Flagged sections

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The exceptions to 'Meeting' could be consolidated and clarified; for example, the conditions for conferences and social gatherings are scattered across clauses (B) and (C) with overlapping language about what does or does not constitute a discussion of city business.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• Subsection (a)(5) could be clearer by defining 'passive meeting bodies' upfront rather than only in the applicability clause; the current structure requires readers to work backward to understand which gatherings are covered.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The distinction between "passive meeting bodies" in subsection (e) and other advisory bodies, along with the different notice rules, could be clarified by explicitly defining what counts as a passive meeting body or consolidating the advisory body notice rules.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• Subsection (b) uses 'should' rather than 'shall,' which may create ambiguity about whether these content requirements are mandatory or merely suggested.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The formatting instructions and multiple conditional disclosure formats (particularly under §54956.9 and §54957.6) could be clarified with a single consolidated template or flow chart to reduce reader confusion.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The distinction between subsections (b) and (c)—what applies to Charter boards versus all City Hall hearing rooms—could be more clearly explained upfront rather than implied through separate rules.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The list of required minute contents is lengthy and detailed; it could be reorganized into clearer categories (e.g., attendance, voting, closed sessions, public participation) to improve readability without changing requirements.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The distinction between subsections (a) and (b) and the phrasing of (b) as 'goals' rather than requirements creates ambiguity about whether departments must or merely 'attempt to' meet these standards—clearer language about mandatory versus aspirational obligations would help.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The distinction between the three-business-day window, the two-full-day removal threshold, and the 30-day calendar window could be explained more clearly with a simple timeline rather than embedded in conditional clauses.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• Subdivision (d)'s detailed requirements for cost analyses (manufacturer, model, vendor, maintenance contractor) could be streamlined; the rule's intent—allowing higher fees when costs justify them—could be stated more concisely.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The text could be streamlined by consolidating the several descriptions of what the index 'shall' contain (e.g., 'organized to permit a general understanding,' 'shall clearly indicate,' 'shall clearly and meaningfully describe') into a single, unified statement of the index's purpose and scope.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The phrase 'prepared, received, or maintained' could be streamlined; 'received or maintained' might suffice since 'prepared' is a subset of 'maintained.'

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The phrase 'on a World Wide Web site, or on a comparable, readily accessible location on the Internet' is repetitive and could be streamlined to reduce redundancy while preserving the flexibility it intends.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The phrase 'remove or deface or otherwise interfere with' could be consolidated into a single clear term like 'remove or alter' for readability without losing meaning.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The first two sentences are nearly identical and could be consolidated into one statement that the Mayor administers for both the Mayor's departments and mayoral-appointed board and commission departments.

Administrative Code — Sunshine Ordinance (Ch. 67)

• The phrase 'have attended or will attend when next offered' creates ambiguity about timing and compliance; clearer language would specify a deadline for completing attendance.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• Subsection (b) contains 11 separate purposes that could be grouped thematically (e.g., contribution limits, incumbent fairness, fundraising burden, transparency, public trust) to make the intent clearer without losing substance.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The phrase 'in addition to the contribution limit contained in Sections 1.114' could be clearer by stating the actual dollar amount of the normal limit or explicitly defining what section 1.114 contains.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The section could be clearer by explicitly stating what the penalty amounts are rather than cross-referencing Section 1.170, which would help readers understand the actual consequences of violations.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The section refers to 'qualified campaign expenditures' without defining them here; readers must cross-reference other sections to understand what counts against the limit.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The phrase 'such other information as the Ethics Commission deems useful' is vague and could be clarified to specify what discretionary information the Commission typically includes or may include.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The phrase 'is authorized by law to close' is unnecessarily indirect; it could simply say 'when the Ethics Commission is closed.'

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The section could be clearer by stating upfront what kinds of errors are forgiven (minor procedural ones) before explaining the exception (unless jurisdiction is affected).

