OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Land Use & Transportation Committee Meeting – July 29, 2024

Land Use and Transportation Committee — Monday, July 29, 2024
BodySan Francisco, California
SessionLand Use and Transportation Committee
DateMonday, July 29, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:14

Good afternoon, everyone.

0:16

Uh, this meeting will come to order.

0:17

Welcome to the July 29th, 2024 regular meeting of the Landis and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

0:25

I'm Supervisor Miranda Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Board of Supervisors President Aaron Paskin.

0:31

Uh, Vice Chair Dean Preston.

0:34

The committee clerk today is John Carroll, and I would also like to acknowledge Kalina Mendoza at SFGup TV for staffing this meeting.

0:43

Mr.

0:43

Clerk, do you have any announcements?

0:45

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

0:46

Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you may have brought with you into the chamber today.

0:51

If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, you should submit them to me.

0:55

Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda when your item of interest comes up and public comment is called.

1:00

Please line up to speak on your right.

1:02

Alternatively, you may submit public comment and writing in either of the following ways.

1:05

First, you may email your comments to me at J-O-H-N, period C-A-R-R-O-L-L at SFGOV.org.

1:13

Or you may send your written comments via US Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

1:17

The address is one Dr.

1:19

Carlton B.

1:19

Goodlit Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

1:24

If you submit public comment in writing, it will be forwarded to the members of this committee.

1:27

And I will also include your comments within the official file on which you are commenting.

1:32

And finally, Madam Chair, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of September 3rd, 2024, unless otherwise stated.

1:43

Thank you so much.

1:46

Agenda item number one is a resolution updating the area designated as an infill opportunity zone for congestion management planning in the city and county of San Francisco under California Government Code Section 6508 at sec.

2:00

Thank you so much.

2:10

Thank you, Chair Melgar and colleagues.

2:13

This is my uh item, but the best people to talk about it are the folks from the Transportation Authority who uh brought it to me.

2:20

So I um want to introduce uh Chan Ho Chow, transportation modeler at the Transportation Authority to present.

2:29

Thank you, Chair.

2:31

Um I'm not quite sure how to share my slides.

2:35

If you have your slides displaying from there, we can just display it directly if SFGov TV could switch to the slides.

2:41

There we have it.

2:42

Thank you.

2:43

Um good afternoon, Chair Melgar and Committee members.

2:48

This resolution would update SF's info opportunity zone or IOZ to be consistent with city policy and state law.

2:56

By doing so, it would exempt roadway segments and intersections within the updated IOZ from the use of vehicular level of service or LOS measures and deficiency planning.

3:08

This change would allow the transportation authority as the congestion management agency for San Francisco to focus on alternative measures of system performance strategies that emphasize the movement of people and goods, not just private vehicles.

3:23

Some brief background information.

3:25

In 2002, SB 1636 was passed, authorizing local jurisdictions to designate IOZs.

3:33

In 2009, the Board of Supervisors designated San Francisco's first IOZ to be the area in dark dark pink on the map.

3:43

In 2013, SB 743 revised the definition of IOZs.

3:49

This increased the area that would be eligible for destination as an IOZ in SF to the area in light pink.

3:57

The resolution before the committee would update San Francisco's IOZ from the area in dark pink to the area in light pink, aligning our IOZ with current state law.

4:07

It is in general larger, though some areas will fall out of the IOZ after the update, such as in the outer Sutton set or Engleside and around Ocean Avenue.

4:18

Within an IOZ, roadway segments and intersections are exempt from LOS deficiency planning requirements.

4:25

And local jurisdictions may utilize alternative alternate methods to measure and mitigate roadway congestion.

4:32

San Francisco's congestion management program network is shown on the map with lines in various shades of blue.

4:39

Within with the proposed IOZ update, the segment of I-80 from the Bay Bridge to US 101 in SOMA would now be within an IOZ.

4:48

And we would not be we would not need to develop a deficiency plan, focus on private vehicular delay for this segment, but could focus on the movement of people and goods consistent with city policy.

5:01

There are no other substantial implications for making the proposed IOZ update.

5:06

Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to take any questions.

5:14

So from my more uh I I don't have questions, but just to sort of uh say pretty simply what I believe this does.

5:24

Um the state requires local jurisdictions to plan to manage congestion.

5:30

And the way that we measure congestion is through LOS or levels of service.

5:35

And uh and so when you have a dense urban area planning to try to limit LOS or to try to improve LOS, that is to have cars moving as quickly as possible and be delayed as little as possible, you are not really achieving your tran necessarily your transit first goals or planning in a way that makes sense for uh a dense urban area and an area that's becoming denser over time.

6:00

And so um the state recognized this and a couple of decades ago gave uh jurisdictions a pathway out so that they didn't have to do this level of service planning in areas that were designated as IOZs.

