Marketed as “private micro-suites” with queen sized beds on Airbnb for $90 per night, or “sleeping boxes” according to a couple of complaints, the short-term rental registration/certificate for 4229 Moraga Street in the Outer Sunset, at which there appear to have been up to 12 listings for beds throughout the house, has now been revoked.

Based on a recent city inspection, it would appear the micro-suites have since been dismantled. The home’s five bedrooms are now outfitted with a total of 14 beds, with two sets of bunkbeds in two of the bedrooms and two beds in each of the other three. And the official listings for the beds have been changed to “minimum 30 day stays.”

If the onsite host agrees to officially reduce the guest limit to five, not including said host, the city will consider the outstanding code violations and complaints for the home formally closed.

Keep in mind that complaints related to illegal airbnb-ing in San Francisco more than doubled in 2016.

And yes, those are actual photos of the former micro-suites in the gallery above.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Stop Driving

    Greedy landlords are turning San Francisco into a third world city.

  2. Posted by AnonAnon

    Better hope none of your 12 bedmates are snorers because those boxes aren’t even sealed.

  3. Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

    Great news. We should enforce the rules we have.

  4. Posted by ttt

    those look pretty nice! i wouldn’t mind staying in one of those.

  5. Posted by Mark

    Consider it closed? No fines to be paid?

  6. Posted by Amewsed

    The Sunset boxes should have been more upscale like The Pod Hotel in Singapore, which I wouldn’t mind trying out for a night.

    • Posted by Anon123

      They painted the wood and have a roller curtain instead of a roller door, but it is still a dormitory. On the plus side I don’t see any hanging wires.

  7. Posted by SFAgain

    I love the power strip nailed to the bed post with all the wires dangling near all the wood right above the pillow.

  8. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Are there really that many clueless visitors who’d pay $90/night to stay in a kludged plywood box in the outer Sunset? I could understand attracting customers at half that rate, but not $90.

  9. Posted by NorCalGal

    Ghost ship anyone? Yes, zoning and code exist for a reason.

  10. Posted by Futurist

    Probably violates many safety/construction codes: smoke and carbon monoxide detectors; sprinklers, exiting.

    These need to be shut down permanently.

    • Posted by Mark

      Agreed. A lot of shady activity going down in the 7×7. Another illegal place on 29th/Taraval was recently exposed, not to mention all the illegal in-law units that were built without permits that are crammed full of families. Someone’s palm is getting greased…

      • Posted by Amewsed

        You do realize there are public interest attorneys paid for by SF Taxpayers who will fight tooth and nail to keep residents in the illegal in-law units even if landlords decide to remove them.

        • Posted by Tim Bracken

          Huh? SF Taxpayers pay for the City Attorney’s Office, not nonprofit legal organizations.

          Also, it’s the existing law that tenants in unpermitted units–who would otherwise be covered by the Rent Ordinance–still get rent control and Just Cause protection. Allowing landlords to treat those tenants any differently would reward the landlords for their illegal behavior.

          • Posted by Elitist Pig

            Which is why they should be shut down and punished…

          • Posted by Tim Bracken

            I agree if the unpermitted unit is dangerous or uninhabitable. But Amewsed was talking more broadly about illegal in-law units. If the unpermitted unit is safe to inhabit, and the Rent Ordinance would otherwise apply, SF law is to treat that tenant as a protected tenant. And I think that’s sound public policy, because doing otherwise would reward a landlord who builds without permits.

          • Posted by Amewsed

            It comes out of the City’s budget.

  11. Posted by pity the lords of the land

    once again, sf progressives crush market innovation, driving up the cost of housing our chattel. Think small, act smaller.

    • Posted by NorCalGal

      Then go East (or North, or South), young (wo)man, and explore your Aynn Randian / Friedman wet dreams of free market capitalism somewhere else. I hear the ROI in Detroit is almost as good as it gets.

  12. Posted by bruhaha

    A listing with the same photos is still available on Airbnb. Description states “enclosed loft with sliding barn door” so you have to wonder if they were really dismantled…

  13. Posted by Nick Yale

    The irony is the fight against housing development has created such a shortage of supply in SF that such a result as this is inevitable and will only become more commonplace.

    Given that the cost of a conventional unit of housing now costs $700,000 and is only “affordable” by subsidies from government or developers a drastic re-thinking of how we are going to create housing in the future is required. Stacked shipping containers, UNESCO refugee shelters or other approaches may be needed to address a housing crisis that has truly reached hurricane or other disaster like proportions in terms of the number of people becoming displaced.

    • Posted by Sabbie

      There is no housing crisis in SF. To compare our situation to real refugees who are driven from their country by war etc is just pathetic. There is plenty of housing here. The catch is that you might not get to live in the most desirable city in America, just like I can’t afford to drive a Mercedez and have to settle for a Toyota. You might have to commute to work, just like my parents did every day, and we turned out fine.

      Also, prices are due to supply and demand, not just supply. I don’t think there are many cities in America that could absorb the avalanche of demand that we experienced due to the Fed-driven VC startup funding bubble without seeing some major price increases on a percentage basis. This is a boom and bust town, in a boom and bust nation, and there is only so much you can build until the next recession comes along.

      • Posted by condoshopper

        “There is no housing crisis in SF”

        I’d be curious how you define housing crisis then and how narrow that definition would have to be.

        • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

          Google “Refugee Camp” and look at some pictures. That’s a good place to start.

        • Posted by Sabbie

          I don’t really care if H1B tech workers have to sleep in bunk beds in the Outer Sunset, not a crisis sorry. I have lots of friends who are successful upper middle class professionals and yet were still forced out, sad but still not a crisis, they are doing fine in other cities. You can build all you want, but it will never be enough for anyone but the top 5% of US earners to buy SF housing, it’s a luxury item now.

        • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

          From The Guardian, last week, Scraping by on six figures? Tech workers feel poor in Silicon Valley’s wealth bubble:

          Silicon Valley’s latest tech boom, combined with a housing shortage, has caused rents to soar over the last five years. The city’s rents, by one measure, are now the highest in the world.The prohibitive costs have displaced teachers, city workers, firefighters and other members of the middle class, not to mention low-income residents.

          Now techies, many of whom are among the highest 1% of earners, are complaining that they, too, are being priced out.…Another tech worker, enrolled in a coding bootcamp, described how he lived with 12 other engineers in a two-bedroom apartment rented via Airbnb. “It was $1,100 for a [expletive deleted] bunk bed and five people in the same room. One guy was living in a closet, paying $1,400 for a ‘private room’.”

          Go read the whole thing. Sabbie, reexamine your notion of crisis.

          • Posted by charles temmel

            hey those poor little richie rich’s need love too

  14. Posted by Autodick

    These look like perfect short term rooms for anonymous sex.

    • Posted by AnonAnon

      Not so anonymous when the bunkers on either side and above can just peer through the large gaps between the back wall and the dividing walls. Maybe good for anonymous exhibitionist/voyeuristic sex.

  15. Posted by DogeEare

    Guess it depends on how you market this stuff and if you place it in a more commercial nabe.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *