Supervisors debate stronger enforcement for short-term rentals; planning commission review extended 30 days

Supervisor Campos on March 24 introduced a package of proposed amendments intended to strengthen enforcement of San Francisco’s short-term rental regulations. The board also adopted a separate motion to extend by 30 days the time prescribed for the Planning Commission to review related ordinance changes.

Campos said the city’s current short-term rental law is difficult to enforce and therefore risks becoming "meaningless" without stronger tools. His proposals include:

- Setting a uniform 90-day annual limit on short-term rentals for all units, whether "hosted" or "unhosted." (Under the existing ordinance, unhosted units were already limited to 90 days while hosted rentals were not.)

- Requiring internet-based hosting platforms to provide monthly data to the Planning Department showing the number of nights a listed unit or room was rented, so staff can verify compliance with any day limits.

- Establishing penalties of up to $1,000 per day against hosting platforms that list short-term rentals that are not registered with the city.

- Prohibiting short-term rentals in RH1D zoning districts, which are low-density residential neighborhoods where commercial activity is typically restricted.

- Expanding the private right of action so neighbors, tenants or owners could sue to enforce the short-term rental rules and recover actual damages, attorney’s fees and civil penalties up to $1,000.

Campos framed the changes as necessary to make enforcement feasible without resorting to costly private investigations. "The fact is that unless we are able to enforce the laws we pass, the laws become meaningless," he said, urging the board to "clean up" the current regulatory framework.

Supervisor Kim moved, and the board adopted, a separate motion extending the timeframe within which the Planning Commission may render its decision on the short-term rental ordinance by 30 days. Supervisor Kim’s small amendment to change the word "resolution" to "motion" was accepted before the roll-call vote. The extension passed unanimously.

What passed on March 24 was the Planning Commission extension (a procedural motion). Campos’s enforcement proposals were introduced for board consideration and discussion; the transcript shows the board debated the proposals but did not adopt Campos’s package at the March 24 meeting.

Clarifying details and next steps: Campos said the Planning Department has told supervisors it currently lacks the data needed to verify compliance and has sought information from platforms such as Airbnb, which he said had resisted voluntary data sharing. The Planning Department will continue its review of the ordinance changes during the extended period, and Campos indicated he would pursue further hearings and legislation to implement enforcement changes.