Ordinance would not approve the Development Agreement and amend portions of the planning and administrative codes in order to facilitate implementation of the project. The amendments create a consolidated approval process at the Preservation Commission and Planning Commission. They provide for a comprehensive approach in order to preclude the otherwise peace meal process called for existing code provisions. Specifically the amendment enable a master conditional use authorization, master certificate of appropriateness and master permit to alter applications to be filed. And on november 20th and 21st of this year, the historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission considered the master permit to alter as well as the master conditional use respective of those bodies. They were approved unanimously [please stand by] want to thank the members of the commission and their staff and members of the historic Preservation Commission and their staff. Is there anybody here from the department of building inspection, which is also involved in this . Good afternoon. Im Joseph Barber from the department of building inspection. Im a housing inspector. You can drop your put your coat on mr. Sanchezs lap. [laughter] thats better. Can you hear me now . Yes, sir. All right. So im the resident from the department of building inspection. Is there anything you would like to add . We are gaining units under the Hotel Conversion ordinance. I think theres under chapter 41, theres they are converting all the units in 860 sutter to resident designations which means theres eight extra rooms under the conversion ordinance. So we are happy with that. We are getting extra rooms. Thank you, mr. Barber. From the Mayors Office of housing, mr. Adams, if you are here, you are welcome to weigh in. If you are not, it is okay. It has been a marathon meeting here at land use and transportation committee. Anything you want to add . No. Ms. Jenson . Mr. Smith . All right. We will open this up to public comment. Public comment is open. The floor is yours. You have nothing to say . [off mic] this is the end. Yes, ms. Hester. Oh. I have two minutes, not three. Just pull that microphone down a little bit. Im stunned, that i have two minutes for a battle that people have been waging i will give you as much time as you would like. Thank you. Because a lot of people couldnt come here today. One of the things thats been going on is this battle thats been waged by the public. The public, the Planning Department, supervisor peskin, was heavily involved at the beginning. Thank you. A lot. But the main concern of the public was housing issues. And eventually housing issues, because they were taking over hotels and rentcontrolled units. We didnt even know how much they had taken over because they never explained anything. They never bothered filing an institutional master plan. So we were out of compliance with the planning code. When they started following it, the Planning Department had enough information to start inspecting them. A lot of n. O. V. S went to them. And it became clear that there is a need to get a concentrated campus. One of the interesting things thats in your packet is i have to on as you can see, it has become this is in your environmental document in the packet. The avenue is here, and they are going to here. And i was wondering what the thing was on here, because they had, like here, they had pardon me. This is the existing campus. Campus right here shows theres this academy of art facility literally on this block. Its a block away on hayes. And it should be the map should be corrected to that place. And that is 115 hayes. Its a block from here, right next to something thats under construction, the conservatory of music. They were building housing, a large amount of housing just south of city hall. Its hard to speak on a mic and point to it. Does this work . Yes. And so this the proposeed campus. Pardon me. This is existing campus. And this is the proposed campus. The proposed campus is missing 34 which is the back page of it. Its parking garage. At van ness for the academy of art students and staff and faculty. And they have also they have the crown museum here, a car museum here, a car museum here. So the academy has shifted to van ness avenue. And they have a large facility by California Hall on locust street. I will go back. So they moved the facilities on their van ness, and they keep running around their buses, its free advertiseing. They have the bus system. They have a campus concentration on sutter street, and they have sprawl up and down van ness avenue. And they have another facility in the south of market in mr. Haneys district. The people concentrated on, in their comments in the years we went through the hearings. They need to Pay Attention to building housing for their students. Some of it really addresses part of it. But what we found in the city, what you found in the city, is the biggest need for housing. So part of the problem that people like me are having right now is figuring out why are you allowing them to basically sell their sites, get rid of their sites, instead of keeping the site for housing. The site in the van ness corridor makes sense for housing is 150 hayes. Right next to Student Housing being built by the conserve horry of con conservatory of music. 