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• Some definitions (e.g., 'contact lobbyist,' 'expenditure lobbyist') could be separated into numbered subsections or bullet points for clarity rather than embedded in long prose paragraphs with multiple conditions and exceptions.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The phrase 'engaged in the practice of law under the California State Bar Act' could simply say 'licensed attorneys' for clarity, since the specific code reference (Business and Professions Code sections 6000 et seq.) is technical and unnecessary for a typical reader.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The second sentence repeats the meaning of the first with excessive redundancy (listing 'section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion' twice in one sentence); it could be streamlined without losing legal effect.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• Subsection (f) references an external Charter provision by number only; adding a parenthetical note describing the general subject (e.g., 'advisory opinions') would help non-lawyers understand the Commission's advisory role without cross-referencing another document.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The eleven separate pledges could be reorganized into broader categories (truthfulness, anti-discrimination, anti-corruption, conflict-of-interest avoidance) to make the underlying principles clearer to consultants and the public.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The section contains a typo ('FILLING' instead of 'FILING') in subsection (a), and the nested structure with parallel 90- and 120-day lead-time requirements could be streamlined for clarity.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The rule could be clearer if it explicitly stated upfront how many positions fall into Category 2 versus Category 1, and whether there are any Category 3 or higher categories elsewhere in the code.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The section could clarify whether 'installing or maintaining security systems' applies only to museum-related systems or any such business, and define 'foreseeably do business' with a clearer standard.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The table repeats "Disclosure Categories" as a header and lists "1" for every single position; the content could be more concisely stated as 'All designated positions below are in disclosure category 1' followed by a simple list of job titles.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The table format mixes designated positions with their disclosure categories in a way that could be clearer; it would benefit from a straightforward two-column layout or brief narrative to reduce parsing difficulty.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The rule could be clearer if it specified the actual categories of goods and services the Department purchases (e.g., legal services, office equipment, support software) rather than the generic phrase 'of the type used by the Department.'

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The section presents only headings and categories (Designated Positions, Disclosure Categories, Members) without showing the actual content, making it impossible to understand the substantive details of committee composition and requirements.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The phrase 'which provides, or contracts with the City and County of San Francisco and its Civil Service Commission to provide, services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment' is redundant and could be streamlined for clarity.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The disclosure requirement could be stated more simply by leading with 'If you initiate or approve Prop Q purchases for the Controller's Office, disclose all relevant business interests and income from entities doing business with the office' before listing the affected positions.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The layout repeats the column headers twice, making the table confusing; a cleaner format would improve clarity without changing substance.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The Category 2 definition uses nested parentheses and multiple conjunctions ('or provides... or provided or sought') that could be restructured for clarity.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The section could clarify what 'Disclosure Categories' and 'category 1' actually require; readers unfamiliar with San Francisco's financial disclosure system will not understand the practical obligation.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The two identical column headers 'Designated Positions' and 'Disclosure Categories' appear twice in the table structure, creating unnecessary confusion; a clearer table format would improve readability.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The definitions of Categories 2 and 3 could be clearer about why certain positions trigger broader disclosure requirements, and the criteria for assigning positions to categories could be made more explicit.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The section title and structure suggest it exists primarily to classify Parking Authority members as Disclosure Category 1 positions; the text could be clearer about what 'Disclosure Category 1' actually requires (such as what financial information must be disclosed).

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The section is extremely brief and could be clearer by explaining what 'Disclosure Category 1' means or referring readers to where that standard is defined in the Municipal Code.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The Category 2 definition could be broken into bullet points or shorter sentences listing distinct types of interests (property leases, service contracts, equipment supplies, etc.) rather than one compound sentence.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The table contains several duplicate position titles (e.g., 'Senior Portfolio Manager' and 'Director' appear twice), which creates unnecessary confusion about which disclosure category actually applies.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The table repeats the header 'Designated Positions' and 'Disclosure Categories' twice, making the format confusing; a cleaner layout would improve clarity without changing the rule.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The routing requirement (file with Ethics Commission, which transmits to FPPC) could be stated more directly; the current phrasing is slightly circular and could confuse readers about who actually keeps the final records.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The phrase 'No error, irregularity, informality, neglect or omission' could be shortened to 'minor procedural errors' without losing meaning, and the double negative structure ('shall not avoid the effect') could be stated positively.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The distinction between 'contact' and 'request for information' could be clearer—the phrase 'as long as the request does not include any attempt to influence' is somewhat circular.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The exception clause in subsection (a) is lengthy and could be clearer—it might benefit from a separate, numbered subsection to distinguish the permissible reference-letter activity from the main prohibition.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The definition of 'management and control' in subsection (c)(2) could be more clearly presented—the five-part list mixes objective criteria (officer/director status) with subjective ones ('exercises management or control'), which could be confusing in application.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The carve-out in subsection (c) regarding public property could be stated more clearly—it is somewhat unclear whether this exception applies broadly or only in narrow circumstances.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The definition of 'member of a board or commission' in subsection (b) explicitly excludes Board of Supervisors members, which could be stated more clearly upfront rather than as a carve-out.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The definition of 'greeting card' is quite narrow ('celebrates or recognizes a holiday') but the Controller has unchecked discretion to interpret whether a payment violates the rule, creating potential ambiguity about what cards are actually prohibited.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The definition of 'Major project' could be clearer by frontloading the $1 million threshold and EIR requirement before listing the types of construction activities that qualify.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The definitions of "improper government activity" and "unlawful activity" are nearly identical except for one clause difference; consolidating or clarifying their distinct purposes would reduce ambiguity.

Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

• The double-negative phrasing ('not assuming, nor is it imposing...an obligation for breach of which it is liable') could be restated more directly as 'The City is not liable for money damages from enforcement of this Chapter.'

Charter

• The rule about what counts as a 'full term' for term-limit purposes is scattered across three separate conditions (mid-term appointment, over-two-years rule, and resignation rule) and could be consolidated for clarity.

Charter

• The distinction between the 24-hour notice requirement for unspecified special meetings and the 15-day requirement for out-of-City-Hall special meetings could be clearer about which rule applies in which circumstance.

Charter

• The exception structure ('Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.107' and repeated 'except' clauses) could be reorganized to clearly state the standard rule first, then list exceptions in a single place.

Charter

• The section could more clearly define what constitutes a qualifying 'public emergency' beyond the current broad language, to reduce uncertainty about when emergency procedures may be invoked.

Charter

• The phrase 'a part of a term that exceeds two years' could be clearer; stating 'any partial term longer than two years' or 'more than half a four-year term' would reduce ambiguity for readers.

Charter

• The exception clause about Airport, Port, Public Utilities and Public Transportation Commissions appears twice (items 3 and 9) and could be consolidated into a single statement to reduce redundancy.

Charter

• The term-setting language (describing specific expiration years for members beginning in 2011 and 2013) is dated and could be simplified by describing the general rule more clearly without the grandfathered exceptions.

Charter

• The section uses outdated singular pronouns ('He or she') and could be streamlined by consolidating the parallel appointment language for the two positions into a single structure.

Charter

• The phrase 'amounts sufficient to efficiently administer' is vague; clearer language could specify whether this means covering actual costs, a percentage of payroll, or another metric.

Charter

• The phrase 'entails no expense for the City and County beyond ordinary care and maintenance' is vague and could benefit from clearer definition of what constitutes 'ordinary' versus extraordinary costs.

Charter

• The section defines 'majority vote' and 'two-thirds vote' in terms of members present at a meeting, which differs from typical parliamentary language and could be stated more simply upfront.

Charter

• The phrase 'As of the operative date of this Charter and until this requirement is changed by the Board of Supervisors' is bureaucratic boilerplate that could be simplified to just state the current rule clearly.

Charter

• The ZONING ADMINISTRATOR subsection lists five enumerated findings (a–e) that appear duplicative; conditions (c), (d), and (e) could be consolidated into a single statement about avoiding harm and supporting the zoning plan's intent without loss of substance.

Charter

• The July 1, 2002 transition language in subsection (a)(1) is now 20+ years old and could be streamlined or removed entirely since initial terms have long since been established.

Charter

• The phrase 'pursuant to Section 3.100' is unexplained and may confuse readers; stating the appointment mechanism plainly (e.g., 'as specified in the Charter') would improve clarity.

Charter

• The reference to Sections 4.102, 4.103, and 4.104 for the Commission's powers requires readers to look elsewhere in the Code; a brief inline summary of key powers would improve clarity.

Charter

• The section mixes governance structure (the Commission), removal procedures (referencing Section 15.105), concurrent service permissions, and operational duties into one dense block; separating these topics would improve clarity for lay readers.

Charter

• The rule could clarify whether the student representative counts toward the seven members or is additional, since state law requirements may not be immediately clear to readers.

Charter

• The phrase 'in accordance with state law' regarding the student representative is vague and could specify what that role entails or reference the relevant state statute for clarity.

Charter

• The phrase 'on a present value basis, calculated as provided by ordinance' is vague and cross-references another ordinance without explaining what calculation method governs the savings determination; clearer guidance in this section would help readers understand what 'net debt service savings' means.

Charter

• The eight numbered subsections could be grouped by theme (e.g., mission/goals, programs/activities, outcomes/metrics) to make the structure clearer without changing the requirement.

Charter

• The phrase 'recovered additional revenues measured by the difference between projected and experienced revenues' could be stated more directly as 'exceeded revenue projections.'

