Posts Tagged ‘ordinance’

“San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi Responds to Mayor Ed Lee’s Call to Rescind ICE Contact Policy” – Requests BoS Hearing

Thursday, July 16th, 2015

A new release:

“San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi Responds to Mayor Ed Lee’s Call to Rescind ICE Contact Policy

San Francisco, CA ― San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi today delivered his response to Mayor Ed Lee’s July 14, 2015, letter [referenced here in the Examiner] calling on the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to rescind its policy regarding contact with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“This tragedy spotlights the need for legal clarity at every government level,” stated Sheriff Mirkarimi. “This matter requires an open and honest conversation about the legislative intent and meaning of San Francisco’s ordinances and how they comport with everyday enforcement of laws leading to deportations.”

In his response, printed in its entirety below, the Sheriff asserts that the Mayor’s request raises legal conflicts; the Sheriff asks for an open and immediate discussion, via a Board of Supervisors committee hearing, to resolve the conflicts, provide clarity, and produce a workable and fair ordinance.

July 15, 2015
Reference: 2015-120

The Honorable Edwin Lee
City Hall, Room 200
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Mayor Lee:

I received your July 14, 2015 letter regarding the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department’s (SFSD) Federal Immigration communications policy. Your letter does not provide legal clarity regarding my department’s duty under city law. Your request to immediately rescind the policy contributes to the confusion and conflict between the Sanctuary City Ordinance (Administrative Code 12H.2) and the Due Process For All Ordinance (Administrative Code 12I). I urge a resolution of these conflicts so that there is a consistent and uniform understanding of the laws.

Finger pointing around this tragedy serves no purpose other than election year politics. It would serve the public interest to have an immediate open discussion of the Sanctuary City Ordinance and the Due Process For All Ordinance. I propose that you and I and other stakeholders come before a committee hearing with the Board of Supervisors so that a resolution of the conflicts can be achieved in a meaningful and transparent way.

Your request to rescind the policy and require the SFSD to contact federal immigration officials would eviscerate the city’s Due Process For All Ordinance, an ordinance I supported and which you signed into law. Historically, the only reason for SFSD to notify federal immigration officials of an individual’s release has been in relation to honoring an immigration detainer. This practice has been curtailed by the Due Process For All Ordinance and the federal court ruling that any detention for the release of an individual to federal immigration officials without probable cause violates the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

At present, the only request for notification SFSD has received from federal immigration officials is contained in the detainer form which the Due Process For All Ordinance prohibits SFSD from honoring, absent limited circumstances.

The only reason to now notify federal immigration officials of an individual’s release would be to facilitate the release of the individual to the federal immigration officials. This would completely circumvent the requirements and intent of the Sanctuary City Ordinance, the Due Process For All Ordinance and lead to unconstitutional detentions.

In 2013, my office worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office and the Board of Supervisors before and after the Due Process For All Ordinance was implemented to provide guidance on its provisions and effects. SFSD alerted representatives from the City Attorney’s Office, the Board of Supervisors and you of provisions of the Ordinance that posed operational and procedural problems. In early 2015, I met with the Deputy Secretary and Secretary of Homeland Security separately on two occasions to confirm San Francisco’s laws and procedures. I also expressed concern about the legality of the detainer/notification process.

I shall continue to ensure that SFSD policy as it relates to federal immigration issues is consistent with city, state, and federal laws. I therefore request legislative direction to reconcile the conflict inherent in your proposal versus city legislation prohibiting ICE detainers except in specific circumstances. Your request would require the Board of Supervisors to amend the Administrative Code as it relates to cooperation with federal immigration officials and honoring detainers.

In addition to clarifying city law, other solutions should be considered. One such solution is to propose that an Administrative Law Judge review immigration detainers and provide a warrant or finding of probable cause for those persons who federal immigration officials seek to detain.

I will continue to cooperate with any amendments to city legislation by the Board of Supervisors. I look forward to working with all city representatives including the Board of Supervisors and the City Attorney’s Office to provide legal clarity to these sensitive and complex issues.



cc London Breed, President of the Board of Supervisors
Board of Supervisors

SF Ordinance 130764, Signed by Mayor Ed Lee in October 2013, Deemed Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez Ineligible for Extended Detention

Friday, July 3rd, 2015

Here’s today’s release from the SFSD:

“San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Statement Regarding Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (SFSD) is deeply saddened by the tragic death of Ms. Steinle and offer our sincere condolences to her family and friends.

Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez was booked into the San Francisco County Jail from federal prison on a local drug-related warrant on March 26, 2015. On March 27, 2015, Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was in San Francisco Superior Court on local charges which were dismissed by the court. SFSD began confirming that Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s federal prison time had been completed. At the time Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was booked, federal transportation orders reflected two conflicting release dates. SFSD verified that Mr. Lopez-Sanchez completed his federal prison sentence and was lawfully released from federal prison March 26, 2015. Once the SFSD confirmed that Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s federal prison time had been completed and that he had no active warrants, he was released from San Francisco County Jail on April 15, 2015.

When Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was booked into the jail, there was no active Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) warrant or judicial order of removal for him. There was an ICE request for his detention. Once Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s local criminal charges were dismissed, San Francisco Ordinance 130764, approved by the Board of Supervisors and signed by Mayor Ed Lee in October 2013, deemed him ineligible for extended detention. This also comports with the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Policy on immigration detainers.

While over 300 municipalities throughout the state and country, including the City and County of San Francisco, have amended their policies regarding ICE detainers, ICE has not changed its policies or procedures to reflect that detainers are requests and not a legal basis to hold an individual. Courts including the Oregon Federal District Court in Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST) have ruled accordingly. In instances where a warrant or court order is obtained, individuals would be returned to ICE for deportation proceedings.”

That’s It, the Golden Age of Airbnb in San Francisco is Over: City Starts Accepting Short Term Rental Applications Feb 2nd

Friday, January 16th, 2015

The always-reliable Socketsite has the bad news.

Here it is, just posted by the Planning Department.

Oh, be sure to show them your half-million dollar liability insurance policy that I’m sure you already have (haha!).

If Airbnb is your bidness, you might even welcome these new regs. But if you are the more casual renter-outer, well, brace yourself for dealing with SFGov.

And here’s the kicker:

“You may not rent your unit (in all or a portion) as a short-term residential rental until you have received a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration number from the Planning Department.”

Choose wisely, Airbnbers…

“Short-Term Residential Rental Registry

Frequently Asked Questions

Applications Accepted Beginning February 2nd, 2015.

What is the SF Short-Term Residential Rental Ordinance?
On October 27th, 2014 Mayor Lee signed San Francisco Ordinance No. 218-14, amending the Administrative and Planning Codes to allow some residential properties to conduct short-term residential rentals without violating the requirements of the City’s Residential Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 41A) or the Planning Code. A short-term residential rental is a rental of all or a portion of your residential unit for periods of less than 30 nights. This law will become effective on February 1st, 2015. At that time, eligible Permanent Residents (owners and tenants) will be able to apply to place their residential unit on the Planning Department’s Short-Term Residential Rental Registry.

What can I do with a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration?
With a valid Short-Term Residential Rental Registration you may rent your primary residential unit for periods of less than 30 nights without violating the requirements of the City’s Residential Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 41A) or the Planning Code. This includes renting a portion or your entire unit while you are also present for an unlimited number of nights per year and renting a portion or your entire unit while you are not present for a maximum of 90 nights per year.

How can I apply to be on the Registry?
Short-Term Residential Rental Applications will be made available online and at the Planning Information Center (PIC) located at the ground floor of 1660 Mission Street. To register your unit, you will need to make an appointment with the San Francisco Planning Department to meet with staff and submit your application.Applications must be filed in person by the permanent resident whose name will appear on the registry. Applications may not be filed by representatives or agents. Drop-ins or dropped off applications will not be accepted. The Planning Department will begin conducting intake appointments on Monday, February 2nd. To schedule an intake appointment, please call 415-575-9179 after Monday, January 26th.

You may not rent your unit (in all or a portion) as a short-term residential rental until you have received a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration number from the Planning Department.