150 hayes is they are being allowed to walk away from i am it without keeping a site for housing. The other thing around van ness avenue thats happening is its being rebuilt right now. It happens right around you. And the campus is rebuilt and has facilities up and down van ness avenue on polk street. You should be pardon me, the academy of arts should be getting rid of their buses and putting people on muni. One of the big ridiculous things that ive been working with is the Development Agreement wasnt available at all. Until the 25th of november. And it became available to me as an individual, at 8 00 at night on friday. So it was functionally monday the 28th. And today is december ninth. Ninth. It doesnt show a lot of respect to people from the public who dont have a big staff, dont have a lot of money, dont have all these people here. So i do not in any way want to cut you off. No, no, im going to end it right now. Im going to end it. Basically i want to be assured, the people who have done work have disability access, people who have done work for housing, people who have done work for van ness avenue corridor and were not able to come to this hearing today hostage. So this is the only hearing. We had only one hearing on the i. M. P. , which was finally filed pardon me, june jul. And it was adopted pardon me, accepted on july 25. We have no idea how you are getting around chapter 56 prohickson Development Agreement agreements prohibition Development Agreement. I have to figure out how do they do this. But the basic thing is youre planning on having the first vote of the board of permit appeals on january 7. The second vote, january 14th. Theres no opportunity to give information back to the board after today, which is pardon me. One of the things im looking at is haney because its your district as well as his district 3. Ironically, the one area that we pushed the academy of art for supervisor peskin was when they take over the flower mart. And we pushed them out. They didnt they walked away from 100,000 ernest money consideration but yes, please proceed. Part of the problem is the academy of arts has acquired an illegally converted into Student Housing two different projects, Major Projects in your districts. And there should be an opportunity for the public to submit this in writing, in a nice time frame, which is hard to do today. I couldnt do that. Thank you. So i will shut up. No. Thank you, ms. Hester. I would like to thank you for your dogged determination and legal skills in holding this institution accountable for many more years than the City Attorney brought suit. And this would not be here today and let the good not be the enemy of the perfect. Next speaker, please. You actually can speak as long as ms. Hester as a matter of law. I would like to get on the issue that i came here for. So just very quickly, im really sad that this agreement is not returning more of our rentcontrolled buildings to our permanent residents, to our city here today. That has been a really huge loss. And, again, as i think she also said in terms of losing s. R. O. S as well, we have lost so much housing. And the art academy has been the worst in creating a huge crisis for us in not building Student Housing, that not being limited, not being certain regulations in place that are enforced. So that is my great disappointment with this as well as there not having been enough opportunity for the public to weigh in. I am hoping the city got truly the best deal possible. It doesnt really seem that way in that in order to rebuild what we have lost, it is so much more expensive today, and as well as the idea of we dont have that much land. So i just needed to say that. And especially in the district that i live where the art academy has been pretty horrendous, i just wanted that to go on record as well as to ensure that the enforcement that is supposed to be in this agreement also in terms of turning the Student Housing into accessible housing for people with disabilities, i want to make sure that is actually enforced. And i do hope that you will be watching that. So thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on item number 12 . Seeing none, we will close public comment. Mr. Adams, are you here . Anything you would like to add on behalf of the Mayors Office of housing . Thank you, supervisors. Dan adams. The only thing i would add is we are supportive of this settlement agreement. We have been involved in its negotiation throughout and are excited to see the city take a next step on this process. Im happy to answer any specific questions regarding the affordability requirements. And im here at your disposal. Thank you. Colleagues, do you have any questions for mr. Adams . City attorneys office, supervisor safai. I want to make a quick comment. I know it can be frustrating at times to look back in retrospect and see when someone has been a bad actor that we are not necessarily always able to get the equivalent of what seems like what was lost. But in many instances, and my perspective over the last 20 years of being active in local government here, there ares when the city gets nothing at all. And for all the hard work that the City Attorney, the Planning Department, supervisor peskin, i know you have put in countless hours, actually the head City Attorney himself, all the people that were involved in this negotiation, i think this is probably one of the best outcomes that we could have anticipated. I know it might not be equivalent of replacement, but at the end of the day, when we have created a new fund of money that will be supplemented, when you think about the Small Sites Program and how those moneys can be leveraged, when we think about the Affordable Housing money that is leveraged against state dollars and ultimately the way in which the Mayors Office of housing is creative in terms of making dollars stretch and working those dollars, i think ultimately, this is something that we should be proud of. And i think that the amount of hours and time that city staff along with Community Advocates put in to getting as best results as we could. And now we have an actor that is participating and following the rules, and i think thats also an important part of this. And i can tell you one thing, i know supervisor peskin wouldnt put his name on something that he didnt feel was the best result for the city. So in that, i feel confident as well. I