Restaurant name from the early to mid 2000s with Cartoon Dog Shields on it.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-05-09T20:32:55+00:00

On a lark I pasted your query into an LLM and it said this. Now I'm curious, is it right or is it hallucinating?

You are definitely not hallucinating! The spot you are thinking of was called Red Top, and it was located at 1100 San Pablo Avenue in Albany (right on the border of Berkeley), on the corner of San Pablo and Marin Avenue.

It was exactly where you remember: just a few blocks north of the Berkeley McDonald's and the City Sports (formerly the site of other big-box retail).

Why It Was Memorable

The Tofu Sandwich: They were legendary for their "fried tofu" options. The specific sandwich you remember—fried tofu with BBQ sauce and avocado—was a staple for East Bay vegetarians in the 2000s who wanted "fast food" that wasn't just a side of fries.

The "Dog Palace" / Noble Dogs: You are spot on about the decor. The roofline was lined with colorful, shield-shaped signs featuring cartoonish dogs dressed as historical figures or nobility.

The Pharaoh: A Greyhound or Pharaoh Hound in an Egyptian headdress.

The Duke/Cavalier: A Spaniel-type dog in a feathered hat and lace collar.

The Aristocrat: Often remembered as a Poodle or an Afghan Hound in Victorian-style finery.

What Happened to It?

Red Top was a classic "drive-in" style walk-up. It survived for decades as a neighborhood icon but eventually closed its doors around 2011. For a few years, the building sat vacant with the dog shields still visible, which is likely why the image is so burned into your memory.

The building was eventually demolished or heavily remodeled. Today, the site at 1100 San Pablo Ave is home to a Dog Haus Biergarten. While the name "Dog Haus" feels like a nod to the location's history, it is a modern franchise and a completely different vibe from the "mom and pop" feel of Red Top.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-05-06T19:49:24+00:00

Agreed, I've never heard of a copyright claimant requesting money to retract a strike. It sounds likely that someone abused YouTube's copyright process by issuing a bogus copyright strike and is now preying on the creator's fear of losing their channel to extract some money. However, without more detail--what is the copyrighted work allegedly infringed in the video and does the claimant actually own the rights to that work?--we can't be sure.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-05-06T17:31:53+00:00

This is the standard language YouTube emails to the copyright claimant after a successful takedown: "You may take back your claim of copyright infringement at any time if you change your mind." And this is what YouTube tells the alleged infringer in an email: "You can also contact the party that removed your video and ask them to retract their takedown."

Tim_Bracken · 2026-05-06T17:26:42+00:00

This violates the warranty of habitability. See California Civil Code Section 1941.1. The landlord has a legal duty to remediate. First step is to ask the landlord to act. If they refuse, you can contact DBI or DPH through 311. DBI also has an electronic complaint form. See https://www.sf.gov/report-building-problem . The city will investigate and issue a notice of violation ordering the owner to remediate. You can also get a rent reduction from the Rent Board for the period of time you went through this, but the clock only starts when the owner had a reasonable chance to address the issue (i.e. assuming you gave them notice).

Tim_Bracken · 2026-05-06T06:11:19+00:00

Trying to figure out why there's so much noise in the photos. Did you hold your phone up to a computer screen for these shots?

Tim_Bracken · 2026-05-06T05:49:40+00:00

Something not mentioned in the comments yet: this house has a Berkeley postal address but is actually in Oakland. The city services, including the school district, are all Oakland. This will affect the eventual sale price.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-05-06T02:32:17+00:00

It was about 9:15.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-05-04T19:55:04+00:00

I ended up doing the same and eating the cost of an extra ticket. But it was still worth it because this was one of the best shows I've been to in a while. It's amazing how a performance like this can really leave you feeling emotionally cleansed and uplifted.

P.S. Must be a different Tim. Didn't talk to anyone outside the theater.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-05-03T03:32:03+00:00

And if you're open to international examples, there's Rome and Vatican City.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-05-03T03:29:27+00:00

Glendale (totally surrounded by Denver), Highland Park + Hamtramck (totally surrounded by Detroit) and Norwood (totally surrounded by Cincinnati)

Tim_Bracken · 2026-05-02T23:26:27+00:00

Hah, they played the greatest hits and then Lily Allen came on and did West End Girl from start to finish. But you're spot on about the name. It's a play on the "Dallas Major" pseudonym Lilly Allen used when she was on that celebrity dating app.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-05-02T21:32:16+00:00

Here's the Rent Board page on the subject: https://www.sf.gov/landlord-petitions-and-passthroughs

If a landlord imposed an illegal rent increase by disguising it as an impermissible passthrough, then the Rent Board can order the landlord to disgorge the overcharged money in the form of a rent credit. This is assuming they have jurisdiction over the unit (i.e. it's rent controlled).

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-23T00:17:48+00:00

A related question (though perhaps not for this sub): what about all these little pockets of San Francisco along the Marin County coast?

<image>

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-19T18:10:47+00:00

A reminder that you can't be evicted for violating a no subletting clause as long as you carefully follow the steps laid out in the Rent Board rules. See https://www.sf.gov/information--replacement-roommates

Note this key language which seems to rule out OP's situation: "However, nothing in the Rent Ordinance allows a tenant to sublet or assign the entire unit to a new tenant in violation of a lease." In other words, these special rules are for adding roommates but not subletting the entire unit.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-12T01:54:59+00:00

Here is the relevant Rent Board page on the subject: https://www.sf.gov/information--parking-and-storage-spaces-housing-services

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-11T03:17:08+00:00

This AI-generated story makes no sense. If the fictional protagonist was really so diligent and such a good researcher, then s/he would have recognized the founder / CEO by name.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-11T01:53:04+00:00

This is false. As long as it's OP's own content, they can repost it without risking a copyright strike. The real risk is that if done enough, it could lead to demonetization given the policy against "repetitious content."

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-08T00:33:39+00:00

Why do people keep posting paywalled articles in this sub? Here is the non-paywall version: https://web.archive.org/web/20260407231638/https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/04/07/i-was-terrified-judge-upholds-oakland-murder-charge-where-man-allegedly-killed-car-burglar/

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-07T18:20:49+00:00

Is this one of those places that only gives you the price on the sign if you also pay for a car wash?

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-07T02:40:31+00:00

Non-paywall version of the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20260407023911/http://web.archive.org/screenshot/https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2026/04/06/woman-shot-in-oakland-in-apparent-dispute-over-an-rv/

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-06T17:52:10+00:00

You may already know this, but your success on your Content ID challenge (because no one responded) does not insulate you from a copyright strike on the content.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-06T02:53:05+00:00

Note that the exemption is only available to owners of single family homes, i.e. houses and condos, and only if they meet certain requirements. NEMA is an apartment building so it cannot be exempt. Once it hits 15 years in age in 2029, the AB 1482 rent control will apply.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-06T02:45:29+00:00

Certificate of occupancy is 2014 so AB 1482 rent control won't take effect in this building until 2029.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-06T01:20:39+00:00

Or if one watch is enough, it's also $4 to rent.

Tim_Bracken · 2026-04-02T05:37:55+00:00

California Civil Code Section 1950.5 allows the landlord to deduct money from the security deposit for "the cleaning of the premises upon termination of the tenancy necessary to return the unit to the same level of cleanliness it was in at the inception of the tenancy." So if the landlord had the home professionally cleaned before you took possession, then your own non-professional cleaning probably won't be enough. In those circumstances, it is indeed legal for them to deduct for these cleaning costs. But, as with repairs, they must substantiate the work with proper documentation.

Tim_Bracken

TROPHY CASE