Committee Continues Ordinance on Tourist Use in Residential Hotels After Owner and Tenant Concerns

The Land Use & Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors continued consideration of an ordinance that would add a definition for tourist or transient use in residential-hotel conversions and set related tenancy terms.

Chair Erin Peskin read the ordinance, which would define tourist or transient use as tenancy of less than seven days, allow owners or operators of regulated hotels to request a longer amortization period through a hearing process, and amend the definition of permanent resident. After the item was read, Peskin said she intended to move that the matter be continued to the call of the chair following public comment.

Several callers urged delay and changes. Wesley Britton, who identified himself as a manager of a mixed-use SRO and tourist-use hotel in San Francisco, said owners deserve a longer look-back period when a buyer assesses a property’s history and asked officials to consider the high cost of evicting tenants. "You have to go into five years of the history of the business to find out what kind of money they were making," Britton said, arguing a one-year standard is too short.

Linda Chapman, representing Nob Hill Neighbors, urged stronger enforcement than earlier legislation provided and offered to help shape improvements. She said many SROs have been lost to unlawful conversions and that enforcement provisions "could be a lot stronger." A family-run SRO manager who identified only as Samantha said weekly rentals are a necessary option for many residents and asked supervisors to vote no on the measure as drafted.

Ryan Patterson, an attorney for the San Francisco SRO Hotel Coalition and several individual owners, told the committee the ordinance "would take away their businesses without compensation" and raised legal and procedural objections. Patterson said the proposal had not undergone appropriate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that the amortization period in the draft is too short, that the proposed extension-hearing process is vague, and that the Building Inspection Commission is not authorized to act as a quasi-judicial hearing body for these matters; he urged referral to the Planning Commission.

After public comment, Chair Peskin made a motion to continue the item to the call of the Chair. The committee conducted a roll-call vote; Supervisors Dean Preston, Asha Safai and Erin Peskin recorded ayes and the motion to continue carried.

The item will return to the committee at a later date for further consideration and negotiation with stakeholders; no final ordinance vote was taken.