Charter

• The phrase 'on or before the operative date of this Charter and until this requirement is changed' is awkwardly conditional; clearer phrasing would directly state when the committee must be established and when it can be modified.

Charter

• The phrase 'Civil Service Commission which is charged with the duty of providing qualified persons for appointment to the service of the City and County' could be more directly stated as 'to recruit and recommend qualified candidates for city jobs.'

Charter

• The 'General municipal election' definition includes an outdated reference to 2022 ('until and including 2022') which is now in the past and could be simplified to just state the current rule without the historical transition.

Charter

• The section uses 'City and County' (the formal name of San Francisco's government) and 'reimbursement' language that could be simplified to 'the city' and 'pay back' for clarity without losing meaning.

Charter

• The phrase 'except as provided for by ordinance or this Charter' creates ambiguity about priority (does the Charter override an ordinance, or vice versa); clarifying the hierarchy would improve clarity.

Charter

• The section lists ballot categories (voted, unused, spoiled, cancelled, absentee, provisional) in a way that could be streamlined; the distinction between some categories and their relevance to the public posting could be clarified.

Charter

• The rule could be clearer about the specific deadline (why 'immediately prior' rather than a fixed date) and whether the signature option applies to all fee types or just candidate filings.

Charter

• Providing simple maps or a reference table showing which neighborhoods belong to each district would make this information far more accessible than the current narrative format of detailed street sequences.

Charter

• This section is merely a list of subsection headings with no substantive content; readers would benefit from direct links to or brief descriptions of what each subsection actually requires, rather than bare titles.

Charter

• Several subsections (e.g., (a), (b), (c)) could be streamlined by consolidating similar services or clarifying whether the 'and other similar services' language creates open-ended categories or merely illustrative examples.

Charter

• Subsection (f) could be clearer by separating the two distinct rules it contains—one about non-primary-use facilities and another specifically about recreation, parks, libraries, hospitals, and housing.

Charter

• The phrase 'Subject to the budgetary and fiscal provisions of the Charter' is standard boilerplate that could be moved to a general administrative section rather than repeated in each funding section.

Charter

• The phrase 'where appropriate' is vague and leaves undefined when competitive solicitation is required versus optional, which could lead to inconsistent application.

Charter

• The definition of 'Maintenance' could be shortened; the detailed list of routine maintenance items (watering, weeding, trash removal, etc.) could be grouped more simply without losing meaning.

Charter

• The reference structure ("Charter of 1932, as recodified in 1971, and as amended as of December 31, 1995") could be simplified to a single clear date or document identifier for modern readers.

Charter

• The final paragraph listing dozens of departments and functions under the City Administrator could be clearer with a structured list or reference to a schedule rather than a comma-separated string.

Charter

• The section's heavy reliance on an external 1969 agreement (not quoted in the Code itself) creates ambiguity about what 'control and manage' actually means in practice; quoting key terms or summarizing the agreement's core duties would improve clarity.

Charter

• The section does not define what 'staggered terms' means or specify the duration of each term, leaving ambiguity about how the Mayor should actually implement this requirement.

Charter

• The text contains incomplete section citations in subsection (a) (blank spaces where section numbers should be), which obscures what is actually being repealed and should be corrected for clarity.

Charter

• The phrase 'shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing power' is legal jargon that could be stated more directly as 'can be removed at any time by the person who appointed them.'

Charter

• The phrase 'It is the policy of the City and County that the Agency exercise all powers vested by State law in the Parking Authority' could be stated more directly as 'The Agency has full parking authority powers under state law.'

Charter

• The 1971 service-level baseline is outdated and may be difficult to administer or verify; using a current reference date or percentage-based standard could be clearer.

Subdivision Code

• The phrase 'the most restrictive shall prevail' in (c) is vague and could be clearer by specifying which rules take priority in common dispute scenarios.

Subdivision Code

• The nested subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) both address five-or-more-parcel subdivisions using exceptions language that could be consolidated more clearly.

Subdivision Code

• Subsection (c) could be clearer by explicitly defining which parties are subject to which penalties, since the list of potential violators (subdivider, agent, successor, tenant, purchaser, builder, contractor, etc.) is long and the relationship between each and criminal liability is not always obvious.

Subdivision Code

• Subsection (a) repeats 'unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective' multiple times; the phrase could appear once with a defined term for clarity and brevity.

Subdivision Code

• Subsection (d) is a long, conditional sentence that could be restructured for clarity; it combines multiple exceptions and scenarios in one dense passage.