Who is eligible to register?
In order to conduct a short-term residential rental you must meet all of the following conditions:

  • You must be the Permanent Resident (owner or tenant) of the residential unit that you wish to rent short-term. This means you must live in that specific residential unit for at least 275 nights of any given calendar year. If you are a new resident you must have occupied this specific unit for at least 60 consecutive days prior to your application. If you own a multi-unit building, you may only register the specific residential unit in which you reside.
  • You must obtain liability insurance in the amount of no less than $500,000 or provide proof that liability coverage in an equal or higher amount is being provided by any and all hosting platforms through which you will rent your unit.
  • Your residential unit must not have any outstanding Planning, Building, Housing, Fire, Health, Police, or other applicable City code violations.
  • You may only register one residential unit.
  • Please note that residential units that are subject to the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program and residential units designated as below market rate (BMR) or income-restricted under City, state, or federal law are not eligible to register.
  • Important note for tenants:  The Planning Department strongly recommends that you review your lease before submitting an application. The registration of your residential  unit on the Short-Term Residential Rental Registry does not override any lease agreements, homeowner’s association bylaws, Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), or any other agreement, law, or regulations that prohibit subletting or use of your unit as a short-term residential rental.

Is there an application fee?
Yes. The fee for the initial application is $50.00. Your registration will remain valid for two years (pending the registered unit remains in good standing)

At your appointment you will need to provide all of the following items:

  • A completed Short-Term Residential Rental Application (download application packet here)
  • A Business Registration Certificate issued by the San Francisco Treasurer and Tax Collector’s Office
  • Driver’s License or State Issued ID Card issued at least 60 days prior to the short-term residential rental application date and valid for at least the next 6 months
  • Proof of  liability insurance in the amount of no less than $500,000
  • A signed affidavit agreeing to abide by all conditions of the short-term residential rental ordinance included within the application (download application packet here).
  • A check made out to the San Francisco Planning Department for $50.00
  • At least two of the following listed documents to confirm your primary residency at your residential unit:
  • Proof of a Homeowner’s Tax Exemption. Accepted as a form of residency confirmation only if the proof of a Homeowner’s Tax Exemption is for a property that is either a single-family dwelling or condominium; 
  • Voter Registration Card or Certificate with the address on the application, issued at least 60 days prior to the short-term residential rental application date. You may obtain a copy through the San FranciscoDepartment of Elections;
  • Proof of Vehicle Registration with the address on the application, issued at least 60 days prior to the short-term residential rental application date;
  • Proof of car insurance, showing address of registration, issued at least 60 days prior;
  • Original utility bill, issued by a public utility or PG&E, at least 60 days prior to the short-term residential application date. Copies and printouts will not be accepted. You may only use utility bills as one form of residency confirmation. Cable, cell phone, and internet bills do not qualify.

If you are a tenant of your residential unit you will also need to provide a copy of your lease or rental agreement. Please note that upon receipt of your completed application, the Planning Department will send a notice to the owner(s) of your unit, informing the owner(s) that your application has been received.

What will happen at my intake appointment?
Staff will review your application and related materials for completeness and intake. Only applications deemed complete at the time of submittal will be accepted for intake and further review. Additionally, staff will go over conditions and limitations of renting your unit as a short-term rental.

What happens after I’ve submitted my application?
It is expected that the Planning Department will review a completed application within fifteen (15) business days. If the Planning Department determines that your application meets the criteria then your unit will be added to the Short-Term Residential Rental Registry. You will you receive a “Short-Term Residential Rental” certificate by mail, which contains your assigned Registration Number. This registration number must be included at the top of all short-term rental listings’ descriptions (online or otherwise). We recommend that you place this certificate in plain view within your unit.

What can I do and not do once I have obtained a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration Number?
Once you have obtained a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration Number, you may use your residential unit as a short-term residential rental without violating Administrative Code Chapter 41A or the Planning Code  under the following conditions:

  • You may rent the residential unit (in all or a portion) while you are not present for a maximum of 90 nights per calendar year.
  • You may rent a portion of the residential unit while you are present for an unlimited number of nights per year.
  • You may advertise your residential unit on any and all hosting platforms under the condition that you list your registration number at the top of all listings’ descriptions.

What you may not do with your Primary Residence registered as a Short-Term Residential Rental:

  • You may not rent your residential unit or a portion thereof for more than 90 nights per calendar year while you are not also present during the time of the guests’ stay.
  • You may not rent illegal residential units or unpermitted spaces associated with your property.
  • If you are a tenant, you may not make more than your monthly rent from your short-term rental fees charged to guests.

Due to the expected volume of requests and inquiries related to this matter, please continue to check back on our website for the latest news and updates pertaining to the Short-Term Residential Rental Registry.

One Weird Trick to Avoid Paying Ten Cents for a Paper Bag in SF – The Answer Will Amaze You: French Fries!

Monday, March 10th, 2014

Is this “french fries or onion rings” exception to the SF Checkout Bag Ordinance documented anywhere?

