HomeAway Community: Have you received a violation letter...

Up to Discussions in San Francisco Vacation Home Owners & Managers Network

5557 Views 14 Replies Latest reply: Apr 26, 2012 1:44 AM by sfvacationhut

sfvacationhut

555 posts since
Dec 31, 2010

Currently Being Moderated

Apr 28, 2011 12:57 PM

Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?

I recently heard about someone who has a guest apartment in San Francisco.

Someone complained about the guest apartment, and this person received a letter from Adrian Koutre (sp?) in the San Francisco Planning Department, assessing a fine of something like $3000 for violation of the Planning Codes.

Has anyone else received a letter like this?

If so, how did you handle it?

What can we do to make sure that our vacation rentals are operating legally in San Francisco?

Like (0)

Tags: vrbo, vacation_rental, fines, short-term, guest_apartment, san_francisco, holiday_rental, planning_department, violation, legal_requirements

sfvacationhut
555 posts since
Dec 31, 2010

Currently Being Moderated

May 22, 2011 2:03 AM (in response to sfvacationhut)
Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?

I heard back from the vacation home owner who received the letter from the planning department.

This person has decided to simply ignore the letter.

So far it looks like that's working out just fine.

Does anyone else have any experiences regarding planning code violations? If so, what were the code violations cited, and how did you handle it?

Report Abuse

Like (0)
- sfrentals
  5 posts since
  Feb 15, 2012
  
  Currently Being Moderated
  
  Feb 15, 2012 12:28 PM (in response to sfvacationhut)
  Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
  
  I unfortunately got a letter from the Planning Department from Adrian Putra.
  
  Here are the code violations and details!
  
  It stated that:
  
  ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION
  Planning Code Section 176
  January 10th 2012
  RH-2, (Two-Family Residential House)
  Code Violation: 209.2(d): Other Housing (Short-Terni Vacation Rental Use for Transient Guests)
  Up to $250 Each Day of Violation
  Adrian C. Putra, (475) 575-9079 ot adrian.putra@sfgov,org
  Samuel D, Siegel (415) 575-9157 or samuel;siegel@sfgov.org
  1650 Mission St.
  Suite 400
  SaB Francisco,
  
  The Planning Department has received a complaint that a Planning Code violation exists on your above
  referenced property that needs to be resolved. As the owner and leaseholder of the subject property, you
  are a responsible party. The purpose of this notice is to inform you about the Planning Code Enforcement
  process so you can take appropdate action to bring your property in compliance with Planning Code.
  The details of violation are discussed below:-
  DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION
  Our records indicate that the authorized use of 2350 Pine St. (I changed the address) is as a residential dwelling unit. The
  complaint alleges that 2350 Pine Street located on the subject lot is operating as a commercial short
  term vacation rental. Our research identified the properry as advertised on Airbnb.com
  associated with an Airbnb operator. Pursuant to Code Section 209.2 a short term
  vacation rental property providing accommodation for transient overnight guests is not permitted at the
  subiect property without conditional use approval.
  Pursuant to Planning Code Section 174, every conditiory stipulatiory special restrictiory and other
  limitation shall be complied with in the use of land and structures to the effect that the existing lawful use
  or proposed use of a structure or land conforms to the provisions of Planning Code. Failure to comply
  with any of these provisions constitutes a violation of Planning Code and is subject to enforcement
  process under Code Section 176.
  HOW TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION
  The Planning Department requires that you immediately discontinue the operation of an unauthorized
  commercial short term vacation rental at 2350 Pine Street.
  To prevent further enforcement action and avoid atcrual of penalties, the responsible party will need to
  provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that either no violation exists or that the violation has been
  abated.
  TIMELINE TO RESPOND
  The resoonsible oartv has fifteen {15) davs from the date of this notice to contact the staff olanner noted
  at the top of this notice and submit evidence to demonstrate that the subject property is in compliance
  with Planning Code. The abatement action shall be taken as early as possible; Any unreasonable delays
  in abatement of violation may result in further enforcement action by the Planning Department.
  PENALTIES AND APPEAL RIGHTS
  Failure to respond to this notice by correcting the violatlon or demonstrating compliance with the
  Plannins Code within fifteen (15) days from the date of this notice will result in the issuance of Notice of Violation and Penalty by the Zoning Administrator. Adminishative penalties of up to $250 per day
  will also be assessed to the responsible party for each day the violation continues thereafter. The Notice
  of Violation and Penalty provides appeals processes noted below.
  1) Request for Zoning Administrator Hearing. The Zoning Administratoy's decision is aPPealable to
  the Board of Appeals.
  2) Appeal of the Notice of Violation and Penalty to the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals may
  not reduce the amount of penalty below $100 per day for each day the violation exists, excluding
  the period of time the matter has been pending either before the Zoning Administrator or before
  the Board of Appeals.
  ENFORCEMENT TIME AND MATERIALS FEE
  Pursuart to Planning Code Section 350(c)(1), the Planning f)ePartment shall charge for 'Time and
  Materials' to recover the cost. of correcting Planning Code violations and violations of Planning
  Commission and Plarming Department's Conditions of Approval. Accoidingly, the responsible party
  will be subject to an amount of $1130 plus any additional accrued time and materials cost for Code
  Enforcement investigation and abatement of violation. This fee is separate fuom the administrative
  penalties as noted above and is not appealable.
  
