Southern/Central Marin County Real Estate Report April 2018

In spite of very rainy, wet weather, Marin single family home buyers were buying in March. Median sold prices rose for both homes and condominiums, with homes rising just slightly from $1,461,000 to $1,468,000 and condominiums jumping from $668,000 to $729,000.Single Family Homes: The three-month rolling average median sales price of $1,468,000 is up 9.7% over last year’s.Year-to-date, new listings are down 14% while sales are up 6.9%.March’s inventory of 1.9 months is 14% lower than in 2017.The median percent of list price received was 100% in March.Condominium/Townhomes: The three-month rolling average median sales price of $729,000 is up 14% over last year’s.Year-to-date, new listings are down 18% while sales were down 32%.March’s inventory of 2.2 months is 57% higher than in 2017.The median percent of list price received was 100% in March.

Napa Valley Real Estate Report April 2018

It might have been March’s very rainy, wet weather that caused Napa’s home and condominium buyers and sellers to temper their activity. It might have been stock market volatility. New home and condominium listings were both down, as were home sales. Condominium sales eked out a very small increase. Sold prices for March were down from February.Single Family Homes: The three-month rolling average median sales price of $692,667 is up 5.3% over last year’s.Year-to-date, new listings are down 15% while sales are down 7.6%.March’s inventory of 2.2 months is 37% higher than in 2017.The median percent of list price received was 95% in March.Condominium/Townhomes: The three-month rolling average median sales price of $436,667 is up 2.8% over last year’s.Year-to-date, new listings are down 25% while sales are up 10%.March’s inventory of 1.5 months is 21% lower than in 2017.The median percent of list price received was 99% in March.

San Francisco’s median house price climbs to $1.61 million

That’s nearly double the average from just five years ago

The median price of a single-family home in San Francisco rose to yet another all-time high by quarter in Q1 of 2018, according to a report released Wednesday by Paragon Real Estate economist Patrick Carlisle, this time hitting $1.61 million.

If accurate, this figure means that the price of a San Francisco house has nearly doubled just since 2013 and soared more than 23.8 percent since Q1 of 2017, when Paragon calculated a median of $1.3 million.

For comparison, here’s how price year-over-year prices in the first quarter breakdown for the past five years:

  • 2017: $1.3 million, down 0.76 percent
  • 2016: $1.31 million, up 19 percent
  • 2015: $1.1 million, up 13.28 percent
  • 2014: $971,000, up 14.23 percent
  • 2013: $850,000, up 27.8 percent

While this year-over-year spike is not the largest in recent memory, it’s still a disconcertingly big jump, and the ongoing pile-up of new all-time highs remains as flagrant as ever.

In fact, if you isolate the figures from February, the situation looks even more dire. But Carlisle cautions readers that focusing only on that short-term data is potentially misleading:

We are not enthusiastic about monthly median price movements since they tend to bounce around without great meaningfulness due to a number of factors and sales volumes are very low in the first 2 months of the year, but for what it is worth the SF median house price soared to a new high in February 2018 to $1,715,000. (100 sales across 70-odd neighborhoods, reported to MLS by 3/7/18—late reported sales may affect this price.)

Note that the report also records a median SF condo price of more than $1.17 million, up 4.5 percent year over year. Back in 2013 the price was about $850,000, but it’s risen by less than $100,000 since Q1 of 2015.

Carlisle cites all sales reported to MLS for the first three months of 2018. It should be noted that the data does not reflect homes sold in non-public deals off the open market.

The California Association of Realtors has not yet released its own estimates for the full first quarter, but CAR figures from January and February mirror Paragon’s data, recording a median single-family home price of $1.33 million and $1.73 million for those two months, respectively, in San Francisco County.

That’s roughly three times the statewide median during the same period and the highest for any California county except perhaps San Mateo, which registered a slightly higher average than SF in January but also a slightly lower price in February.

For the curious, the median price of a single family SF home on Redfin right now is $1.68 million. On Zillow it’s $1.59 million, and on Trulia about $1.5 million.

Since these sites do not include every home listed in the city right now, and since prices today don’t necessarily reflect those from the previous three months, those figures don’t necessarily compare to those in Q1 reports.