6:13

And in the interim period, there was a change in the law that allowed um for more area to be brought into these IOZs, and this legislation just brings San Francisco in compliance with that, which give which puts more of the city into our IOZ, meaning that our transportation authority um had does not have to do as much work to plan to try to speed traffic through uh neighborhoods where we are developing housing and adding people and doing things that are in fact probably very good, but uh but are not likely to uh make traffic flow more quickly.

6:46

Um so that's kind of what we got, uh, and I would ask you all to support it.

6:51

And uh thank you uh to Chen Ho Chow for your presentation, as well as Joe Castiglione and Maria Lombardo and Tilly Chang at the Transportation Authority uh and Calvin Ho in my office who's been helping me understand this.

7:04

Thank you so much, Supervisor Mandelman.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Public Comment█████████████████████████████29%
Affordable Housing█████████████████████████25%
Transportation Safety█████████████13%
Procedural██████████10%
Historic Preservation██████████10%
Technology and Innovation████████8%
Public Art█████5%
Summary of Proceedings

Land Use & Transportation Committee Meeting – July 29, 2024

The Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors met on July 29, 2024, at 9:45 AM. Chair Miranda Melgar presided, joined by Vice Chair Dean Preston and Member Aaron Peskin. The committee considered three items: updating the Infill Opportunity Zone for congestion management, landmarking the Gilbert Baker Rainbow Flag at Harvey Milk Plaza, and banning automated rent-setting software. All items were recommended to the full Board of Supervisors.

Consent Calendar

  • No items were designated as consent; all three agenda items were heard as regular agenda.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Item 1 (Infill Opportunity Zone): No public speakers.
  • Item 2 (Rainbow Flag Landmark): Multiple speakers expressed support:
    • Ralph Hibbs (representing Gilbert Baker Foundation) read a statement noting a petition of over 8,000 signatures and 29 letters from international queer leaders. He emphasized the flag's global recognition as the eighth most recognized symbol.
    • Andrea Aiello (Executive Director, Castro Community Benefit District) urged landmarking to ensure the flag flies 24/7, stating it is a beacon of hope for visitors worldwide.
    • Harry Brough (Castro Ambassador) argued the Gilbert Baker flag is the original seed from which all other LGBTQ+ flags derive and should be enshrined.
    • Terry Aston Bennett (President, Castro Merchants, flag steward) shared that Gilbert Baker requested the flag never fly at half-mast, even upon his death, and that it is a dangerous oversized flag needing full-mast display.
    • Former Supervisor Jeff Sheehy recounted the 1997 installation as an art project by Gilbert Baker, calling it his only permanent public art installation.
  • Item 3 (Ban on Automated Rent-Setting): Three speakers supported the ordinance:
    • Lena Mybaum (Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, tenant in a Veritas/Brookfield building) cited dramatic rent increases and harassment linked to algorithmic pricing.
    • Lucas Wiley (Housing Rights Committee intern) argued that even with new corporate landlords, the same algorithmic data drives up rents, undermining tenant protection efforts.
    • Mitchell Oberg (Affordable Housing Alliance, San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition) stated the practice is price fixing and illegal, urging speedy passage.

Discussion Items

  • Item 1: Resolution Updating Infill Opportunity Zone (IOZ) for Congestion Management (File 240758)

    • Supervisor Mandelman introduced the item. Chan Ho Chow (Transportation Authority) presented slides. The resolution updates SF's IOZ to align with state law (SB 743), expanding the zone from dark pink to light pink area on the map. This exempts road segments within the IOZ from vehicle level-of-service (LOS) deficiency planning, allowing focus on movement of people and goods. The expansion includes I-80 from Bay Bridge to US 101. Chow noted that the zone is based on half-mile radius from major transit stops with service frequency ≤15 minutes. Chair Melgar asked about excluded areas (e.g., Brotherhood Way, Monterey Boulevard, Slott Boulevard) and was told boundaries depend on transit frequency and regional transportation plan updates.
    • No public comment. Motion to send to full board with positive recommendation passed unanimously.

  • Item 2: Ordinance to Landmark Rainbow Flag at Harvey Milk Plaza (File 240725)

    • Supervisor Mandelman introduced the ordinance, noting the flag was created by Gilbert Baker in 1978 and raised at Harvey Milk Plaza in 1997. He proposed an amendment (page 5, line 9) specifying the flag shall fly at full mast 24/7, consistent with Baker's wishes and past practice. The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval on May 15, 2024.
    • Public comment was overwhelmingly in favor. Supervisor Preston added as co-sponsor.
    • Motion to adopt the amendment and send the amended ordinance to the full board as a committee report passed unanimously.

