Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board passes short-term rental ordinance after weeks of debate; amendments on 90‑day cap and tax condition fail
Summary
After hours of debate and several failed amendments, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance to regulate short-term residential rentals, create a rental registry, and clarify that such rentals do not change a unit's residential type. Attempts to delay enactment until collection of back taxes and to impose a 90‑day cap were defeated.
The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved an ordinance that creates a short-term residential rental registry, allows certain exceptions for permanent residents, requires platforms to collect taxes, and clarifies that short-term rentals do not change a unit’s residential type.
The measure was the culmination of months of hearings and stakeholder meetings; sponsors said it strikes a balance between preserving housing stock and allowing residents to earn income. Supporters argued the ordinance brings the market into compliance and will generate an estimated $11,000,000 in annual hotel-tax revenue. Opponents urged stricter limits, including a 90‑day cap on hosted rentals and provisions to withhold the ordinance’s effective date until outstanding occupancy taxes were collected by platforms.
Key debate points included enforcement feasibility, the planning department’s ability to investigate whether a unit is hosted or unhosted, the potential impact on seniors and low-income residents who rely on short-term income, and whether the city should condition legalization on platforms paying alleged back taxes.
Amendments proposed and voted on during the meeting included: • Supervisor Avalos’ proposed 90‑day cap on hosted rentals (seconded by Supervisor Campos) — failed, 5 ayes, 6 noes. • Supervisor Campos’ amendment to make the ordinance effective only after the treasurer-tax collector certified payment of all outstanding platform occupancy taxes — failed, 5 ayes, 6 noes. • An RH1D‑specific amendment limiting short-term rentals in single-family‑detached areas to 90 days per year and allowing no more than 50 percent of bedrooms be used for short-term renters — failed, 5 ayes, 6 noes.
On final passage the roll call showed 7 ayes and 4 noes (Chu, Cohen, Farrell, Kim, Mar, Tang, Wiener, Yi, Avalos, Breed, Campos — votes recorded on the record). The ordinance passed its final reading at the meeting.
What it does: the ordinance creates application and registry procedures, clarifies planning-code definitions so a short-term rental does not convert the unit’s residential type, and establishes an application fee to support tracking and enforcement. The ordinance also reaffirms the tax collector’s authority to collect hotel and occupancy taxes; the administration and the tax collector said the law does not alter existing tax obligations.
Quotations from the debate included Supervisor Jane Kim arguing for an enforceable approach and Supervisor David Chiu urging caution on a blanket 90‑day limit. Supervisor Campos and others called for conditioning legalization on back-tax payment; supporters including Supervisor Cohen and Supervisor Breed said the tax collector already has authority to pursue back taxes and that holding off enforcement would withhold immediate tax revenue and regulation.
Why it matters: San Francisco’s housing market and rent control programs intersect with short-term rental platforms; the ordinance represents the city’s attempt to regulate that market, improve tax compliance, and provide tools for enforcement while preserving some home-sharing options for residents.