Move over millennials—a surprising new demographic is taking over the rental market

Those over 55 are the fastest growing segment of the rental market.
Over 2.4 million renters over 55 joined the rental market between 2009 and 2015
All age groups seem to prefer renting in the suburbs over the city.
Many of us have an image of renters as young, single, twenty-somethings, getting their first place in the city. But according to new analysis of U.S. Census data, the demographic group driving the rental market nationwide is actually educated, empty-nest baby boomers who prefer to live in the suburbs.“Whether driven by a change in lifestyle, a consequence of the housing crash, or an inability to find affordable homes to downsize, senior households are embracing renting in droves,” according to the report from RentCafe.The apartment listing site examined Census data from 2009 and 2015 and found some fascinating trends: Renters over 55 increased by 28 percent in those six years (compared to only a 3 percent increase in renters 34 and younger); renters with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased by 23 percent (compared to only 1 percent with only a high school degree); and families with no children increased by 21 percent (compared to 14 percent for families with children in the household, and 10 percent for non-family renters).The increase in senior renters can be seen nationwide, as well as locally. In the San Francisco metro area, between 2009 and 2015, there was a 10 percent increase in renters under 34. In the same time period, the percentage of renters over 55 increased by 27 percent. That’s over 40,000 new senior renters in the area in only six years.RentCafe’s research also shows that renters young and old were being drawn to the suburbs more than the urban core. “In each of the categories of renters we analyzed, suburban areas were gaining renters faster than urban areas,” according to the report. This meant a 39 percent increase of seniors in suburban areas, nationwide, versus only a 21 precent increase of seniors in cities.“Now that the lure of apartment living has spread into the American suburb, renters who want to live in a walkable neighborhood and have a short commute to work can get what they’re looking for thanks to the emergence of the ‘suburban downtown’ and to a concept known as ‘transit-oriented development,’” said the report.In the Bay Area, these transit-oriented developments (the latest of which just broke ground in Oakland) are often located along BART and Caltrain lines and provide easy access into the city, more living space than urban offerings, as well as walkable retail, restaurants and other neighborhood amenities.“With such attractive (and often cheaper) housing alternatives right in their community, the decision to switch to renting has gotten much easier for suburban homeowners,” according to the report.

Editorial: San Francisco’s housing troubles doesn’t mean every tenant gets a free lawyer

Photo: Lea Suzuki, The Chronicle
Shirley Chen, 4, stands with her mother as they attend a rally outside 1350 Stockton on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 in San Francisco, Calif. Today a coalition of tenant, civl rights, and community organizations announced a campaign to protect tenants against intimidation, evictions, and increasing rents in Chinatown.
San Francisco’s superheated housing market is producing a wave of evictions — up to 3,000 per year by some estimates. But Proposition F on the June 5 ballot proposes a poorly crafted answer that goes too far: a guarantee of a taxpayer-funded lawyer for any tenant fighting an ouster.
There’s no income test, meaning a high-income renter can tap into the idea, which provides an attorney from start to finish in a legal fight. It also establishes a right to legal representation on the city books, a major expansion of government duties with unforeseeable consequences.Tenants rights groups pushing the measure like to point out anecdotes of San Franciscans being pushed out by landlords seeking a higher return on investment. No question — that happens in this expensive city. However, the right to counsel also would apply to tenants who are abusive to others or destructive to property — and you would be forced to cover their legal fees.It’s a blank-check concept in an ever-more-litigious society.This measure falls short on another score. The Board of Supervisors is studying a similar plan that can be adjusted more easily than a voter-confirmed measure that would need a rerun at the ballot box to address any unintended consequences.In 2012 the city adopted a policy to offer legal help to low-income tenants facing eviction. That effort is partly successful, providing counseling and limited attorney representation in court. Like many city services, it should be improved, and it offers a key backstop for tenants facing landlords who usually come equipped with lawyers.Prop. F steps up the extent and cost of more service. But it doesn’t come with any financial limit or track record. Backers say the mere threat of a city-provided lawyer could force a property owner to back off an eviction, a suggestion that’s hard to quantify.