forgot i put my name on it. [laughter] as they say in iran, [speaking foreign language] may the party continue to add here to the terms of the settlement and this agreement. To City Attorney, to his staff and ms. Jenson, ms. Ruiz, ms. Smith, ms. Sexton, to the Planning Department staff, Planning Commission, to ms. Hester and mr. Angman and others who i will not name who have continued to hold the academy of arts feet to the fire, this has been an interesting day in so far as we have not only done the academy of art matter but the flower market matter, which were linked as she said, in 2008, when the academy of art tried to buy out the italian side of the flower market, here we are 11 years later with a different problem, but we will leave that to the full board of supervisors on the 17th day of december. And with that, is there a motion to send this item to the full board without without recommendation made by supervisor safai . We will take that without objection. Thank you. Yes, deputy City Attorney . The meeting of january. January 7, my bad. Great. Arbitration between now and then. That will be the order. Madame clerk, i think you already read item 10, is that true . No, i did not item 10 is to receive public input on the appropriate amortization period and requesting the Mayors Office of housing and community development, department of building, department of homelessness to report. Thank you, ms. Jay jor. Ms. Major. This is our last item. Welcome to the holidays. As you may remember, i think the only member of this panel to remember would be safai who voted with the rest of the board in 2017 on our Hotel Conversion ordinance update legislation that allowed longer than sevenday stays in our hotels. And that has been the subject of litigation for quite some time. And actually i realize i should not have thanked ms. Ruiz on the previous item, she is here for this item. So we are now talking about a amortization ordinance. This is only an informational hearing to hear from members of the public about their thoughts about this. It started off, i thought i would bring up matt from the department of building inspection to give us background on how we got here and give us an overview of the Hotel Conversion ordinance and why it is necessary, what it does, what is allow, how it is enforced. So mr. L. Uten, as you will deposit your jacket as all d. B. I. Members do. The floor is yours. Thank you. Good afternoon. So just to give a brief overview of the ordinance, ill give as brief as i can. So chapter 41 of the San Francisco administrative code titled the Residential Hotel unit conversion and demolition ordinance, we call it the h. C. O. Or Hotel Conversion ordinance. It was enacted on june 26, 1981 in response to a recentlydeclared housing emergency that was created by the loss of approximately 6,000 residential guest room from the rental market. That caused the displacement of elderly disabled and lowincome persons. Though the primary purpose of chapter 41 is to preserve residential guest rooms, also called s. R. O. S, in the city, as they are crucial source of housing for elderly, disabled and lowincome tenants. Residential guest rooms are typically sleeping rooms without the private bathrooms or cooking facilities. The original d. O. Required all owners and operators to file an initial unit usage report, indicating the total number of guest rooms within their hotels and how each guest room is being occupied as of september 23, 1979. So guest rooms that were occupied by permanent residents for 32 consecutive days as of this september 23 date were designated residential units and became subject to the protections of the chapter. The other rooms became subject to chapter 37. They became subject to chapter 41. So in the initial report, the owners submitted to the city how each room how each room in the hotel was being occupied as of that september 23rd date. And the date the rooms that were occupied by residential tenants, which was defined as 32 consecutive days. Those rooms became residential guest rooms subject to chapter 41. And then the other rooms were designated tourist units. The ordinance now regulates approximately 20,000 residential units and approximately 500 buildings throughout the city. The general prohibitions of the chapter provide that residential units may not be demolished or converted to another use. All residential units may not be rented out for tourist or transient use. Currently that means terms of tenancy less than seven days. They cannot be offered for rent for tourist or transient use either. Theres a very narrow exception that is widely misunderstood and misused, which allows qualifying residential guest rooms that happen to be vacant during the high tourist season to be temporarily rented out for tourist or transient use so long as no more than 25 percent of the residential guest rooms are not temporarily or are temporarily converted. Thank you. Another exception is just for the record, if you could just rearticulate that. And raise the microphone a little bit for the record if you could rearticulate what you just said. Sure. So the exception, theres a very narrow exception to this. You are not able to rent out residential guest rooms for tourist or transient use. The exception, which is misunderstood and misused, allows qualifying residential guest rooms, meaning the guest rooms have to qualify before they can be used for this conversion, or for this exception, they have to happen to be vacant during this high tourist season which is defined as may 1 through september 30. Those rooms may be temporarily rented out for tourist or transient use so long as no more than 25 percent of the guest rooms, residential guest rooms are temporarily converted. So only 25 percent and no more may be temporarily converted. Under the hotel owners are required to maintain records of use and submit