  OTHER APPLICATIONS UNDER PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONSIDERATION
  The Planning Department requires that any pending violations be resolved prior to the approval and
  ' issuance of any new applications that you may wish to pursue in the future. Therefore, any applications
  not related to the abatement of violation on the subject property will be placed on hold until further
  notice. We want to assist you in ensuring that the subject property is in full compliance with the Planning
  Code. You may contact the enforcement planner as noted above for any questions.
  
  Does anyone know what to do with that?
  Is it "illegal" to rent a house short term? What if you pay the hotel tax to the City, does it make it ok?
  
  Thanks,
  
  Paul
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Like (0)
  - russianhill
    5 posts since
    Jan 25, 2012
    
    Currently Being Moderated
    
    Feb 15, 2012 1:25 PM (in response to sfrentals)
    Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
    
    Hi Paul,
    
    First, I very highly suggest paying all applicable taxes. The revenue stream the city realizes from your tax contributions makes it much harder for the city to ban stuff like this, particularly given the sorry state of the city's coffers.
    
    Second, I know you mention that you are in an Rh-2 zone, but what kind of building do you own? Are they apartments or condos? Is it a single family house with an inlaw? How kany units total? This information really helps us help you.
    
    As far as i can interpret, the ban largely affects only apartment buildings with more than 4 units. Do you have any long term renters in your builiding?
    
    From the code -
    
    Section 41A.5 "(a) Unlawful Actions. It shall be unlawful for any owner to offer an apartment unit for rent for tourist or transient use."
    
    Section 41A.4 "(a) Apartment Unit. Room or rooms in any building, or portion thereof, which is designed, built, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or which is occupied as the home or residence of four or more households living independently of each other in dwelling units as defined in the San Francisco Housing Code...."
    
    Section 41A.4 "(c) Tourist or Transient Use. Use of an apartment unit for occupancy on less than a 30-day term of tenancy."
    
    Report Abuse
    
    Like (0)
    - sfrentals
      5 posts since
      Feb 15, 2012
      
      Currently Being Moderated
      
      Feb 15, 2012 1:56 PM (in response to russianhill)
      Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
      
      Hello Russian Hill,
      
      Well, the notice was for a single family home. Nice home in an upscale neighborhood. A neighbor might have complained
      However, I have two small apt buildings with 4 and 9 apts that I also use as vacation rentals. Each has two long term tenants (that I am in great terms with) and the rest is for vacation rentals. I only got the "Putra" letter for the single family home and hopefully will not for the other two buildings.
      
      If I pay the taxes (which I haven't done yet. I only started this a year ago), will I be legal?
      
      What would you do if you were me?
      1) Ignore the notice further (I sent Putra a certified letter saying that I am not renting for less than 30 days and that I strongly deny the violation. No news since and it's been 2 months)
      2) Pay taxes and be good with one dept (tax collector) of the SF City as insurance in case the other (Planing dept) comes after me.
      