Check it:

Click to expand

‘Cause I’m not seeing it. (Is there something in there about messy food?)

Anyway, order freedom fries or onion things if you want to stick it to the man and save money.

Uh Oh, Now There’s ANOTHER Lawsuit Against the City: Small Property Owners vs. the “Nonconforming Unit Ordinance”

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

Man, San Francisco sure seems to be getting sued a lot by property owners a lot these days.

Get used to it, 2014’s going to be a bumpy ride.

To wit:

“January 29, 2014 


New Ordinance Would Discriminate Against Families Who Move Into Their Own Buildings 

SAN FRANCISCO, Tuesday, January 28, 2014 – Today, the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute filed a lawsuit challenging Supervisor John Avalos’ Nonconforming Unit Ordinance on the grounds that the ordinance violates state law and fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Nonconforming Unit Ordinance would legalize the practice of renovating and expanding “nonconforming units.” Nonconforming units are “grandfathered” residential units that exceed local zoning laws’ density limits. Controversially, the ordinance would also discriminate against nonconforming units that have been the subject of lawful “no-fault” evictions, which are allowed under state and local law. Such units would be denied building permits for up to 10 years following a lawful eviction – even for regular maintenance and minor repairs. Property owners would also be barred from rebuilding their units after a fire or earthquake.

“This legislation punishes families who move into their own buildings,” stated Noni Richen, president of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute (SPOSFI). “It could cause thousands of lawful housing units to sit vacant while the City denies permits for basic upkeep. Given the current housing shortage, this is unconscionable.”

“As we have shown again and again, we will not allow the City to violate property rights with these illegal schemes,” stated Andrew M. Zacks, SPOSFI’s attorney. “The state’s Ellis Act prohibits this kind of discrimination against lawful evictions. Moreover, cities are required to evaluate a new ordinance’s environmental impacts under CEQA. This legislation was rushed through without proper review.”

Nonconforming units are different from “in-law” units, which are generally unpermitted and illegal. For example, a permitted third unit on a parcel zoned for two units is considered a nonconforming unit. The City Planning Department’s Information and Analysis Group estimates that approximately 52,000 units in the city are nonconforming, comprising some 14% of the city’s housing stock.

A copy of the Nonconforming Unit Ordinance is available at

The Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute (“SPOSFI”) is a California nonprofit corporation. SPOSFI advocates for the Small Property Owners of San Francisco, a nonprofit organization that works to promote and preserve home ownership in San Francisco. Its focus is to protect the rights of small property owners and foster opportunities for first-time home buyers. SPOSFI members range from young families to the elderly on fixed incomes, and its membership cuts across all racial, ethnic, and socio-economic strata. Its members include San Francisco residents who own nonconforming residential units in San Francisco.

Zacks & Freedman, P.C. is a law firm dedicated to advocating for the rights of property owners. With experience and knowledge in rent control issues, zoning, permitting, transactional disputes and other real estate matters, Zacks & Freedman, P.C. has successfully advocated its clients’ positions before local administrative tribunals and at all levels of the State and Federal courts.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera Sues Former Supervisor Michael Yaki for More Than 70 Violations of City’s Lobbyist Ordinance

Wednesday, December 4th, 2013

Well, I suppose I can’t oppose enforcement of the Lobbyist Ordinance.

[And I’ll mention that the “Yaki Compromise” would have had numerous salutary effects and would have saved lives lost due to the horrible Octavia Boulevard project.]

Herrera sues former Supervisor Yaki for more than 70 violations of City’s lobbyist ordinance

Lobbying for Rescue Air Systems, Inc. in the legislative process involving Fire Code revisions, Yaki ‘brazenly flouted a law with which he had no excuse to be unfamiliar’

SAN FRANCISCO (Dec. 4, 2013) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today filed suit against former Supervisor Michael Yaki for more than 70 violations of the city’s lobbyist ordinance during the time Yaki was paid to advocate for the interests of his client, Rescue Air Systems, Inc., in the legislative process that revised San Francisco’s Fire Code earlier this year.  According to the complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court this morning, “Yaki flouted the lobbyist ordinance in every way” by failing to register as a lobbyist, failing to disclose the amounts and sources of payments for lobbying, and failing to report his lobbying contacts.  The complaint, which was filed with 15 accompanying declarations from Board members, legislative aides, fire commissioners and S.F. Fire Department Chief Joanne Hayes-White, alleges that Yaki misrepresented his identity as a paid lobbyist when trying to set up meetings with five Supervisors.  

