A new fire code regulating the charging and storage of lithium-ion batteries for powered mobility devices (PMDs) like e-bikes, e-scooters, and hoverboards went into effect this week. This comes after a well-documented rise in fires linked to these batteries, which are increasingly stored and charged inside residences.

The San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD) reported a tripling of battery-related fires between 2013 and 2023. Last year alone, the department responded to 41 such fires (and a record-high 58 in 2022), with data suggesting these incidents are even more hazardous than typical fires due to the chemicals in lithium-ion batteries and the challenges firefighters face extinguishing them, as the Standard reported. Fires reportedly started by rechargeable devices caused more than $10.6 million of property damage, 13 injuries, and one death in the past 10 years

The new legislation mandates that all PMDs in the city be safety-certified according to specific standards established by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or the European Union, approved by SFFD, per KRON4. Additionally, residents are limited to storing and charging a maximum of four PMDs per dwelling unit. If a household has more than five PMDs, stricter fire safety measures are required, including sprinkler systems and designated charging areas with three feet of space between devices.

It also prohibits the use of extension cords and power strips for charging PMDs. Instead, all devices, batteries, and chargers must be plugged directly into wall outlets. (SF landlords have also reportedly started including new terms in lease agreements about how residents can charge their PMDs.)

Residents are also instructed to follow manufacturer guidelines for charging and only use original equipment. Damaged or tampered-with batteries are explicitly banned from use, and the legislation outlaws the disposal of lithium-ion batteries in landfills or recycling bins, requiring them to be recycled through designated programs.

Feature image via Unsplash/Lucian Alexe.

Passed last year, California Assembly Bill No. 1570 expanded the state's law on autographs from its original focus on entertainment and sports memorabilia to include signed books and basically anything with an autograph. Bay Area bookstore chain Book Passage, which is basically three locations of wall-to-wall signed books, filed a lawsuit against the state alleging that the bill violates the store's First Amendment right to free speech.

Book Passage, with stores in San Francisco, Corte Madera, and Sausalito, hosts a ton of author events in which writers and readers mingle and mix. There's also a lot of book signing going on. "Author events are vital to the free exchange of ideas. They are places where people can go to be exposed to new ideas, debate with authors, and interact with other consumers. But the new law deters, if not effectively bans, these events," explained Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Anastasia Boden in a press release.

Basically, the new law applies to signed books (with a value of over $5) in the following ways:

• Sellers (bookstores) must personally guarantee the authenticity of each autograph.
  
• They must provide a certificate of authenticity with the name and address of the person from whom they obtained the signed item, including the date and place of the signing, and names of the witnesses who watched the signing.
  
• Sellers must state whether they are bonded, and note whether the item is part of a limited edition, the size of the edition, and whether future editions are in the works.
  
• And they've got to keeps records of all of this for at least seven years.

According to Book Passage's co-owner Bill Petrocelli, "The tradition of author events at bookstores, with opportunities for direct interaction between writers and readers, will be shattered."

The lawsuit, Passage v. Becerra, was filed today in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Xavier Becerra, FYI, is our state's Attorney General.

Well, friends, the gloves appear to be off. Airbnb, the San Francisco-based vacation rental company that spent over eight million dollars to convince city voters to oppose regulations for their industry, took out a passive aggressive ad campaign bragging over the taxes they had to be forced into paying, and has itself admitted that a significant percentage of its SF rentals violate local laws is now suing its home city, after the Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed to bounce their law-breaking listings or face fines.

Given all the stuff I just linked to above, we could have guessed this was coming: When earlier this month SF's Supes passed the legislation requiring Airbnb (and other, similar platform) listers to comply with city law or face fines of up to $1000 per day per illegal listing, the company ominously responded that "we are considering all options to stand up for our community and keep fighting for real reform." About a week later, the company argued on their site that San Francisco shouldn't require people who rent their homes out via the platform to follow the same business licensing requirements that every other business in the city must, because "the process is too complicated." And now, according to a statement posted on their website, the company is suing San Francisco, saying that the new legislation holding Airbnb responsible if their hosts fail to comply with local regulations "violates important federal laws that protect privacy and innovation on the internet."

