Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hotel Conversion Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Building Inspection Commission delays action on hotel-conversion ordinance amid legal, community concerns
Summary
The commission unanimously voted to continue consideration of a proposed repeal/readoption of hotel-conversion provisions to March after stakeholders raised legal and process objections tied to recent litigation; the proposal would reinstate housekeeping provisions while excluding the litigated definition change.
The San Francisco Building Inspection Commission on Feb. 19 voted unanimously to continue consideration of a proposed ordinance that would repeal a court-vacated 2017 package of hotel-conversion amendments and readopt unlitigated housekeeping provisions.
John Murray, legislative affairs, told the commission the measure is a response to a court order that voided portions of prior amendments and that the proposed ordinance would reinstate the provisions that were not challenged, while excluding the definition of "tourist or transient use" that prompted litigation. "This ordinance is a response to a court order that voided 2 previous ordinances," Murray said.
Deputy City Attorney Rob Capla explained the litigation history and the department's approach, saying the 2017 ordinance changed definitions and procedures and that the court's ruling required repealing the entire 2017 ordinance; the proposed action would then readopt the housekeeping provisions that were not subject to litigation. "The court agreed with the plaintiff, and sort of threw the baby out with the bathwater," Capla said, describing the need to restore unchallenged language.
Ryan Patterson, representing the San Francisco SRO Hotel Coalition and numerous SRO hotel owners, urged the commission not to move forward and argued the draft "does not comply with the court's order" and raised due-process concerns, warning that the ordinance could eliminate seasonal short-term rental rights for vacant units and remove the ability to apply for conversion. "The judge ordered those ordinances to be repealed," Patterson said, adding that the new changes inserted into the SRO ordinance are "illegal" for several reasons.
Several commissioners said they wanted more time for community groups and stakeholders to review the draft. Commissioners discussed options, including continuing the item, moving it without recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, or approving with amendments. Deputy City Attorney Capla cautioned that delaying would slow the city's ability to comply with the court's order and report back to the court.
Faced with conflicting priorities—legal timing and stakeholder engagement—the commission opted to continue the item to the March meeting to allow additional vetting and outreach. The continuance passed on a unanimous roll-call vote.
Next steps: the item will return to the Building Inspection Commission in March for further discussion before any recommendation is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