annual usage reports. All hotels are required to maintain 24 months worth of daily logs, rent receipts and weekly reports onsite, daily logs show the use of each room, each day and weekly reports show the number of occupied tourist rooms throughout the week. Each november 1, all private, for profit hotels are required to file the annual unit usage report, which is a snapshot of how the residential guest rooms are being used throughout the year. And enforcing the issue, we have a complaint based system whereupon receiving complaints of violations, we conduct inspections of their required records. Upon identifying violations, we issue a notice of apparent violation, similar to a notice of violation, its just how it is defined in the code. In cases where we find longstanding violations for hotels that refuse to comply with the ordinance, we will issue a notice of violation, provided for in the housing code, so that we can establish im sorry. We issue a notice of violation provided for in the housing code so we may use the established directors hearing procedures and obtain abatement orders. In cases where there are recordkeeping violations, either a failure to maintain records or falsified records, we have the ability to assess penalties. In egregious cases where we are unable to obtain compliance we rely on the City Attorneys office for support. It is worth noting that there are provisions for criminal liability. So the next thing i want to do is go over the recent legislative history. You mean the 2017 ordinance . Well, there have been some yes, thats part of it. But there have been some other ordinances that were enacted. So from 1981 when it was enacted, the initial ordinance, through 2016, the ordinance was largely unchanged. There were some updates but it was basically unchanged. And then in 2017, the amendments were enacted which clarified definitionses, updated fines and disqualified violaters from exercising the temporary tourist exception for 12 months after violateing. Almost immediately, a legal challenge was made in response to the amendments based on the definition of tourist or transient use to a term of tenancy that is less than 32 days. In 2018, the city stipulated to enforce only a sevenday minimum term of at tenancy for residentl units, pending litigation. In 2019, a few things happened. First, section 41. 22 was enacted which provided for the Residential Hotel status report. Which you sponsored i believe, right . True. I sponsored the 2017 ordinance as well. But please proceed. So the hotel status report ensures that owners for selling Residential Hotels Columbus Police dysclose information about the status and disclose information about the status prior to the completion of sales. The definition of tourist or transient use was changed to any use that is less than 30day term of tenancy. And finally, the plaintiff challenging the 2017 amendments prevailed, and we were returned to the 2016 version, which is basically the 1981 version of the ordinance. I want to end up with a few of the challenges that we are faced with when enforcing this. And the first and biggest being our inability to determine the truth since we rely on selfreported data from hotel owners. We encounter cooked books and second sets of books where theres the books for me and the books for the real use of being recorded. Ive already mentioned the misuse of the temporary conversion exception where hotel owners consider an entitlement. Another challenge is the limit on d. B. I. s authority to initiate enforcement proceedings. We are not considered an interested party. And therefore we cannot initiate complaints. And we do have the ability to assess penalties for recordkeeping violations but not for conversions, which is the main violation of the ordinance. We encounter vacancies in room warehousing, which i can talk more about later, but theres no law that requires hotel owners to rent out their guest rooms. My colleagues are about to leave me so theres not going to be a much later, but please proceed. Okay. Thats it. What we are dealing with here really is about creating a buffer and amortization period. The reason ive held this hearing today is really to hear from the affected community about what the numbers are so we can figure out what the appropriate amortization period is. And this will not be the only opportunity for this. There will be other opportunities. But i thought it to be important as the sponsor of the 2017 legislation, to figure this out. And i think mr. Luten put his finger on it about what the public interests and Public Policy was in 1981 as amended in 2017. So before i ask a number of questions, is there anybody here from the Mayors Office of housing . Mr. Lee who would like to say anything for the record. Please come on up. From the Mayors Office of housing and community development. We reviewed this really in the context of our Small Sites Program. The Small Sites Program was established in 2014. And is the citys main program for acquiring and preserving atrisk rental housing with 3 to 25 units although we do on a case by case basis consider large buildings including s. R. O. S. The program was created to create housing in neighborhoods that are vulnerable to market pressure that results in increased evictions, rises rents. The Small Site Program helps San Franciscos avoid evictions by providing loans to successfully remove these sites from the market and restrict them as permanently Affordable Housing. Since 2014 when the program was initiated, the citys investment has grown from a Pilot Program of 3 million to over 86 million in total funding. The funding ranges from approximately 175 to 300,000 per unit in subordinate funds depending on the building size. To date, we have preserved approximately 35 buildings with 290 units and 27 commercial spaces. We have a robust pipeline of approximately 15 buildings and approximately 137 units. And have stabilized over 500 individuals to date. In those numbers that i just stated, two of the buildings with 38 units and four commercial spaces were in sros. And the small site funding of the 86 million thats been committed, approximately 9. 