According to Airbnb, "Since 1996, the Communications Decency Act...has prevented local governments from holding websites responsible for content published by their users as the city is attempting to do here." In addition, Airbnb claims that "The new law also violates the federal Stored Communications Act, which creates uniform privacy protections for internet users and prevents cities from simply demanding that platforms turn over user information without a subpoena or other legal process."

Airbnb also claims that the law is a violation of the company's First Amendment rights, as “It is a content-based restriction on advertising rental listings, which is speech."

These are arguments that the city has been bracing for since the proposal to fine Airbnb for unregistered SF listings was made back in April. At the time, one of the Supes proposing the new law, Aaron Peskin, said that the legislation was "crafted in a narrow manner that will survive legal challenges,” and in June Deputy City Attorney Jon Givner said that “This ordinance does not regulate the content of any posted information on the website of a hosting platform."

As of Monday evening, the city is standing firm in that assessment, with City Attorney spokesperson Matt Dorsey saying in an emailed statement that "Nothing in San Francisco's pending ordinance punishes hosting platforms for their users' content. In fact, it's not regulating user content at all - it's regulating the business activity of the hosting platform itself."

"San Francisco requires hosting platforms to facilitate tax collection," Dorsey says, "and to verify that tourist rental hosts are properly licensed. It's simply a duty to verify information that's already required of a regulated business activity."

On the news of the lawsuit, city officials defended the legislation, which would require Airbnb to ensure that all 9,448 (or so) of its San Francisco hosts follow the year-old laws requiring them to register with the city. (At present, only about 1,650 of Airbnb's current SF hosts are in compliance with the law, making as many as 75 percent of Airbnb's SF listings in violation.)

“We passed the law because we thought it was a reasonable approach to improve enforcement,” Supervisor Scott Wiener told the Chron.

But it's that enforcement that Airbnb appears to be trying to avoid, as they argue in their court filing that the company will suffer “irreparable” damage to their business “if it is forced to remove immediately thousands of listings from its website."

“Given the substantial criminal and civil penalties for non-compliance," Airbnb wrote in their filing, "and the burdensome verification process, hosting platforms like Airbnb likely would over-remove or not publish lawful and registered listings."

According to Kevin Guy, director of the city’s Office of Short Term Rentals, it's not that the "burdensome" nature of the verification process that's keeping hosts from registering, it's that there's a verification process at all. “A fair number of the folks who are not registered knew they wouldn’t qualify," Guy told the Chron, which noted that the city has "already streamlined registration," as "business registrations can now can be done online. Appointments for the required in-person meeting with his office can be booked online, and more-flexible times, such as evening hours, have been added."

But according to Supervisor David Campos, there's not enough streamlining in the world to make Airbnb happy, as the company "doesn’t really want to work with the city,” he told the Ex.

“Its view of the world is ‘our way or the highway.’”

The new law is scheduled to take effect on July 27, but the US District Court for the Northern District of California, where the case was filed Monday, typically hears cases about 35 days after they're filed. That would mean a court date in August, after the law has kicked in. According to Airbnb, they're seeking an "accelerated" hearing, but no ruling has been made regarding that request as yet.

But in the end, Campos says, San Francisco will triumph over Airbnb. The company's refusal to simply comply with SF law, Campos tells the Ex, is "disappointing but not surprising," but “We’re confident in the end we will prevail.”

Previously: Airbnb Dealt Massive Blow In SF, As Supes Vote To Fine Company For Turning Blind Eye To Scofflaw Hosts

California's open firearm carry prohibitions got a boost Monday, when the state's Supreme Court ruled 7-0 that loaded guns in a backpack or fanny pack is the same thing as concealing the weapon on one's person.

Laws prohibiting people from concealing loaded weapons on their person are nothing new — what's arguably groundbreaking is the decision that bags carried on the body fall under those rules. As explained by the California Attorney General's website, "Generally you may not carry a concealed firearm on your person in public unless you have a valid Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license...California law does not honor or recognize CCW licenses issued outside this state."