The unregulated world of ’emotional support animals’ is driving airlines crazy — and science is on their side

A college student who was assured she could fly home with her emotional support animal says when she got to the airport she was told otherwise
  • Unlike service dogs, “emotional support animals” are an unregulated group.
  • Some such animals have been causing serious problems on flights: peeing, defecating, and mauling passengers.
  • There’s little scientific evidence about what emotional support animals really do for people.
  • Airlines are cracking down on support animals and issuing tighter regulations.
Emotional support peacocks. Emotional support snakes. Emotional support hamsters.People have been bringing all sorts of “support animals” into public places recently, arguing the creatures should be allowed to fly on planes and come into offices or restaurants because they serve a mental-health purpose.But what does an emotional support pet actually do, and does the designation really mean anything?Forensic psychologist Jeffrey Younggren from the University of Missouri put it bluntly to Business Insider: Scientists don’t know if such pets do anything“other than make somebody happy,” he said.Younggren has spent years studying the growing trend of clients asking their therapists to sign letters certifying that they need an emotional support animal.“The research is quite inconsistent on whether the animals really do anything at all,” Younggren said.But despite that lack of evidence, many therapists are signing “ESP” letters for their patients these days, without even seeing the animals in action.“How can you say the animal does something if you’ve never seen them with a patient?” Younggren said.As more such letters get signed, more people are using the designation to let their pets fly on planes with them for free. And airlines have seen a huge spike in in-flight problems. Animals have been peeing, defecating, biting, and in one case mauling people on board Delta planes. The company reported an 84% increase in incidents involving unruly animals since 2016.
On March 1, Delta started requiring anyone flying with an emotional support pet to sign a waiver stating that the animal can behave on a flight. The airline is also initiating other restrictions, including requiring proof of vaccination for emotional support pets and only accepting certification letters from a doctor or mental health professional. (In the past, travelers could easy pay for such a letter online.) United is also upping its policies, ABC News reported.

WHAT IS AN EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMAL?

There’s not really any regulation about what constitutes an emotional support pet, and people can buy their way into a designation pretty easily online for around $70.Researchers in California looked at more than a decade of records of registered “assistance” dogs and found that from 1999-2012 there was a huge uptick in the number of smaller dogs, older dogs, and dogs used for psychiatric and medical assistance in the state. Those researchers argued that their study revealed a growing trend of “misunderstanding” and “misuse” of support dogs.According to the Americans with Disabilities Act, a service animal must be trained to perform tasks for a person with a disability, be it physical or psychiatric. Disabilities include things like being blind or deaf, using a wheelchair, relying on a dog to remind you to take meds, or having a dog around in case of an anxiety attack.Under federal law, only dogs and miniature horses weighing less than 100 pounds qualify for the “service animal” designation.These trained animals are on the job and allowed to accompany their humans anywhere that members of the general public can go (including businesses, hospitals, and just about anywhere that’s not a sterile operating room).But the law is very clear: “Service animals are working animals, not pets.” The ADA even spells out that “dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.”The Fair Housing Act, however, is a bit more lenient: It says that US tenants have a right to keep “assistance animals,” including emotional support pets, in their homes even if a leaser has a strict no-pets policy.Therapy dogs are a third category of animal, and they’re trained to help calm patients down during therapy sessions, usually in clinical settings.

ANIMALS CAN HELP PEOPLE FEEL BETTER, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE TRAINED

People who train and certify dogs to work with patients are worried about the growing number of untrained pets flying around on planes.Alice Smith, a client services coordinator at the PAWS dog training center in Florida, told Business Insider that untrained pets are giving real service dogs a bad name.“There are people who just wanna be able to take their dogs with them everywhere, and they go online and buy a vest,” Smith said. She added that if owners don’t put in the six months to a year required to train an animal, the dog can end up barking and acting out in public.However, Smith believes dogs can be a huge help for people dealing with anxiety and depression. As a pet owner herself, she said she’s benefitted from having dogs around when she’s upset.“My dogs have just known it,” she said. “They would come over to me, and get close to me, and as soon as I would pet them, I would calm down.”Smith said there are likely many other people who’d benefit from having a furry, well-behaved friend nearby. In recent weeks, she said she’s fielded calls from students in Florida who are scared about getting on the bus after the recent school shooting and think a support dog might help. Other kids call the training center because they’re getting bullied and want an emotional support dog to help them get through the day safely. Dogs can also help guide their owners to exits in a panic, or just lean into a person to calm them down in a crowd.“They can feel that dog’s pressure, and know the dog’s there,” Smith said.But Younggren pointed out that some people are afraid of dogs or allergic to them. For those individuals, a flight alongside an emotional support pet could be an anxiety- or illness-provoking experience.
It boils down to a simple, well-known problem, he said: “People who love dogs think everybody loves dogs.” 