5 million relates to the preservation of sros. Those Funding Sources include inclusionary fee, funding from housing bonds as well as several geographicallyrestricted sources. Thank you. Is there anybody here from the department of housing dhsh. Maam, the floor is yours. Im trying to figure that out too. Im the manager for the housing for the department of homelessness and Supportive Housing. Good afternoon. So we are master leasing many of the sro units in the city. We started doing that when we were still two different departments, hsa and dph, before the mayor lee started the department on homelessness and Supportive Housing. So we started doing this at the end of 1980, beginning of 1990. And the way that we master lease hotels is that we either the city, but more often a nonprofit provider will develop a master lease with a sro hotel owner and then we as a city will develop the contract with the provider to pay them the rent that will go to the master lease but to also pay for support services and to pay for the operating of Property Management in the building. We started with about 1,000 units. And by now we are up to almost 3800 units. This is almost half of the 8,000 units that the department of homelessness and Supportive Housing has for Supportive Housing. The other units are usually nonprofitowned and operated, many of them are Affordable Housing that we collaborate on with the Mayors Office on housing and community development. You had a variety of sessions. And im trying to speak directly to those. The way it usually works is when we master lease a build, we have to provider to develop a lease, and it is for the entire building. There are legacy units in the building, which means there are already tenants in the units, those are, of course, preserved. We will only utilize the units that are vacant. And we will refer to those who are coordinated, so its for people who are the most vulnerable out on the streets. The master leases are usually well, they have been in the past, often for ten years, and at times also had extension opportunities for ten years, usually times two. So we have leases that are just now running out that started in the late 1990s. Sorry, im going back. Im dating myself. I started in the late 1980s. So we are actually right now in the process of helping providers renegotiate leases that started a very long time ago. In a master lease, usually the Building Owner holds responsibility for the major systems, that would be the roofs, elevators, electrical system. Everything else gets paid by the master lessee, though most often the nonprofit provider who is funded by the department to pay for the building as a whole. You had some questions about stabilization units as well. Would you like me to comment on those . Please. Okay. And you were actually earlier on, you were commenting on what kelly mentioned several years ago. Yes, there used to be over 300 stabilization units in the city. Currently the department of homelessness and Supportive Housing, we have about 88 stabilization units left. The difference between stabilization units and master lease units is that we basically rent a block of units from a pilot operator. And just like with the master lease unit, we do usually pay for them, and the utilizeation is up to us in terms of stabilization unit and the Homeless Outreach team. The only time we wont pay for them is if we cant utilize them because of negligence by the owner or if the owner is not turning them over in the way they need to. But we dont have a master Lease Agreement with them, so therefore if the units are, for example, pestinfested, we will stop paying for the rent. So the master leases are a specific period of time. The block is a stabilization unit so the owner gets paid as they deliver. The utilizeation is up to the Homeless Outreach team, and they dont usually have a problem utilizing the units. So in general, the owner gets paid. Again, theres a responsibility for them to have the units in working conditions. When its a master lease, once we take the building over or the nonprofit provider takes it over, we are responsible in general, for the running and operating of the hotel. The city funds bless you. Funds the nonprofit provider to do that. You were wondering what is interesting to us in terms of sro hotels. These days, honestly, its not like we have a lot to choose from anymore. We have quite a few after our last settlement, we will. But go ahead. Im looking forward to that. So usually what we are looking for is amenities. And so that means theres an elevator, that its wonderful if the units have a private bathroom. Though that is not typical in the old sro hotels. In general, the conditions of the building, of course, and then also what the location is, what the unit size is. Whether or not there is some Community Space to create some space for people experiencing homelessness or formerly homeless that will be living in those buildings so we can create Community Space, possibly a Community Kitchen and also office space. And then, of course, one projectionofcost and trying to bring health and safety standards, we usually put that on the owner during the association of the letter of agreement. But it does tell us how long its going to take us for all the people that dont have a place to go. It comes down to unit negotiations as well. Many of the owners are definitely interested and very motivated to continue working with us. Most owners that we are working with have several hotels with us. However, theyre also business people. And this is a very hot market, which affects the sro