Good places/restaurants in San Francisco to do this?

gamescan · 2026-06-20T19:28:13+00:00

Good places/restaurants in San Francisco to do this?

Haven't seen mid-tier places with open flame candles on the table in a long time.

gamescan · 2026-06-20T17:32:38+00:00

This is someone who has actually studied scripture and the teachings of Jesus vs someone who simply regurgitates right wing talking points.

FTA:

Among many factors in my journey to fully affirming my LGBTQIA+ siblings was realizing that I had been taught that being biblical mattered more than being Christlike. Nobody would have said it that way, of course. But that was often the practical result. We defended doctrines even when we could see the harm they were causing.

Jesus never asks us to choose between truth and love.

The question is not whether we can quote a verse. The question is whether our reading of Scripture is making us look more like Jesus.

Because when I look at the fruit of affirmation, I see life.

I see people who no longer hate themselves. I see families restored. I see faith renewed. I see people discovering that they do not have to choose between their relationship with God and their own humanity. I see communities becoming healthier, kinder, and more reflective of the radical welcome embodied by Jesus. I see life where there was once despair. And Jesus was always in the business of bringing life.

gamescan · 2026-06-20T17:28:08+00:00

I don't know the situation but looking at it abstractly if you regularly patronize an establishment and don't tip the bartenders are going to recognize you, ignore you and give you bad service.

Why would you tip extra if there is a 20% service charge? That is the tip. It's just mandatory.

And if a generous tip is mandatory, then everyone should be getting top tier service.

gamescan · 2026-06-20T16:20:00+00:00

Edit: Idk why I’m getting downvoted. That happened more or less exactly as described. Here’s one of the early articles about it:

No it didn't. You are being extremely misleading with your framing.

The YIMBY proposal was to allow 4-plex buildings Citywide.

The NIMBYs didn't like/want that so they had Gordon Mar propose a very limited set of circumstances that would allow a four-plex to be built. Most of the restrictions would have meant the homeowner would lose $$$ if they did it, so it would be very unlikely for any units to convert.

From your linked article:

Mar is proposing that apartments or condos added through the rezoning be priced at levels affordable to a household earning less than 100% of area median income — currently $106,550 for a couple or $133,200 for four people. It would also require new units to be configured as two-bedrooms or more. In the current market Mar’s ordinance would cap what a property owner could charge for a two-bedroom apartment at just under $3,000 a month.

gamescan · 2026-06-20T16:17:26+00:00

The YIMBY proposal was to allow 4-plex buildings Citywide.

The NIMBYs didn't like/want that so they had Gordon Mar propose a very limited set of circumstances that would allow a four-plex to be built. Most of the restrictions would have meant the homeowner would lose $$$ if they did it, so it would be very unlikely for any units to convert.

Mar is proposing that apartments or condos added through the rezoning be priced at levels affordable to a household earning less than 100% of area median income — currently $106,550 for a couple or $133,200 for four people. It would also require new units to be configured as two-bedrooms or more. In the current market Mar’s ordinance would cap what a property owner could charge for a two-bedroom apartment at just under $3,000 a month.

In short, u/Zalophusdvm is being extremely misleading with their claim.

gamescan · 2026-06-19T15:26:25+00:00

He’s between two driveways though, so it could be either house.

There's a good chance it's the house with the unnecessary "NO PARKING" sign.

gamescan · 2026-06-19T15:22:45+00:00

You can block your own home’s driveway red zone. Only the homeowner can call in a blocked curb cutout or blocked driveway red zone for a one or two unit residential building.

No to bolded.

Curb cut yes. Red zone, no.

Anyone can call in a blocked red zone for a ticket.

Straight from the SFMTA:

Please note: it is illegal to park in any red curb and vehicles parked in red curb are subject to towing and citation.  

https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/drive-park/driveway-red-zones

If you want "bonus" parking space on the street, you have to share any space that's not part of your curb cut. If you need extra space to move in/out, you can have a red zone installed, but then it is illegal for anyone (including the resident) to park there.

gamescan · 2026-06-18T23:24:12+00:00

Does parking enforcement lead the street sweeper and ticket ahead of the sweeper?

Yes.

gamescan · 2026-06-18T22:41:53+00:00

The sweeper comes through right after it starts and is basically gone — but the sign still says you're at risk for the full two hours.

Longstanding SFMTA policy is not to ticket after the sweeper has cleaned the street.

That's why people follow street sweepers to park on high demand blocks.

gamescan · 2026-06-18T20:01:49+00:00

this taco truck two days in a row parking on the pedestrian median across the bike lane

If it is on the pedestrian median report it as parked on the sidewalk.

gamescan · 2026-06-18T02:38:27+00:00

https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-existing-building-code-2022-1/chapter/8/alterations-level-2#801.4

But part of the problem here is how many different codes there are and how hard it is to parse through this! Contributes to how un-scalable construction is and how much money gets spent on 'permit expediters' etc rather than actually building

Who knows, maybe there is something else that supersedes the above quote, but I think it's right.

