Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Hotel Conversion Ordinance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Rules Committee continues proposed Hotel Conversion Ordinance change after SRO Coalition objections

San Francisco Rules Committee · February 4, 2019
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Rules Committee on Feb. 4, 2019 continued an ordinance that would narrow the definition of "tourist or transient use" under the Hotel Conversion Ordinance from less than 32 days to less than 30 days after the sponsor requested more drafting time. A Coalition representative warned the change could bypass litigation and public notice and said environmental review had not been completed.

The Rules Committee voted Feb. 4, 2019 to continue consideration of an ordinance that would amend the Administrative Code’s Hotel Conversion Ordinance, changing the definition of "tourist or transient use" so that a tenancy of less than 30 days (down from less than 32 days) would be treated as transient.

Chair Supervisor Hillary Ronan opened the item and a supervisor moved to continue at the sponsor’s request so amendment language could be finalized. The committee then heard public comment from Ryan Patterson of the SRO Coalition, who said the proposal required more review. "This we see as an end run around litigation as well as around public notice," Patterson said, adding that "the reality is it's 7 days," and urging the committee to do further review and amend the proposal to avoid legal problems and to complete proper environmental review.

The committee closed public comment and approved the continuance to the Feb. 11 Rules Committee meeting "without objection." No formal vote tally was recorded in the transcript; the clerk noted items acted upon would be listed on the Feb. 12 Board of Supervisors agenda. The record also includes mention of Rule 3.23 and CEQA concerns raised by the public commenter.

What happens next: the sponsor is expected to return with amended language at the next Rules Committee meeting; the item will then be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda unless the committee states otherwise.