SF reaches $15.5M deal to buy McDonald’s on Haight, build affordable housing

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved on Tuesday the purchase of the McDonald’s on Haight Street for $15.5 million. (Courtesy Google Maps)
San Francisco has reached a deal to purchase the blighted McDonald’s restaurant on Haight Street for $15.5 million and plans to turn the site into affordable housing, Board of Supervisors President London Breed said Tuesday.The McDonald’s site at Haight and Stanyan streets is a known public nuisance in the neighborhood and was the scene of a shooting in August. Breed said the purchase is an “incredibly favorable deal for this site” that is several million dollars below market-rate.“Our intent in purchasing the site is clear,” Breed said while introducing legislation to the Board of Supervisors that will allow San Francisco to move forward with the purchase. “We are going to build 100 percent affordable housing.”Breed is serving as acting mayor following the sudden death of Mayor Ed Lee, who died early Tuesday after suffering a heart attack at a grocery store in Glen Park. Breed said the proposal was “the last piece of legislation we discussed when we met yesterday.”In 2015, McDonald’s agreed to increase security at the site and pay San Francisco $40,000 after City Attorney Dennis Herrera threatened to sue following hundreds of complaints over criminal activity at the restaurant.The restaurant had more calls for service to police than any other restaurant in the area at the time.Also on Tuesday, supervisors Katy Tang and Peskin introduced a charter amendment that would freeze the amount of funding going into voter-approved set-asides for specific needs during an economic downturn. 

SF, San Jose residents some of the least debt-ridden in the country

The Urban Institute (UI), a think tank created by then President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 to address American quality of life, released an interactive map illustrating which U.S. counties’ residents carry the most personal debt.

It turns out San Francisco is one of the least debt-ridden places in the country.

On average, 33 percent of U.S. households have some debt in collection, defined as “past-due credit lines that have been closed […] as well as unpaid bills reported to the credit bureaus that the creditor is attempting to collect” and extrapolated from “identified, consumer-level records from a major credit bureau.”

But in San Francisco, it’s a mere 16 percent, tied with Santa Clara County. That’s not the lowest in the country—a handful of places manage to dip down to single digits. But it’s one of the lowest rates in California, bested only by wealthy Marin County, which UI estimates at a rate of just 15 percent.

As CityLab notes, the map shows most of the U.S. is “under crushing debt,” but San Francisco is comparably sound—at least by these specific standards.

This isn’t to say San Franciscans are debt-free entirely. When student loan refinancing site LendEDU ranked American cities by credit card debt in 2015, San Francisco had the second highest debt level in the state. UI’s “in collections” standard simply measures those places where debt hits the hardest.

For contrast’s perspective, of California’s 58 counties, only two places—Placer County and San Mateo County—manages to fall below 20 percent on the UI metric.

It’s not hard to figure out why SF is beating the spread; U.S. Census estimates reveal median income in the city rises year after year.

Still, seeing precisely how much wealth Californians have now concentrated in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, especially within in the last five years, becomes shocking while viewed in these terms.

Here are the debt rates across California, from the slight to the most grave. Note that two counties, Sierra and Alpine, didn’t yield enough data to place:

  • Marin: 15 percent
  • San Francisco: 16 percent
  • San Jose: 16 percent
  • San Mateo: 17 percent
  • Placer: 19 percent
  • Santa Cruz: 20 percent
  • Yolo: 21 percent
  • Sonoma: 23 percent
  • Napa: 23 percent
  • Alameda: 23 percent
  • Nevada: 23 percent
  • San Luis Obispo: 23 percent
  • El Dorado: 24 percent
  • Orange: 25 percent
  • Contra Costa: 25 percent
  • Amador: 25 percent
  • Contra Costa: 25 percent
  • Plumas: 26 percent
  • Mono: 26 percent
  • Mariposa: 27 percent
  • Humboldt: 28 percent
  • Santa Barbera: 28 percent
  • Ventura: 28 percent
  • San Diego: 28 percent
  • Calaveras: 29 percent
  • Tuolumne: 29 percent
  • Inyo: 29 percent
  • Sikiyou: 30 percent
  • Modoc: 30 percent
  • Los Angeles: 31 percent
  • Sacramento: 31 percent
  • Butte: 31 percent
  • Mendocino: 31 percent
  • Trinity: 31 percent
  • San Benito: 32 percent
  • Colusa: 32 percent
  • Monterey: 33 percent
  • Solano: 33 percent
  • Sutter: 33 percent
  • Glenn: 33 percent
  • Shasta: 33 precent
  • Stanislaus: 35 percent
  • Madera: 35 percent
  • Lassen: 36 percent
  • Imperial: 36 percent
  • Riverside: 37 percent
  • San Joaquin: 37 percent
  • Del Norte: 38 percent
  • Tehema: 39 percent
  • San Bernadino: 40 percent
  • Merced: 40 percent
  • Fresno: 42 percent
  • Tulare: 42 percent
  • Lake: 42 percent
  • Yuba: 43 percent
  • Kern: 43 percent
  • Kings: 44 percent

