Supervisors split on short-term rental limits; Campos measure fails, Farrell measure passes first reading

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors on July 14 debated competing proposals to tighten city rules on short-term rentals and voted differently on two ordinances addressing enforcement, caps on days rented and platform reporting.

Supervisor David Campos introduced an ordinance requiring hosting platforms to confirm a unit’s registration before listing it and barring listings if a unit is rented for transient use more than a set number of days in a calendar year. Campos said recent media reporting showed what he called a mass conversion of housing into full-time tourist units and argued the law must add “real enforcement mechanisms.” He noted the San Francisco Chronicle’s data finding “at least 352 entire homes that are full time hotels on Airbnb” and said the proposal would protect long-term housing.

Supervisor Mark Farrell, speaking for the mayor’s and his own package, described a different approach focused on a 120-day hard cap, creation of an Office of Short Term Rental Administration and Enforcement, streamlined registration and better administrative enforcement rather than shifting primary reporting responsibility onto individual hosts. Farrell said the office would be a “one stop shop” that would allow the planning department to concentrate on enforcement.

The board voted first on item 6, the Campos measure (as amended during debate to a 75-day hard cap). That ordinance failed on a 5-6 roll call: Supervisors Breed, Christensen, Cohen, Farrell, Tang and Weiner voted no and the measure did not pass.

On item 7, the measure carried by Mayor Edwin Lee and Supervisor Farrell, the board approved the ordinance on first reading as amended by a 6-5 roll call. The clerk recorded Avalos, Campos, Kim, Mar and Yi in dissent. The mayor and supporters said the Farrell/Lee approach balances protection of housing stock with a workable enforcement model and investments in a new enforcement office; opponents argued it places too much burden on individual hosts and does not do enough to require platform data-sharing.

The discussion produced several amendments during the meeting: a narrow Ellis Act restriction on registering units that had recent Ellis Act evictions; revisions recommended by the Planning Commission to streamline administrative hearings; and a late amendment that limited a neighborhood-notification requirement to RH1D zoning (a narrowly distributed zoning category) rather than applying it to broader RH1/RH2 areas.

Supervisor Campos repeatedly cited Chronicle figures and a budget analyst’s estimate that a strict 60-day cap would reduce commercial listings more than a 120-day cap. Supervisor Farrell and others emphasized platform reporting and administrative enforcement, noting planning had already issued notices to hosts and that the city was creating the new office to improve enforcement.

What changed in the final votes: Campos’s item 6 (as amended to 75 days during the meeting) failed; the mayor’s/ Farrel l item 7 passed first reading as amended and a duplicate file was returned to committee to continue deliberations.

The board’s action leaves the city with a near-term ordinance approved on first reading while additional work on enforcement, implementation and related committee review continues. Several supervisors said they expect more revisions and oversight as the new enforcement office is staffed and as data about the market become clearer.

Votes at a glance - Item 6 (Campos; amended to a 75-day hard cap): Failed, 5 ayes, 6 noes (Breed, Christensen, Cohen, Farrell, Tang, Weiner voted no). - Item 7 (Farrell/Mayor Lee; passed on first reading as amended): Passed, 6 ayes, 5 noes (Avalos, Campos, Kim, Mar, Yi in dissent).