  • Item 3: Ordinance Banning Automated Rent-Setting (File 240766)

    • Supervisor Peskin introduced the ordinance, which prohibits landlords from using algorithmic devices (e.g., RealPage, Yardi) that share non-public competitor data to set rents or occupancy levels. He cited investigations by DOJ, FBI, and multiple state attorneys general. RealPage claims its clients often do not follow recommendations, but Peskin noted the company declined to testify and requested a continuance, which was denied. Lee Hepner (American Economic Liberties Project) presented evidence: RealPage covers 16 million units nationwide (8% of all rentals), and its software has been shown to increase rents 3–7% above market, restrict supply by encouraging vacancy, and raise eviction rates. He displayed a chart showing vacancy and rent rising in parallel after RealPage's adoption, contrary to market logic.
    • Supervisor Peskin offered two amendments: (1) a non-substantive narrowing of definitions (page 3, lines 16–24) on the original file; (2) a substantive amendment on the duplicated file to expand the private right of action to nonprofit organizations whose primary mission is tenant protection. He also noted Supervisor Chan as co-sponsor.
    • Public comment supported the ban.
    • Motion to adopt the non-substantive amendment on the original file passed. Then motion to send the original file as amended to the full board as a committee report passed. Then motion to adopt the substantive amendment on the duplicated file and continue the duplicated file to the call of the chair passed.

Key Outcomes

  • Item 1 (IOZ Update): Passed unanimously to recommend to the full Board of Supervisors. Expected on the Board's agenda September 3, 2024.
  • Item 2 (Rainbow Flag Landmark): Passed unanimously as amended (full-mast requirement) and sent as a committee report to the full Board, with consideration scheduled for July 30, 2024.
  • Item 3 (Ban on Automated Rent-Setting):
    • Original file amended and recommended to the full Board as a committee report (positive recommendation), expected on the Board's agenda September 3, 2024.
    • Duplicated file amended (expanded private right of action) and continued to the call of the chair.
  • All motions passed with three ayes: Chair Melgar, Vice Chair Preston, and Member Peskin.

Meeting Transcript

Good afternoon, everyone. Uh, this meeting will come to order. Welcome to the July 29th, 2024 regular meeting of the Landis and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I'm Supervisor Miranda Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Board of Supervisors President Aaron Paskin. Uh, Vice Chair Dean Preston. The committee clerk today is John Carroll, and I would also like to acknowledge Kalina Mendoza at SFGup TV for staffing this meeting. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you may have brought with you into the chamber today. If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, you should submit them to me. Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda when your item of interest comes up and public comment is called. Please line up to speak on your right. Alternatively, you may submit public comment and writing in either of the following ways. First, you may email your comments to me at J-O-H-N, period C-A-R-R-O-L-L at SFGOV.org. Or you may send your written comments via US Postal Service to our office in City Hall. The address is one Dr. Carlton B. Goodlit Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102. If you submit public comment in writing, it will be forwarded to the members of this committee. And I will also include your comments within the official file on which you are commenting. And finally, Madam Chair, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of September 3rd, 2024, unless otherwise stated. Thank you so much. Agenda item number one is a resolution updating the area designated as an infill opportunity zone for congestion management planning in the city and county of San Francisco under California Government Code Section 6508 at sec. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair Melgar and colleagues. This is my uh item, but the best people to talk about it are the folks from the Transportation Authority who uh brought it to me. So I um want to introduce uh Chan Ho Chow, transportation modeler at the Transportation Authority to present. Thank you, Chair. Um I'm not quite sure how to share my slides. If you have your slides displaying from there, we can just display it directly if SFGov TV could switch to the slides. There we have it. Thank you. Um good afternoon, Chair Melgar and Committee members. This resolution would update SF's info opportunity zone or IOZ to be consistent with city policy and state law. By doing so, it would exempt roadway segments and intersections within the updated IOZ from the use of vehicular level of service or LOS measures and deficiency planning. This change would allow the transportation authority as the congestion management agency for San Francisco to focus on alternative measures of system performance strategies that emphasize the movement of people and goods, not just private vehicles. Some brief background information. In 2002, SB 1636 was passed, authorizing local jurisdictions to designate IOZs. In 2009, the Board of Supervisors designated San Francisco's first IOZ to be the area in dark dark pink on the map. In 2013, SB 743 revised the definition of IOZs. This increased the area that would be eligible for destination as an IOZ in SF to the area in light pink. The resolution before the committee would update San Francisco's IOZ from the area in dark pink to the area in light pink, aligning our IOZ with current state law. It is in general larger, though some areas will fall out of the IOZ after the update, such as in the outer Sutton set or Engleside and around Ocean Avenue. Within an IOZ, roadway segments and intersections are exempt from LOS deficiency planning requirements. And local jurisdictions may utilize alternative alternate methods to measure and mitigate roadway congestion. San Francisco's congestion management program network is shown on the map with lines in various shades of blue. Within with the proposed IOZ update, the segment of I-80 from the Bay Bridge to US 101 in SOMA would now be within an IOZ. And we would not be we would not need to develop a deficiency plan, focus on private vehicular delay for this segment, but could focus on the movement of people and goods consistent with city policy. There are no other substantial implications for making the proposed IOZ update.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com