Airbnb loses thousands of hosts in SF as registration rules kick in

Gustav Choto (left) talks with Omar Masry, senior analyst at the short-term rental office. Hosts in San Francisco for Airbnb and other services must register properties by Tuesday. Senior Analyst Omar Masry helps Marcy Lipton with her paperwork at the short-term rental office for hosting guests in her home.Thousands of San Francisco hosts on Airbnb and rival home-stay sites have stopped renting their homes and rooms to tourists. Many others are scrambling to register their vacation rentals with the city as a Tuesday deadline looms for Airbnb and HomeAway to kick off unregistered hosts.“If you look at the sites, you’ll notice a substantial reduction in the number of listings,” said Kevin Guy, director of the San Francisco Office of Short-Term Rental Administration and Enforcement.The rush to register is the result of an agreement between the city and the sites, which had fought San Francisco’s efforts to strengthen registration requirements and rental limitations imposed in 2015. After a court battle, San Francisco, Airbnb and HomeAway reached a settlement in May that required the sites to register all hosts in phases starting in September.By Tuesday, all hosts must be registered. Airbnb and HomeAway won’t allow unregistered hosts on their sites, and other services, like FlipKey, which weren’t a party to the settlement, will face fines of up to $1,000 a day per listing and criminal penalties if they help arrange bookings of unregistered listings.The city said 2,168 hosts had met its requirements to offer temporary rentals as of Thursday — representing a fraction of the 8,453 Airbnb listings the city observed in early August. (That count excludes more than 2,500 listings exempt from the rules.) An additional 737 have submitted applications and can host while those are pending. About 15 percent of them have more than one listing, such as two rooms in their home.The number is in flux: Some pending applications may be rejected, while about two dozen applications a day are still arriving. Hosts can still apply after Tuesday, but any bookings will be canceled until they are registered.
A sign points to the desk where Senior Analyst Omar Masry helps Marcy Lipton with her paperwork for hosting guests in her home at the Office of Short Term Rentals in San Francisco, Calif., on Wednesday, January 10, 2018. San Francisco residents who wish to host guests host guests through Airbnb, VRBO or other homesharing services must register with SF by Jan. 16 or they will be penalized by the city.
 Airbnb, which got its start in San Francisco just under a decade ago and is still headquartered here, is by far the city’s biggest vacation-rental site. It says that most hosts are residents who rent out spare rooms, or their entire home when they are away, making them compliant with city laws.In addition, the company has about 2,650 listings in San Francisco that are exempt from the registration requirement, including rentals of 30 or more days, bed and breakfasts, and hotels.“Over the last few months, we’ve focused on educating our host community about the registration process, and will continue our outreach efforts in the final days to ensure hosts have all the information they need to register,” said spokeswoman Mattie Zazueta.Airbnb has removed more than 2,600 listings since September. It doesn’t yet know how many more it must ax Tuesday. Many listings had little activity, so their removal won’t hurt its local business, she said.Airbnb said it booked the same number of nights in San Francisco in the 30 days after Dec. 5 as during the same period a year earlier. Worldwide, its business soared during the same time frame. It booked 3 million guests globally for New Year’s Eve — up 50 percent from the last night of 2016.HomeAway and VRBO, both owned by Expedia, and FlipKey, owned by TripAdvisor, showcase many second homes, which San Francisco does not allow to be offered as vacation rentals.“FlipKey looks like a massacre happened, there are so few listings now,” said Omar Masry, senior analyst at the Office of Short-Term Rentals. “On VRBO, you can see that the map of San Francisco is no longer covered in pins (of available properties). A shakeout is happening.”
