10, 2015

complainant does not know if 1673 is Ms. Lis permanent residence. T'he complainant found
active listings for 1669-1673 as late as July 7, 2015.

POST-HEARING SUBMISSIONS
The representative for the complainant, Mr. Tyson Redenbarger, submitted a packet of additional
information on August 18,2015. A summary of the submittal is below:
Listings dated July 6, 2015 showing the various rooms for short-term rental at 1669-1673
Sacramento Street, hosted by Ming Jing Li.
The property owner, Ms. Ming Jing Li, submitted a packet of additional information on August 18, 2015.
A summary of the submittal is below:
Proof of cancelled bookings for all advertised rooms for any stay which would occur Eor less than
30 days, as well as proof of some of her stays during the course of the enforcement period were
for at least 30 days.

FINDINGS
Based on the review of the record as a whole, the hearing officer finds as follows:
1. That two dwelling units at the subject property were offered for Tourist or Transient use until at
least July 6, 2015.
2. T'he property owner, Ming Jing Li, has provided evidence that both the unit at 1669 Sacramento
Street and the unit at 1673 Sacramento Street are no longer being used for tourist or transient use
as of July 6, 2015 based on booking cancellations and confirmations submitted by Ms. Li.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the above findings and the evidence in the record as a whole, the hearing officer determines that
two dwelling units at the property were offered for Tourist or Transient through at least July 6, 2015 in
violation of Administrative Code Chapter 41A. Because this is an initial violation, the hearing officer may
assess administrative penalties from the date of the Notice of Complaint (here June 30, 2015) until the
date the violation is cured (here July 6, 2015) on both a per diem and per unit basis. Thus, by this
determination the hearing officer assesses administrative penalties against the property owner for a total
of 14 days (seven days per two units) at a rate of $484 per day. Accordingly, administrative penalties for
the total amount of $6,776.00, is now due to the Planning Department. Please submit a check for the
total amount of $6,776.00, payable to "Planning Department Code Enforcement Fund" immediately.
This decision only concerns the violation of Chapter 41A of the San Francisco Administrative Code and
does not resolve any other outstanding violations under the Planning Code, Building Code, or any other
municipal code.
Sincerely,

C
Audrey tkus
Hearing Officer

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Cc

Matthew Ditto, San Francisco Planning Department