To get a CCW license, one must "Contact your county sheriff's office or, if you are a resident of an incorporated city, your city police department" to get "a copy of their CCW license policy statement and the CCW license application." But it's not as simple as filling out a form: As Shouse California Law Group explains, in addition to the myriad of county-by-county regulations, one must be "of good moral character" and you must have good cause "for issuance of the license because you or a member of your family is in immediate danger."

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, CCW licenses are "unavailable in most populous areas of the state except to police and security guards."

People caught carrying a concealed weapon without a permit “on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place" are subject to misdemeanor charges and up to a year in jail, based on a statewide law, the San Francisco Chronicle reports, "passed nearly five decades ago to plug a hole in state firearms laws after members of the recently formed Black Panthers began conducting 'cop watch' patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while openly carrying guns."

And according to the Supreme Court decision issued Monday, that law doesn't just cover a gun covered by a shirt-tail (for example) but extends to backpacks, fanny packs, and any "other container on the body and clothing that is being worn," the Associated Press reports.

"The distinction is untenable," Justice Ming Chin wrote in the court's decision (you can read the full decision in People vs. Wade, S224599 here.)

"It would require, for example that we treat differently a gun in a zippered pocket of a pair of cargo pants -- which would violate the statute -- from a gun in a fanny pack tied around the waist -- which would not violate the statute -- even though, from the perspective of easy access, the gun at the waist might be closer at hand than the gun in the knee pocket of the cargo pants."

The argument over whether or not backpacks and their ilk constituted open carry violations came about following the 2014 prosecution of Steven Wade, who was arrested in Los Angeles after after "police found a loaded revolver in a backpack that he had been carrying and tossed away as officers chased him," the Chron reports.

A trial court initially dismissed the charges against Wade, "citing an appellate court ruling that found a knife contained in a backpack was not carried 'on the person,'" the AP reports. But according to Chin, the two cases differed, as in the knife case, the defendant wasn't carrying the backpack, and a knife can still be used in “such lawful pursuits as fishing, hunting, camping, picnicking and the like,” which Chin says a handgun could not.

Wade "concedes that he carried the loaded firearm, but he argues that, because it was in his backpack, it was not on his person," Ming wrote in the court's decision.

"We disagree. The backpack was on his person and, accordingly, anything inside that backpack was also on his person. Case law strongly supports this conclusion."

You can still lounge to your heart's content across an entire row of BART seats — at least for now. The vote on whether or not to impose fines of up to $500 on individuals occupying more than one seat has been postponed to allow the ordinance to be tweaked to specify just who exactly will be subject to the fines.

Despite the assurances of the ordinance's author, BART Director Joel Keller, the Chronicle reports that some on the BART board expressed concerns regarding its language. Specifically, that if passed as is the ordinance will allow BART Police to both target homeless people sleeping on empty cars and your average Joe/Jane napping on a late-night ride home from work. Oh, also, that riders might use this new ordinance as an excuse to harass other riders.

“If we can’t get specific on this being on crowded trains, there’s no way I’ll support this,” KRON 4 quotes BART director Rebecca Saltzman as saying. “I’m concerned about how it will be implemented, not necessarily by our law enforcement but by the public.”

No need to worry about us, BART Police Chief Kenton Rainey told the BART board at yesterday's meeting. “We’re not going to get out there and start arresting people and issuing lots of citations,”. However, Rainey also pointed out some possible unintended consequences of this measure — namely "more train delays, conflicts with the homeless and possible use of force."

Which, honestly, makes a lot of sense. Imagine what impact this enforcement could have on crowded cars stuffed to the gills with stressed-out commuters! The imagination runs wild.

The proposal would make a first offense $100, a second offense $200, and any offenses thereafter within a five-year period $500. A vote on the revised ordinance is tentatively scheduled for the next full BART board meeting on Thursday, March 25.

Previously: BART Director Proposes $500 Fine For Seat Hogs

Loungers, luggage-bearers, and other folks who spread out into more than one seat beware: If BART Director Joel Keller has his way, seat hogs might soon face fines of as much as $500.

According to the Chron, Keller has frigging HAD IT with riders on packed trains who take over much-needed seats with their feet, belongings, or other stuff that they should keep to themselves. So he's proposing an ordinance, to be enforced by BART police, making it illegal for BART riders to occupy "more than a single seat when it would prevent others from sitting down."