      Thanks,
      
      Eric
      
      Report Abuse
      
      Like (0)
      - russianhill
        5 posts since
        Jan 25, 2012
        
        Currently Being Moderated
        
        Feb 15, 2012 3:53 PM (in response to sfrentals)
        Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
        
        Hi sfrentals,
        
        If I were you I would definitely pay your taxes. That gives a little something to stand on. It would be interesting to see what others like noeplace and sfvacahut have to say ....
        
        Report Abuse
        
        Like (0)
      - sfvacationhut
        555 posts since
        Dec 31, 2010
        
        Currently Being Moderated
        
        Feb 15, 2012 7:24 PM (in response to sfrentals)
        Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
        
        SFRentals, thanks for posting about this.
        
        The thing that russianhill is talking about is the San Francisco regulation which makes it "unlawful" to operate vacation rentals in buildings with 4 or more apartments.
        
        This is not the same thing as Building and Planning Codes.
        
        SFRENTALS, thank you for providing the full content of the letter so we can better help you. It seems that the answer is included in the letter itself. It says:
        
        "Pursuant to Code Section 209.2 a short term vacation rental property providing accommodation for transient overnight guests is not permitted at the subiect property without conditional use approval."
        
        So ... why not seek the conditional use approval ?
        
        First, see how easy it is to get. Maybe it's just a matter of filling out a simple form? If that's the case, maybe you can get the conditional approval for your vacation rental operations, before the 15-day limit is up, and then you won't have to change a thing.
        
        If the conditional approval cannot be acquired during the time between now and the end of the 15-day limit, first find out from the Planning Dept, what is the date when you are likely to get it (30 days from now, 2 months from now, etc).   Then, when you've got your date for when you expect to actually RECEIVE the conditional use permit, inform all your future bookings of the situation. For any bookings that are scheduled prior to that date (when you expect to get your conditional use permit approved), I would give these guests a full refund. This will open up your calendar in the near-term, and you can open up that calendar space for bookings, making it clear that you only take guests who are staying at least 30 days or more.
        
        SFRENTALS, good luck and thanks for sharing this. I am definitely going to check with the planning department and see whether we need to get a "conditional use permit" for our building or not.
        
        Also please report back on how easy it is (or not) to get the conditional use approval, as this would be very helpful information for all of the rest of us!
        
        Report Abuse
        
        Like (0)
        
        sfrentals
        5 posts since
        Feb 15, 2012
        
        Currently Being Moderated
        
        Feb 15, 2012 8:27 PM (in response to sfvacationhut)
        Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
        
        Hello SFvacationhut,
        
        I don't know if a "conditional use approval" is even possible in my case. It's a single family home in an upscale neighborhood and I'm sure my neighbors would object if they had a say in the process.
        In the mean time, I took the house off the market, but still have 6 apts in two other buildings on vacation rentals. Im afraid I'll get the same notice for them. If it is just a matter of paying taxes to the City, I'd be happy to get "approved" and keep the business running smoothly.
        I heard that the vacation rental biz is illegal for one branch of the City and only tolerated by another if you pay taxes.
        Do you know anything else to help us get peace of mind?
        
        Report Abuse
        
        Like (0)
        
        sfvacationhut
        555 posts since
        Dec 31, 2010
        
        Currently Being Moderated
        
        Feb 15, 2012 9:49 PM (in response to sfrentals)
        Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
        
        I would call the planning dept and ask what the process is for getting
        conditional approval. Personally I wouldn't assume it's something
        difficult; it might be just a form to fill out.
        
        Even if it's a permit process with a public hearing, I'm sure you can
        gather testimony from your neighbors whose parents or relatives have stayed
        with you, as well as testimony from your neighbors who never found your
        guests to be any nuisance at all (most probably have no idea the vacation
        rental was there, which means there was no nuisance) ... you could gather
        written testimonials about all this. Even if there was one complaint from
        an unhappy neighbor (unhappy on what grounds? He/she will have to explain),
        I think there's a good chance the planning committee will decide in your
        favor.
        
