Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hotel Conversion Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances amendment to hotel conversion rule amid SRO owner objections and pending litigation
Summary
The committee advanced an amendment to the administrative code to change the definition of tourist/transient use under the hotel conversion ordinance (effective tenancy term under discussion). SRO owners and an industry coalition warned the change could displace weekly renters and urged the committee to wait for a pending court decision; committee forwarded the item to the full Board with a positive recommendation.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee voted to send to the full Board an ordinance amending the administrative code to revise the definition of "tourist or transient use" under the hotel conversion ordinance, a change tied to the minimum tenancy term used to distinguish conversions to hotels. The clerk read the item and committee members noted it had been continued from the prior week with a title amendment.
Multiple speakers representing SRO owners and the San Francisco SRO Hotel Coalition argued the proposed change should include findings required under San Francisco Planning Code §101.1 and be analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Ryan Patterson, representing the SRO Hotel Coalition and several SRO owners, said a superior court case is under submission and urged the committee to wait for the judge’s decision before adopting changes; he said the ordinance as drafted would "shut people out of housing."
SRO owners and managers (including Rupesh Patel, Vinay Patel, and a manager who identified himself as Roger) said many tenants pay weekly or biweekly and that imposing a 30‑day minimum would make some SRO hotels financially unviable. Michael Alavi, an insurance broker representing landlords, said insurers ask about the percentage of units rented weekly versus monthly and warned that the proposed change could increase difficulty and cost of obtaining habitability coverage, with downstream impacts on tenants.
Tenant advocates also testified in favor of the amendment, arguing the change is a modest tenants’ protection and criticizing some owners’ litigation tactics. Chair Aaron Peskin reminded the committee the ordinance was introduced in 2016 and signed by Mayor Lee in February 2017 and noted it has been subject to litigation since then. After discussion, a motion was made to approve the item as amended and send it to the full Board with a positive recommendation; the committee took the motion without objection.
Next steps: the ordinance will be agendized before the full Board; committee and staff indicated litigation on related measures is ongoing and that courtroom outcomes could affect future amendments or implementation.
