Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee sends transportation code rewrite to full Board after technical edits
Summary
The Government Audit & Oversight Committee forwarded an ordinance that would repeal San Francisco—s traffic code and enact a new transportation code to the full Board after accepting technical, non‑substantive edits; the chair said the measure reorganizes existing rules and does not create new law.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee voted without objection to forward an ordinance that would repeal the San Francisco traffic code and enact Division 1 of a new San Francisco transportation code to the full Board of Supervisors.
Chair Aaron Peskin said the measure primarily reorganizes existing provisions and implements power transfers required by a recent charter amendment, saying the changes are administrative rather than substantive. "There are actually no changes to the existing law," Peskin said, explaining the transfer of some functions to the Municipal Transportation Agency commission will move those items into division 2 while retaining other functions in division 1.
Deputy City Attorney Christiana Hayashi walked the committee through a series of technical corrections staff made to the draft: corrected section numbering on page 9, updated cross‑references in Article 5 to match the ordinance—s section numbers, clarified that a prohibition on parking in an orientation other than the design of a space applies even when a space lacks a meter (the deputy attorney said this preserves the status quo), and removed a duplicate double‑parking citation after confirming enforcement uses Vehicle Code section 22500(h). "There's no change to existing law there," Hayashi told the committee about the parking orientation provision.
Hayashi also described adjustments to transit only lane language to separate general and location‑specific prohibitions, corrected a typographical error (changing "misdemeanor change" to "misdemeanor charge"), renumbered several sections for consistency, and clarified the term "vehicle" in the electric‑charging bay prohibition so it aligns with substantive language used elsewhere in the ordinance.
After the attorney—s briefing, Chair Peskin asked if the committee would accept the technical amendments; there was no objection and the chair moved to send the item to the full Board "as amended with recommendation as a committee report." The clerk read no recorded roll‑call vote in committee.
What happens next: the ordinance will be heard by the full Board of Supervisors next week. The committee record indicates these edits are intended to preserve current enforcement practices and citation references to minimize disruptions for police and parking control officers.
Provenance: Committee discussion and attorney briefing on the ordinance, as read into the record by the clerk and summarized by Hayashi and Chair Peskin during the committee meeting (committee transcript segments beginning when Item 1 was read and continuing through acceptance of technical amendments).