The city’s lobbyist ordinance provides for civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, or three times the amount of compensation scofflaw lobbyists fail to report — whichever is greater.  Yaki himself voted to support the ordinance in 2000 while a member of the Board of Supervisors.

“San Francisco’s Lobbyist Ordinance is a good government cornerstone that brings needed transparency to our local legislative process,” said Herrera.  “It imposes a simple requirement on lobbyists to disclose the nature and extent of work they do for their clients, and other paid advocates have managed to comply with it thousands of times.  Unfortunately, in the case we’ve filed today, the evidence is overwhelming that Mr. Yaki brazenly flouted a law with which he had no excuse to be unfamiliar.  Our lobbyist ordinance fulfills a very important function in our local government, and its aggressive enforcement is essential to the legitimacy of the law itself.” 

San Carlos, Calif.-based Rescue Air Systems, Inc. manufactures a patented “firefighter air replenishment system,” or FARS, which San Francisco’s Fire Code has required since 2004 for new buildings with a height of 75 feet or more.  When city policymakers undertook their periodic revision to the local Fire Code beginning last year, Fire Chief Hayes-White was among numerous city officials to oppose extending the FARS requirement because the San Francisco Fire Department had never used or trained on the system, and because firefighters “do not have confidence that the air coming from the FARS pipes is safe and breathable, or that the system has been checked and maintained on regular basis,” according to Hayes-White’s declaration.  

Yaki engaged in extensive lobbying efforts over a period of more than a year on Rescue Air Systems’ behalf to retain the FARS requirement.  According to the city’s complaint and supporting declarations, the former supervisor lobbied fire commissioners, S.F. Fire Department officials, staff in the Mayor’s Office, and members of the Board of Supervisors and legislative aides to extend the legal requirement for an air replenishment system that only one company — Yaki’s client — manufactured.  The City Attorney’s Office’s investigation secured evidence of at least 70 lobbying contacts, including more than 10 lobbying meetings with Supervisors and their legislative aides and more than 50 emails to city officials on behalf of Rescue Air Systems’ interests in the Fire Code revision process.  

Yaki’s lobbying efforts ultimately proved largely unsuccessful.  San Francisco’s Fire Commission passed a motion recommending that the FARS requirement be altered to offer developers a choice of whether to install FARS or a firefighter service elevator to facilitate oxygen delivery.  That recommendation was adopted as part of the San Francisco Fire Code amendments unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors in September, which Mayor Ed Lee approved on Oct. 3, 2013.  

The case is: Dennis Herrera in his Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney v. Michael Yaki, San Francisco Superior Court, filed Dec. 4, 2013.  Due to the large file size of the 468-page court filing, the complete presskit with accompanying declarations is not being emailed but is available for download on the City Attorney’s website at:”

Explaining to the Employees of Yammer Microsoft How They’re Not Really “Giving Back” to the Mid-Market Area

Thursday, April 11th, 2013

I don’t know, you can look right here for one version of the story about why Yammer Microsoft is doing so, so, soooooo many great things for San Francisco.

Or you can ask Microsoft Yammer why it doesn’t want to pay its fair share of taxes.

Leave us begin.

In 2004, the Mayor of San Francisco signed a law that closed a tax loophole.

Later on, that very same Mayor took a lot of money from the owner owner of a building with which you Microsoft Yammerers should be familiar, the Twitter Building:

Prospective Twitter Landlord Gave Newsom Rent Deal

That kicked off the whole tax boondoggle that Microsoft Yammer is taking advantage of now.

Oh, here it is:

“THIS COMMUNITY BENEFIT AGREEMENT 2013 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is made as of January 1, 2013 in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, by and between YAMMER, A SUBSIDIARY OF MICROSOFT(“Microsoft”) and the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation (“City”) acting by and through the City Administrator”

And it goes on and on talking about all the things that Microsoft is obligated to do for non-profit organizations that just happened to have endorsed Appointed Mayor Ed Lee.

So, well meaning white people who appear to be so, so, soooooo very proud of giving monitors worth (let’s hope) at least the contractually obligated $10,000 agreed to by MS….