        Report Abuse
        
        Like (0)
        
        sfvacationhut
        555 posts since
        Dec 31, 2010
        
        Currently Being Moderated
        
        Feb 16, 2012 2:15 PM (in response to sfrentals)
        Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
        
        Hi SFRentals,
        
        Here is a thread that should answer your questions about getting the Business License and paying the hotel tax.
        
        http://community.homeaway.com/thread/1671?tstart=0
        
        The Business License is a simple form to fill out, and you pay $25.00. (I can't remember if the fee is per property or maybe just per your business.) So this is a case when there is no government red tape ... you seriously just pay 25 bucks and fill out the form and Boom! You've got a business. No one checks anything, to make sure that your business is operating legally and according to all the permits. Look at how "Ike's Sandwiches" operated for months, years (?) without the proper permits, before finally getting shut down by the city.
        
        So ... just because you have a Business License, doesn't mean you have some sort of blessing from the city. It just means you filled out the simple form and paid $25.00. It also means that you can now have a Business Account with the City of SF, and that means you can pay Hotel Taxes. From my reading of the regulations, hotel taxes are required for any stay of 29 days or less, whether it's in a room in a private home or a hotel or a whole apartment or whatever. ("Except for the exceptions," of course ... such as for airline crews and some other very narrow cases.)
        
        To summarize, just because we are paying taxes, doesn't mean we are operating legally. or that we have a blessing from the city. However, if we are paying taxes, I do believe it gives us some clout, and some "leg to stand on" (as russianhill said), in case someone challenges our business.
        
        Report Abuse
        
        Like (0)
        
        sfvacationhut
        555 posts since
        Dec 31, 2010
        
        Currently Being Moderated
        
        Feb 16, 2012 2:17 PM (in response to sfrentals)
        Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
        
        Now as far as planning codes, that's another thing entirely. Is it fair to say something is "illegal" just because it's in violation of planning code? I guess people do use that word, but my goodness ... what house isn't "illegal" in San Francisco?   When we were house hunting, practically every house had something "illegal" about it ... from the "illegal in-law apartment downstairs" to the remodeling or the new bathroom that that was done without permit, etc.
        
        I'm amused at the way that some people throw around this word "illegal" and try to make it sound like a heinous crime to be in violation of the city planning codes (because of vacation rentals), when in reality, it's just part of life in San Francisco.
        
        I'm not advocating that people operate in violation of the city planning codes ... I'm just saying that I think it's funny (ha ha - HILARIOUS!) when some people try to get up on their high-horse about it.
        
        Report Abuse
        
        Like (0)
        
        sfvacationhut
        555 posts since
        Dec 31, 2010
        
        Currently Being Moderated
        
        Feb 16, 2012 2:16 PM (in response to sfrentals)
        Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
        
        Another thing I find strange is ... some people think that vacation rentals are taking away from apartments that could otherwise be low-cost rentals for people in S.F.   From what I have seen, many vacation rentals are starting up in apartments that are occupied part-time by the owners themselves. Also, some vacation rentals are starting up in apartments that were previously unoccupied for years.   Is it better for the apartment to be totally unoccupied, or for it to rented out as a furnished unit, bringing tax revenue and visitors to the city?
        
        And ironically ... for the people who want to eliminate vacation rentals that are in violation of planning codes ... if they wanted to be fair about it, they would need to eliminate the rental of "illegal in-law units" which are also in violation of planning codes. So instead of producing more rentable housing for long-term tenants, a more strict application the planning code would likely REDUCE the amount of rent-able housing in the city.
        
        When I was a tenant, I thought it was awesome having rent control. Unfortunately, I didn't realize that my own rent was artifically inflated ... because I was paying market rent, and meanwhile the landlord had all these other tenants, paying less than half, and something less than one quarter, of what I was paying.   Also back then I didn't realize how many EMPTY APARTMENTS there are in San Francisco. Surely the empty apartments are reducing the supply of apartments available, and that also drives the rents up.
        
        I'm mentioning all of this because the "scarcity of rental housing in San Francisco" is one of the main arguments put forth, as to why we should not have vacation rentals. But I think it would be better to first address why it is that we have so many empty apartments, and why it is that landlords don't want to rent to long-term tenants.
        
        Report Abuse
        
        Like (0)
        
        sfvacationhut
        555 posts since
        Dec 31, 2010
        
        Currently Being Moderated
        
        Feb 16, 2012 2:22 PM (in response to sfrentals)
        Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
        
        Another important thing about vacation rentals.
        
