What building code regulations may in-office beds violate in San Francisco? I read on https://fortune.com/2022/12/07/elon-musk-twitter-beds-facing-san-francisco-building-code-inspection/: San Francisco does not appear convinced that adding in-office beds isn’t a violation of building code regulations. What building code regulations may in-office beds violate in San Francisco?
Chapter 7 of the San Francisco building code sets forth a number of mechanical requirements on hotels, motels, dwelling units and so on (e.g. heating, security...). §709(b) in particular states that It shall be unlawful for any person to use or permit another person to use any of the following portions of a building for sleeping purposes: (1) A hallway, water closet or bath or shower compartment, slop sink room, or any room containing a gas appliance used or intended to be used for cooking purposes or containing an improperly vented gas appliance; (2) Any other room or place which does not comply with the provisions of this Code for a sleeping room, or in which sleeping is dangerous, or prejudicial to life or health by reason of an overcrowded condition; a lack of light, windows, ventilation or drainage; fire hazard, dampness or offensive, obnoxious or poisonous odors in the room or place. This is sufficient grounds, given a complaint of purported violation, to mandate an inspection to determine if there has been a violation.
I'm not going to comment on what your manager is doing specifically, since I don't know all the facts. But in general: As a general rule, businesses have freedom of contract. This means they can choose to do business with, or not do business with, anyone they want. There are specific laws that create exceptions to this freedom of contract. The most important are federal and state civil rights laws, which prohibit many businesses from discriminating on the basis of certain protected classes, such as race, sex, religion, etc. In general, "locals vs. out-of-towners" is not a protected class, and therefore no law explicitly prohibits this type of discrimination. However, it's possible a court could find that "locals" is a proxy for some actual protected class--for example, if the hotel is in a city and the "locals" are predominantly Black.
Utah uses the IFC Code with modifications (none of which apper relevant based on a seach for "extinguisher"). You describe your premisis as a "townhome" which suggests it is a free-standing house, if so the classification of your building would appear to be R-3 and fire extinguishers are not requires in that classification. If it is instead an apartment (more than 2 dwellings in the same building) then it is R-2 and fire extinguishers are required and would normally be the responsibility of the building owner. Notwithstanding, a building built in the 1980s should not have electrical faults: You might wish to persuade the landlord to conduct an audit of the electrical system since he will be out of pocket if the building burns down.
The line they'll rely on for GDPR compliance is the first part of that sentence - "If you agree to this during the order process", which suggests that there will be a separate request to opt in to marketing communications at some other time in the process. Check any order documents. There's likely to be a tick box or similar on at least one. If that implies opting out rather than opting in there may be grounds to argue with that under GDPR, but there's nothing in the quoted text that suggests a problem.
&quot;Any perceived compliance or non-compliance of other developers’ apps does not have any bearing on the compliance of your own apps.&quot; Could this mean that Google Play's policies are applied differently for different developers or apps? No, it means that you can't break the rules even if others are breaking the rules or you think they are breaking the rules. I think it is worth noting that those apps are for the Indian market. I don't know which one you are in, but google will have different rules for different countries to comply with various regulatory requirements.
No. Just because some building is "owned by the public" or State, doesn't mean it's public property. A state's national guard installation comes to mind immediately. State workers' offices are not public places. Airport hangars/buildings/runways. You can't just go hang out in the DPW garages.
Zoning laws can be used to preserve the character of an area Presumably, the semi-rural area you live in is not known for its distinctive high-rise skyline. A height limitation can be a reasonable and sensible way of preventing the construction of a building that doesn’t fit with the overall character. A typical 2 storey dwelling can easily fit under a 30 foot limit, a 3 storey can if you are clever with the design - are there many 4+ storey homes in your area? In addition, most zoning ordinances have procedures to allow the applicant to request and have approved deviations for the rules. So, if you wanted to construct a 33 foot high house that might be OK, a 66 foot one not so much. I can’t see any basis for calling the law arbitrary or capricious. The fact is that high-rise buildings are out of character for acreage living, so it’s not arbitrary. And it has been developed with thought as to what it will achieve so it’s not capricious. Whether a particular decision on an application for an exemption is arbitrary or capricious will depend on the content of the decision.
The California Vehicle Code defines parking as: “Park or parking” shall mean the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers SF gives precedence to the Vehicle Code, but also defines parking here: To park or stop a vehicle, as defined in the Vehicle Code, or to cause or permit a vehicle to be parked or stopped, unless the context requires a different meaning. Stopping constitutes parking, and that is pretty much all there is to that, I am afraid to say. Being unoccupied or disengaged (shut off) isn't necessary.