People with medical conditions or of a size that requires multiple seats would be exempted from Keller's proposed law, which wouldn't be enforced on trains that "have an abundance" of empty seats.

Offenders would be hit with a $100 fine for their first offense, $200 for their second strike, and $500 thereafter. Heck, for those fees, you might as well charter a limo for you and your backpack and spare yourself the indignity of BART in the first place!

Keller, who represents eastern Contra Costa County, says "he was motivated to draw up the ordinance when he boarded a train and found a sleeping young man sprawled out over four seats near the door" and "realized that even if he summoned police, they could do nothing but rouse the seat hoarder and ask him to sit up."

“In the past, when we had plenty of seats, it was not as serious an issue as it is today,” Keller told the Chron.

“But with ridership growing and seats becoming a much more desirable commodity, we have to make sure they’re available and avoid them being taken up with backpacks, luggage or someone using two seats to lie down.”

It was last April that BART admitted that their trains were insanely crowded, and confirmed that they'd stay that way until at least 2017. Since then, BART has tried to manage the problem by removing seats to make more room for standing passengers and announced an effort to encourage off-hour commuting with points for some sort of virtual game.

And now this, Keller's effort to legislate what should be common courtesy. And before you ask, Keller wants you to know that this isn't a law directed at homeless people. He tells the Chron that, yes, “There are homeless people on our trains taking more than one seat, but there are also people with backpacks, with luggage, with other things occupying seats. This is not an effort to target or harass anyone, merely an effort to make seats available.”

“We always expect that, when we ask law enforcement to enforce ordinances, they use good judgment,” Keller says, and if it looks like BART cops are focusing on homeless folks when they enforce it, he'll "seek to have it reconsidered."

Keller will be presenting the proposed ordinance to the full BART Board at their meeting this Thursday. The public is welcome at these meetings, so if you want to show up in support/opposition to this proposal, be at their Board Room at 344 20th Street at 9:00 a.m. Thursday.

Previously: The Rush-Hour Crush On BART Will Continue Unchanged For At Least Two Years
BART Seeks To Gamify Commute In Bid To Ease Congestion

While the thought of forcing the mixologist community to wear prostate-exam gloves gives one a hardy chuckle rimmed with a touch of bitter schadenfreude, California's AB 1252 has gone too far. At least when it comes to bartenders.

The law, for those unaware, bars hand contact with prepared food in restaurants and bars. This, of course, is insanity. In addition to being costly and impractical, it reverts our relationship with food to a clinical one. Inside Scoop has a slew of (rightly) concerned bartenders who've signed a petition and made thoughtful comments. You should sign it too.

But what about chefs? SFist asked chef Josh Oakley (Tango & Stache) for this input as to why clinical gloves and seasonal fare don't mix. "It's bad for the environment, for starters," he explains, adding, "It's actually less healthy.When gloves are on they can trap bacteria beneath them, especially when you can't wash and quickly put on a new pair."

Again, take a look at the petition and, should the mood strike, sign it.

[Inside Scoop]

After receiving approval in the Tennessee Senate last spring, the appalling "Don't Say Gay" bill, formally known as SB0049, is literally sitting on a desk in the state's House of Representatives right now. If passed, the bill will "prevent teachers in kindergarten through eighth grade from discussing homosexuality in prepared materials or instruction," ultimately hindering kids struggling with their identity from getting counseling and taking part in gay-straight alliance groups.

In an effort to lift our collective spirits and fill his fans with hope, the delightful George Takei has lent his name to the campaign that's raising awareness about the bill — "It's OK To Be Takei." Watch the adorable video below. Keep up with the campaign's progress on the "It's OK To Be Takei" Facebook page.

On an even scarier note, as Daily Kos member indiemcemopants reports (via Huffington Post), the so-called "Bathroom" bill was filed in Tennessee's General Assembly yesterday by a Republican state Senator, which "restricts access to public restrooms and public dressing rooms designated by sex to members of that particular sex." As the Daily Kos author notes, "it's legally impossible to get your sex changed on your birth certificate (and only a little less impossible to get it changed on your drivers' license)," which means all transgender and gender non-conforming people would be affected by the bill. Those who violate the proposed law would receive a monetary fine.