….my question to you is this:


I’ll do all the legwork if you’ll give me some basic tax and income information. So maybe some years that could end up being a lot of money. I’d say, ooh, IPO! That’s going to cost Microsoft SF a few million bucks. And then you’d cut a check for the general fund.

There’d be no Ron Conway-type exception for you.

What’s that? You can’t afford to pay the oppressive taxes and loophole closures signed into law by the San Francisco Mayors of Yesteryear?

You know, I don’t believe that, Yammer Micro$oft.

What’s that, you’d rather move to Brisbane or someplace in San Mateo County?

Well, then be my guest. (You know, most people pricing apartment rentals in town lately would welcome your departure. You think I’m joking? No, I’m srlsy.)

What’s that, you like “giving back” to the corrupt Twitterloin, ’cause you think it’s a kewl thing to do and whatnot?

Fine, do that AND pay your fair share of taxes to the General Fund, why not?

That would be groovy.

But what you’re doing now is getting involved with SFGov corruption in the most corrupt big American city west of Chicago.

Just saying.

Oh, here’s some reading material to explain what you’re involved with, Microsoft. It’s from a time long before Yammer.

Enjoy your private-public neo-corporatism.

All the deets, in searchable form, after the jump.


Attention Shoppers: Grocery Stores to Start Charging for Bags October 1, 2012 – BYOB – Bring Your Own Bag

Monday, August 13th, 2012

This new tax is a done deal.

Check it: 

Click to expand

“CTIA -The Wireless Association” Explains Why Its Suing Us Over Gavin Newsom’s “Cell Phone Right-to-Know” Ordinance

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011

Well, after saying it was going to do so, the cell phone industry is actually suing us.

All the deets are below.

The friendly face of the Cellular Telephone Industries Association, aka CITA, The Wireless Association. This fellow has a big beef with our little town.

CITA Vice President of Public Affairs John Walls

“CTIA-The Wireless Association® Files Challenge to San Francisco’s “Cell Phone Right-to-Know” Ordinance

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4, 2011 – Today, CTIA-The Wireless Association® asked a federal court to block the enforcement of San Francisco’s “Cell Phone Right-to-Know” ordinance. CTIA’s challenge argues that the Ordinance is barred under the First Amendment and conflicts with federal law governing the safety of wireless devices.

As CTIA explains in its motion, the Ordinance requires retailers to distribute misleading statements and graphics that send the false message that cell phones approved by the FCC are not safe. In fact, the FCC limits radiofrequency emissions from cell phones to ensure that phones sold in the U.S. emit RF energy far below levels shown in scientific testing to have any adverse health effects. The FCC’s standard includes a wide margin of safety for all users. Last year the FDA categorically concluded that there is “No Evidence Linking Cell Phone Use to Risk of Brain Tumors,” and earlier this year the Chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, said that he was “confident that [the FCC’s] standards are protecting the health of people.”

CTIA-The Wireless Association Vice President of Public Affairs John Walls released the following statement:

“The materials the City would require be posted and handed out at retail stores are both alarmist and false. The FCC and FDA have repeatedly found that cell phone use does not pose a danger to human health. The Ordinance recommends such things as turning the phone off when not in use, a suggestion that would render critical emergency communications unavailable to San Francisco residents.”

More deets after the jump


Legislation by David Chiu, Scott Wiener, and Dennis Herrera Takes on Security Issues at Parking Lots

Friday, September 30th, 2011

I’d put this one in the “Worthy Initiative” category, but some parking lot owners might not.

Click to expand

I could see this saving a few lives over the years…

All the deets:

Legislation by Chiu, Wiener, and Herrera takes on security issues at parking garages and lots

Proposed amendment to SF Police Code seeks to improve the safety of patrons of San Francisco’s vibrant entertainment industry and the surrounding neighborhoods

SAN FRANCISCO (Sept. 29, 2011) — Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, Supervisor Scott Wiener, and City Attorney Dennis Herrera today announced a major legislative step to curb late night public nuisance and criminal activities in parking garages and lots, in particular at those garages and lots near entertainment establishments. The proposed ordinance seeks to amend sections of the San Francisco Police Code regarding commercial parking permits and empower the City Attorney’s Office to pursue civil action against those who violate those sections.

“Making parking lots near nightclubs more secure will make it safer for people to patronize our vital entertainment industry,” said Supervisor David Chiu. “I appreciate the opportunity to work with Supervisor Wiener, City Attorney Herrera and the industry to put forward this much-needed legislation.”

More deets after the jump