hotels, so finding new hotels has been a challenge at times, finding hotels that we will be able to afford, people definitely look at the market, and they consider what they might be getting if somebody else was to lease the building. That was not the case when we started master leasing almost 30 years ago. There was nobody that was interested in those buildings. And many of the units that we are now utilizing were empty. Before we take a building or even going into a letter of agreement, we usually ask for Capital Needs assessment so we know not only what needs to be fixed immediately in order for us or our providers to be interested in developing a lease, but also to know what the projections are in terms of the building. How much longer will the elevator be lasting . How much longer will the roof be lasting . Because even those things that the owner has to pay for, it affects people in our building, obviously. It might mean that we potentially will have to leave some units empty. In terms of suck other questions that you have in terms of other questions that you have, im here to answer them. That was a fantastic presentation. I really appreciate it. In the interest of time, what i would like to do, i have a huge number of questions for you. And we can continue this, because i know that folks need to move onto a number of things. But in the interest of time, why dont we open this up to public comment. And lets hear from the public. Im particularly interested in hearing from the affected community as we are thinking about amortization over time. So with that, if you will line up to my left, your right, first speaker, please. I do have actually pages of questions for mr. Luten but we may continue this to our meeting next monday. First speaker, please. Tommy, come on up. Okay. From the Housing Rights Committee. As you know, sros have always been housing for our poorest residents. In recent years we know that hotels are illegally renting rooms to tourists at weekly and biweekly rates. We know that some hotels aderer ties all of their rooms as tourist even though only 25 percent of them can be. These practices are illegal, yes, and they contribute to our housing crisis, which is removing housing by removing housing, rentcontrolled housing, unless its a master lease unit, in which case its not under rent control, but if its not, it is rentcontrolled housing that is being removed from the market to even temporarily to do these tourist rooms. We cannot afford to lose any of these units, special not rent controlled ones. Sro rooms should be for residents of San Francisco, not tourists, people over profits. We need a prohibition on tourist room, period. We need stronger language to enforce the law that we have if we are going to stick with the law that we have. We need stronger language in the law to enforce it, because it sounds like it cant be enforced or theres problems with it. We need the city of San Francisco to take a stand that housing should be for housing and for our residents and that poor and working class people should take priority. Our Housing Stock is for housing people, not for making money from tourists. Can we keep it that way . And just real quickly, i dont know if you are going to do number 9 but the but Housing Rights Committee is in support of 24 hours per day, tenants having access to heating. Thank you. I said this was the last item. I neglected to say i skipped over item number 9. We are going to circle back to that. Your comment has been heard. The 2017 amendments were precisely for the Public Policy goals that you articulated. We have been subject to litigation. We are trying to figure out an amortization rate to resolve that litigation. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is dan jordan. I work for the central city collaborative as a housing peer counselor. I live on sixth street. Its a private sro hotel. And its one of the most expensive ones in the city. This hotel has, with most of the private hotels, your facilities are located in a hallway. You have no kitchen, not in your room, not in the hallway, not in the building. And all they really want is that rent. They do very little to keep the building in repair. So you are at the mercy of the landlord. And they know this. And unfortunately for people on Social Security or very low income, these hotels are the last stop. We need to keep them as sro hotels and not allow them to be converted to Tourist Hotels. I know some of them are doing it anyway. But they need to be stopped. And made to convert back, because they havent done it legally to begin with. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Senior and disability action. I work there on mission between ninth and tenth streets. And seeing the sro that was called the rams right along ninth street, suddenly having a very new brightcolored sign that says rams hotel usa, its an owner who has owned that property for a very long time. Further more, he also has the whole corner, which is where counter pulse had been he convicted in 2016. Then theres a diner, i forget, but also a Chinese Restaurant right there. So there is a plan now to turn this sro into a 166unit luxury hotel. And you can see at the occupancy records that there was this diminishing number of permanent residential folks in there until it then became one or two left. And now it is a fullon hotel. Weve lost a little Chinese Restaurant. There are many sros around there. There are many workers all around there. The diner as well as this Chinese Restaurant is where you can get Affordable Housing, where people in sros who couldnt cook could get good food at a reasonable price. So its not just about losing the sros. Its this domino effect around that area. But we are losing then a 28room sro hotel that was allowed to do six tourists rooms. And now whats going to happen . So i support more discussion on