        We should be proud of the service we provide to the community, not running scared. Especially we should not be afraid to talk to the planning dept or anyone else about what we are doing, etc.
        
        We are providing so much net worth and good for the community ... nicely maintained apartments that are well taken care of and cleaned regularly ... providing jobs for cleaning services, painting crews, landscapers and repair people. We are bringing people into the community, who are here for visiting relatives (our neighbors), or for business or sightseeing ... all of these people are spending money in the community and further contributing to the economy. And the people who live in our neighborhood REALLY WANT US HERE ... they desperately NEED a nice place nearby to put the grandparents up for a week or two, because most people's apartments here in S.F. do not have extra space and a "spare guest bedroom," etc.
        
        Speaking personally ... now that we have a vacation rental, we are contributing WAY MORE to the economy than we were when we simply owned the building and lived in both units. (Both apartments are small, so we actually lived in and used both apartments for ourselves, before we converted the downstairs one to a vacation rental.) Before we had the vacation rental, we never hired a maid, we never hired a painter, we never hired a landscaper ... none of that.   Because ... for our standards, we didn't need things to be THAT NICE, you know? But when you're renting things out to a stranger and trying to fetch a good price for it ... you need some professional help to make things extra super duper clean and up to standards.   If we were renting the apartment downstairs long term, we wouldn't be hiring the maid service and landscapers, etc, either. We'd just figure the person downstairs is paying the rent, and we don't need to make things extra special and nice to keep that person there.
        
        I see and feel all the money that is flowing out of us, and into the economy, and it feels good! I feel like, "wow, I'm a small business, and I'm creating jobs!" You know? It's really cool.   I also see and feel the money that is flowing to the city in the form of hotel taxes (typically $400 - $500 per month), and I know that's a good thing, too ... I hope the city is putting the money to good use. Not only do we pay about $5000 per year in hotel taxes (when operating 12 months out of the year as a vacation rental), we pay $11,000 per year in property taxes ... that's $16,000 per year .. money for the city. Compare this to our next door neighbor who also has a 2-unit apartment building. She lives in one and rents the other to a long-term tenant. She is paying $800 per year in property taxes and no hotel taxes. So! $16,000 vs. $800. Wow. Yes, I know I am doing a fantastic thing for the city by having this vacation rental and I'm very proud of it.
        
        Report Abuse
        
        Like (0)
        
        jamessf
        16 posts since
        Feb 26, 2011
        
        Currently Being Moderated
        
        Mar 20, 2012 9:23 AM (in response to sfvacationhut)
        Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
        
        I would add to this discussion another important arguement in favor of vacation rentals - most vacation rentals in SF are locally-owned. This contrasts with most hotel rooms, which are owned by big corporations located in other cities and countries. Thus, the profits from vacation rentals in the City stays in the City to a much larger extent than it does with hotel chains. Moreover, it supports "mom and pop" property owners as compared with big, impersonal corporations.
        
        Report Abuse
        
        Like (1)
        
        sfvacationhut
        555 posts since
        Dec 31, 2010
        
        Currently Being Moderated
        
        Apr 26, 2012 1:44 AM (in response to jamessf)
        Re: Have you received a violation letter from the Planning Dept?
        
        Yes, I totally agree with you, James.
        
        We live above our apartment, and we are very active in the community here in S.F.
        
        We have bought almost all of our garden plants, soil, and supplies from Independent Nature garden store and Cole Hardware, which are both walking distance from our apartment. My neighbors often see me walking home with more soil and plants in my eco-SUV ... a shopping cart, which I store in our garage.    Over the past few years, we've been building up a beautiful front garden of leafy green plants and flowers ... our neighbor has even let us beautify her front garden (formerly just bare concrete), too. We are paying for the all the plants, soil, compost, plant food, and watering, etc ourselves, even though the garden is on her property. All purchased from local stores. When I'm out in front watering the plants, people often stop by and say how they've walked on that same street for years, and it never had any greenery until now. I'm not done, however ... I plan to do a lot more greenifying over the next few years.
        
        Anyway ... this is just one example of how people doing vacation rentals are giving back to the city. Great point, James !
        
        Report Abuse
        
        Like (0)