Subdivision Code

• The repeated phrase 'this Code or the SMA' appears nine times; consolidating it into a defined term would improve readability without changing meaning.

Subdivision Code

• The section uses outdated gendered language ('his staff') that could be modernized to neutral pronouns like 'their staff' for clarity and inclusivity.

Subdivision Code

• Subsections (l) and (m) on low-income and moderate-income housing use identical formulas for relating apartment size to household size; consolidating this rule would reduce repetition and improve clarity.

Subdivision Code

• Subsections (e) and (f) are marked 'Intentionally left blank,' which adds no value; removing them would streamline the section without affecting substance.

Subdivision Code

• The section is largely procedural cross-referencing; it could more directly state what an Application Packet is and what it must contain rather than deferring entirely to other sections.

Subdivision Code

• Subsection (c) cross-references the Subdivision Regulations for 'detailed format and contents,' but the specific requirements are not stated here; repeating key format standards in this section would improve clarity.

Subdivision Code

• The section could be clearer about what 'complete' means (e.g., by cross-reference to submission requirements) and whether 'Public Record' invokes specific disclosure rules under state law.

Subdivision Code

• The phrase 'other appropriate government agencies' is vague and could be clarified by listing the specific agencies expected to receive copies or defining what makes an agency 'appropriate' in this context.

Subdivision Code

• The phrase 'shall 30 days' appears to be missing a verb (likely 'be'); correcting this would improve clarity without changing the meaning.

Subdivision Code

• The section could be clearer about the timeline for submitting these reports and what happens if agencies disagree or fail to report.

Subdivision Code

• The phrase 'or after expiration of the review time limits or any mutually agreed extension thereof' is wordy; it could be streamlined to 'or after the review deadline (or extended deadline)' for clarity without loss of meaning.

Subdivision Code

• The section could be condensed into a single rule with a single timeline or clearer conditional language, since the only substantive difference between subsections (a) and (b) is the submission deadline (4 vs. 5 days) and recipient details.

Subdivision Code

• The provision about extending the initial period if the city takes more than 30 days to process a grading permit application could be stated more directly rather than buried in a parenthetical within Subsection (b)(1).

Subdivision Code

• Subsection (f) invokes two distinct purposes (traffic safety and crime deterrence) for street lighting; the code could be clearer about whether both purposes must be satisfied or if one suffices.

Subdivision Code

• The repeated phrase 'as it may be amended from time to time' throughout subsection (c) could be consolidated into a single note rather than appearing after every code citation.

Subdivision Code

• Subsection (b) assigns maintenance of landscaping to property owners but street tree maintenance to public works standards; clarifying whether property owners or the city maintains street trees would reduce ambiguity.

Subdivision Code

• The section could clarify what 'exclusive use' means in practice (e.g., whether property owners retain any rights or access over the easement area) and specify the physical scope or width of typical easements.

Subdivision Code

• The requirement to maintain records 'in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations' is vague without cross-reference; clarifying what specific records and format are needed would improve usability.

Subdivision Code

• The section does not define which improvements are required or what the improvement bond terms and amount should be; readers must cross-reference other sections to understand the full scope of obligations.

Subdivision Code

• Subsection (d) about specifications supplementing Standard Specifications is vague and could be clearer about what 'specifications' means and when they are required versus optional.

Subdivision Code

• The section could clarify what 'extended' means—specifically, who grants the extension, by what process, and whether there are limits on extension duration.

Subdivision Code

• The phrase 'prior to recordation of the Final Map or Parcel Map' and the escrow/bond requirement could be stated more clearly for readers unfamiliar with real estate terminology.

Subdivision Code

• The section could clarify whether the 40 percent threshold applies to occupied units only, units with valid leases, or all deed-restricted units, as the language about renewable lifetime leases adds calculation complexity.

Subdivision Code

• Subsection (c) could be clearer if the sequence—immediate rent-freeze option, then post-conversion lease terms, then elderly/disabled protections—were laid out as separate, numbered pathways rather than as a dense paragraph.

Subdivision Code

• The phrase 'those parties who lease a unit subsequent to the date of filing the application for conversion' in section (c) could be stated more directly as 'tenants who move in after the application is filed.'

Subdivision Code

• The phrase 'said application may not be resubmitted' could be clearer as 'the applicant cannot resubmit'; similarly, 'the applicant therefor' is awkward phrasing that could be simplified.

Subdivision Code

• The section could be clearer about what 'review' entails—it does not specify what data, metrics, or analysis the Department must include, leaving the standard somewhat open-ended.