this. I really hope we can hold onto our sro hotels. I see he is taking copious notes about the alleged violations. Next speaker, please. Im a Research Analyst at unite here local 2, representing hotel and Food Service Workers across the city. Many of our members and some of our staff live in sros. When sros are converted to Tourist Hotels, working people lose access to Affordable Housing. Ive been reviewing sro owners annual unit usage reports and weekly reports submitted to d. B. I. Under current regulations, the records are selfresorted. The reports leave a lot of unanswered questions. What are the actual rent and room rates at any given sro . In the midst of a citywide Affordable Housing crisis, why are any Residential Hotel units left vacant. Why are explanations required only when more than 50 percent of the units are vacant. Are vacant rooms being illegally converted for tourist use . Hotels report rents at weekly rates that dont add up. Hotels cite vague reasons such as slow periods. How is this information verified . Does this information reflect whats taking place . These questions beg the larger question, why is the city allowing a trade off of more Tourist Hotel rooms at the expense of Affordable Housing units. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to unite leer local 2 for your interest in this area of Public Policy. Next speaker, please. Research analyst also from unite leer local 2. So im heavily involved in working on new Hotel Development in San Francisco. Our members and staff live in sro hotels, so they benefit from having this Housing Stock available as Affordable Housing stock subject to rent control. Housing that is subject to rent control is finite in this city and more cannot be created. So its very important for us to protect this. Our members and staff who live in these hotels as well as everyone else who lives in them benefit from strong protections against musical rooms where managers shuffle tenants around to avoid having them qualify for their legal rights as tenants. I wanted to spell out a few key ways in which they are different. Concierge service, hotel spa, bell service, multiple bars, thats what you would see in a hotel, not what you would see in a hotel that provides Affordable Housing. Even more bare bones hotel have services that differ drastically from the Business Model of a Residential Hotel, art in the lobby, reservation departments. These are not things that you find in a Residential Hotel. No sro hotel i can think of has one employee for every room the way a very high end Tourist Hotel can. Because of these very different types of land use patterns, its a good thing the city has a conditional use process for the creation of hotels. And what we are seeing is that many of these hotels that are extensively somewhat tourist and somewhat residential are skirting this process and illegally converting to a Tourist Hotel. I can think of four within a mile of here. There must be more. And when this process is allowed to continue without punishment, our members lose and the city loses. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. Im a housing organizer at senior and disability action. We support stronger and more tenant protections and also stopping the tourist conversions. I recently visited an sro on sixth street. And met with the gentleman who is over 75 years old, two years ago a little bit over two years ago, his rent was less than 40 percent of his monthly income. When i visited him last week, he said that he is now paying over 80 percent of his fixed income for rent. And over two years ago, there were mostly longterm residents living there. Now he is the only one left. It cannot continue to be profit over people. It must be people over profit. Thank you, mr. Martin. Next speaker, please. Im an on the parter of a hotel here thats a mixeduse license, both tourist and residential. Im seeing that it makes it harder for people to get into the hotel. If you are making me a landlord, then i have every right to protect the building and property for the tenants that are there. That means their deposits, credit check, background check, all the things a regular landlord has to protect their property are the things i should be able to do. It makes it more difficult for the people that you are trying to help get into the building in my opinion. Do you understand . I dont want to interrupt you but when you are done i would like to ask you a couple questions. Ask your question now. Great. If you want to stop the time in case you would like to continue speaking. What im trying to figure out, and i super appreciate that you are here and would actually like to hear from other members of the affected community. I know mr. Patterson is here who is part of the class that is litigating this. What im trying to get my hands around is amortization. To do that, i need to understand what the fiscal impacts are. The fiscal impact is a lot. I have a mixed use like i said. And some of those i can convert for the summer but i never kicked anyone out of my hotel. This was a property that was bought six years ago that needed a years worth of construction. It was rundown. They hadnt turned paperwork in for eight years. And then i feel like im being punished for all the people who are not doing the correct things. My first meeting before it opened was before the Housing Department to find out the things i needed to do. We had a Good Relationship in the beginning, now not so much but i think theres a different attitude towards the owners like we are greedy people. I employ sf residents, single mothers, immigrants at my hotel that have jobs that you are going to make not have jobs because i wont be able to afford to pay them. The minimum wage goes up, the insurance goes up, its not like im raking in profits. Im just paying all the bills. So that you have to take it also from ors