[It's OK To Be Takei on Facebook]

San Francisco's controversial sit-lie ordinance, which passed in November by a narrow margin, has accomplished what many predicted: nothing. The law, making it verboten to sit or lie on public sidewalks between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., was favored strongly by local business owners and some residents in the Haight-Ashbury. They claimed they were being harassed by scrappy street urchins who loitered on nearby sidewalks.

CBS 5 reports:

After months of training, officers began enforcing the law in March, but at a bimonthly CompStat meeting involving some of the Police Department’s top brass Wednesday, police Lt. Belinda Kerr from the Park Station acknowledged that the law has not done much to change behavior in the area.

There has been “a prolific amount of arrests, citations and warnings … but I haven’t seen that it’s done a whole lot,” Kerr said.

She said the transients will often get up when they see officers drive by in their patrol cars, but “unfortunately are getting up and going around the block and then sitting down again.”

Sit-lie was slammed by homeless advocates who saw the ordinance as "a loss of civil liberties and an attack on all homeless people."

The owner of Borderlands Cafe and Borderland Books in the Mission is apparently not pleased about San Francisco's smoking laws. Here's what he has to say in the above sign:

Our Nanny State Would Like to Remind Us: Smoking Only 1) at the curb, or 2) if no curb, At least 15 ft. from exits, entrances, operable windows, & vents.

You should also eat all your vegetables, chew with your mouth closed, brush your teeth, and stop slouching already. Did you write a thank-you note to Aunt Edna for those nice socks? Good. Now finish your homework and get to bed at a reasonable time.

We would like to add that, while slowly poisoning yourself it's a good idea to remain 15 ft (4.572 m) away from open buckets of gasoline or similar fuels. It would also be best to avoid mummies, the Scarecrow of Oz, Frankenstein's Monster, and other flammable film icons.

Of course the above admonitions apply to tobacco as well as anything else you might be smoking nudge, nudge, wink, wink. The lighting of incense is also heavily discouraged. We cannot legally forbid the application of way too much perfume/cologne but... you know how there are always people making gagging noises around you, like in elevators and in line at the bank and theater? It ain't a coincidence.

Ok then! SFist personally used to love our opposite commute to Berkeley on BART in the morning when the handful of us left behind on a previously crowded car at Montgomery Station would all simultaneously start sneezing, thanks to the collective cloud of perfume and cologne that was left behind.

[photo via Ernie Hsiung]

Last year, Mayor Newsom and Supervisor Maxwell introduced legislation aimed at reforming the nightclub industry. Apparently, not much has been accomplished since then.

Back in 2003, the Entertainment Commission was formed in order to take over the permit process from the overburdened police department. This in turn took a great deal of control out of the cops' hands.

The new laws are intended to clarify the protocol for club owners and promoters, making them more accountable for late-night parties and encouraging them to form a united front against violence, while allowing the police to issue citations to loiterers within ten feet of bars and clubs between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. The police have taken issue with the new permit laws, saying they would "open the floodgates for all-night reveling, boisterousness and general bedlam," and have thus created serious delays in the whole legislation process.

UPDATE: Apparently the police department has reason to be concerned. This 2007 Civil Grand Jury report (PDF) concluded that aside from the Entertainment Commission's strength in granting permits, the agency had two major weaknesses: 1) They have not held up to their end of the bargain in regards to enforcing mandates and promoting entertainment (other than clubs), and 2.) Communication between the Commission and other government agencies was lacking on all levels. Halloween in the Castro is a great example of this.

The Examiner was told by the police department that officers were being paid overtime this past weekend as part of a nightclub task force in response to a particularly violent weekend the previous week. The task force also shut down a lot of illegal late night parties over the weekend, which might have been legal had the new legislation been passed. According to Supervisor Dufty, the new laws would have enabled the Entertainment Commission to much more expeditiously shut down the problem nightclubs, in which the aforementioned violence had occurred.