Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Sro Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee advances hotel-conversion ordinance after SRO owners voice procedural and legal objections
Summary
The committee amended and sent to the full Board an ordinance updating the hotel conversion provisions of the Administrative Code after public comment from SRO owners and counsel who said notice was inadequate and the measure may conflict with court orders and environmental requirements; sponsors and city attorneys said notice and CEQA were properly handled.
The Rules Committee on Jan. 27, 2020 forwarded to the full Board an ordinance amending the Administrative Code to update the city’s hotel-conversion rules, including a severability clause recommended by the City Attorney’s Office.
Ryan Patterson, representing the San Francisco SRO Hotel Coalition and several single-room occupancy (SRO) owners, told the committee the group objected to the short notice for the hearing and said the measure appeared to conflict with a court decision. "This ordinance would violate the court's order in case number CPF 17 Dash5 115,656," Patterson said, adding that the proposal effectively functions as a citywide rezoning and therefore requires environmental review and Planning Commission consideration.
Committee sponsors and city attorney representatives answered that the item was noticed and processed in accordance with the Brown Act and local rules. A city attorney representative said the Planning Department had communicated on Jan. 21, 2020 that the proposal was categorically exempt under CEQA and that administrative-code amendments do not go to the Planning Commission. The sponsor told the committee the item was introduced on Dec. 10, 2019 and included a narrow change — the addition of a severability clause on page 26, section 7 — recommended by the City Attorney.
After discussion and the sponsor’s amendment, a committee member moved to forward the ordinance, as amended, to the full Board with a positive recommendation; the motion passed unanimously.
The committee record shows disagreement between affected SRO owners and city attorneys over whether additional environmental study or Planning Commission review is required. The Board’s legislative file will show the official record of notices and the Planning Department’s CEQA determination prior to the Board’s final action.