FlipKey has removed 498 San Francisco listings and has only 57 remaining, excluding those exempt from the registration requirement such as hotels, timeshares and B&Bs, the city said.TripAdvisor spokeswoman Laurel Greatrix said FlipKey worked closely with the city to comply with the regulations, and noted that it offers a variety of accommodations in San Francisco, such as hotels, hostels and B&Bs.Data for HomeAway and VRBO were not immediately available. In May 2016, they had about 1,300 local listings, a Chronicle investigation found.“HomeAway remains committed to working through the law’s implementation plan with the city and hope to continue our partnership on reasonable public policy and enforcement in the new year.” said spokesman Philip Minardi.Airbnb and HomeAway sued San Francisco in 2016 over a strict new law passed in June of that year. A U.S. district judge rejected the companies’ arguments that their rights were being violated and ordered them to work with San Francisco on a registration system. Such registrations were part of the “Airbnb law” enacted in early 2015, but the requirement was widely ignored. Only about 1,800 hosts registered.San Francisco wants hosts to register to ensure compliance with such requirements as hosts being permanent residents who do not rent entire homes for more than 90 days a year. The law seeks to prevent landlords from removing housing stock by turning homes into full-time hotels.Listings dropped off for several reasons:Dormant properties: About 2,000 people listed their homes but never rented to tourists. Many were lured by the hope of quick riches from Super Bowl 50 and America’s Cup guests who didn’t materialize.Tenants and condo owners who can’t sublet: When renters register as hosts, the city notifies their building owner. “We think a good number of folks might meet city eligibility requirements, but may be renters with ‘no subletting clauses’ in their leases,” Guy said. Similarly, some condo associations bar subletting.Ineligible properties: San Francisco permanently bars some properties from vacation rentals, including below-market-rate units and public housing, buildings subject to Ellis Act evictions after Nov. 1, 2014, and a kind of in-law residence called an accessory dwelling unit. Funkier places, such as recreational vehicles, tree houses, tents, shipping containers and boats, are also verboten for tourists here. Properties with building-code violations can’t register until they clear those up.Ineligible hosts: Only people who live in their homes at least nine months a year can rent to tourists. That excludes those who have a pied-à-terre in San Francisco, or who travel more than three months a year. Some hosts who listed more than one property or who had guests stay almost year-round were rejected by the city because they appeared to be operating illegal hotels.Infrequent hosts: San Francisco charges a $250 registration fee plus a $90 business registration fee for all hosts. For those who only rent a week or two while they are on vacation, this could be a deterrent.Procrastinators: “It’s human nature that people wait until the last minute,” said Airbnb’s Zazueta. Chicago, which went through a similar registration process several months ago, saw a surge of last-minute registrations. Likewise, San Francisco says applications have been increasing in the past week.Some hosts complain that the city is draconian with rejections, and said the number of pending applications means it takes longer to get a decision.“I was rejected because someone filed a completely bogus complaint saying I have three units that are all Airbnbs,” said a host who asked not to be named. “What evidence do they have? It’s not true.” He plans to appeal the decision.In fact, rejections are rising. From February 2015 to August 2017, 26 percent of applications were rejected. Since September, 38 percent have been rejected, from a smaller pool of 293 applications.“We’ve always closely scrutinized applications,” Guy said. “Now that people are really required to register, there may be incentives for some to submit applications that may be fraudulent, so it would be natural to see an increase in the rejection rate.”Applicants have 30 days to appeal a rejection and will receive a decision within another 30 days.There is a loophole for hosts who don’t want to register: renting for a month or longer.“A lot of people are switching to 30-plus-day listings, but it’s harder for them to get renters,” Benkert said.Carolyn Said is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @csaidVacation rentals in San Francisco2,168 hosts are registered with the city.737 hosts have applications pending.8,453 Airbnb listings in San Francisco in early August, prior to the strengthening of registration requirements.That does not include 2,650 Airbnb listings in San Francisco that are exempt: 30-day-plus rentals, bed and breakfasts, and hotels.2,680 hosts were removed by Airbnb between September and December.That left 5,900 nonexempt Airbnb listings as of early December; all remaining unregistered listings will be removed on Tuesday.