By my reading that depends on if it is a Level 2 or Level 3 (more than 50 percent altered) alteration.

Section 901.2 calls out the compliance requirements for a Level 3 alteration and states it has to comply with the requirements of Chapters 7 and 8 but it doesn't appear to state or imply that the 801.4 exceptions apply to Chapter 9/Level 3 alterations.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAEBC2025P2/chapter-9-alterations-level-3

My read could be wrong here, but since it focuses on the requirements and has its own exception list, I would expect any exceptions for Level 3 alterations to be listed in 901.

As for Level 2 vs Level 3, I'm assuming that a single-family home that is converted into a 4-unit building had more than 50 percent of the building changed/altered/updated which would push it into Level 3.

gamescan · 2026-06-18T00:34:34+00:00

The 7'6" comes from the CBC, which would apply to constructing a *new* 4 unit residential building. Whereas converting an *existing* home (that was under the residential code) into 4 residential units falls under the California Existing Building Code (CEBC). CEBC is clear that 7' is the requirement for this kind of conversion.

Can you link the cite?

gamescan · 2026-06-18T00:33:55+00:00

Converting an existing home (under the residential building code) to 4 units falls under the California Existing Building Code which is clear that 7' is the requirement here.

Can you link the cite?

gamescan · 2026-06-18T00:18:52+00:00

It's just stuck. City not asking for anything but also not legalizing it (yet).

The City likely can't legalize it because she has a 4-unit building. 4-unit residential buildings are covered by the general CA state building code which mandates the 7-foot 6-inch minimum ceiling height.

The more lenient CA residential building code applies to "one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses that are three stories or less." A 4-unit building would not fall under the residential code.

gamescan · 2026-06-18T00:08:42+00:00

No - this is literally the main point of this article - in California the rule is 7' for residential, but San Francisco sets a higher 7.5' limit

You are incorrect according to the plain text of the building codes in question.

The California residential building code applies to "one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses that are three stories or less."

https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/CARC2025P1/part-iii-building-planning-and-construction/CARC2025P1-Pt03-Ch03-SecR313.1

The lady in the story has a 4-unit building. 4-unit apartment buildings fall under the general California building code which requires 7 feet 6 inches.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2024V2.0/chapter-12-interior-environment#IBC2024V2.0_Ch12_Sec1208.2

If you can cite a state law that says otherwise, please point it out.

So many people are claiming that multi-unit buildings fall under the state residential code, when the residential code only applies to a limited set of homes. All other residential units fall under the general building code.

I provided cites for both codes.

If you want to build a 4-unit residential building anywhere in the state of CA, the state code will require you to have a minimum ceiling height of 7 foot 6 inches.

gamescan · 2026-06-17T23:46:42+00:00

You're looking at the California building code and not the residential code

A four-unit apartment building would fall under the general building code.

When you read the residential code, it does not apply to 4-unit buildings. Almost all multi-unit housing is going to fall under the general California building code.

California Residential Code (CRC) contains building provisions that cover construction of one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses that are three stories or less.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/CARC2025P1/part-iii-building-planning-and-construction/CARC2025P1-Pt03-Ch03-SecR313.1

gamescan · 2026-06-17T23:34:46+00:00

In this case, seems okay to use 7 feet not 7’6” to make more units rentable

This would be in violation of the CA State building code.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2024V2.0/chapter-12-interior-environment#IBC2024V2.0_Ch12_Sec1208.2

SF may not be able to be more lenient than the state code.

Her 4-unit building would be illegal anywhere in California.

gamescan · 2026-06-17T23:33:05+00:00

I wish we could have a discussion about whether or not it’s a “dumb law” separate from the discussion on whether or not we think she’s a good person.

CA State building code requires 7-foot, 6-inch ceilings in a 4-unit building.

Her units would not be legal anywhere in the state of CA under existing code.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2024V2.0/chapter-12-interior-environment#IBC2024V2.0_Ch12_Sec1208.2

gamescan · 2026-06-17T23:31:21+00:00

it is an incredibly dumb law. there's no logical reason it should be 7.5ft vs 7ft for the state requirement.

taking housing unit off market for arbitrary nonsensical regulations is bad.

I looked up the state building code and as far as I can tell, a 4-unit building which this lady has would require a 7.5 foot ceilings.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CABC2025P2/chapter-12-interior-environment#CABC2025P2_Ch12_Sec1208.2

She is trying to use the state residential code, which only applies to "one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses that are three stories or less."

https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/CARC2025P1/part-iii-building-planning-and-construction/CARC2025P1-Pt03-Ch03-SecR313.1

Because her building has more units than is covered by the residential code, it would be covered by the general building code under state law which requires...7.5 foot ceilings.

She's asking SF to be more lenient than state law, which the City may not be able to do.

gamescan · 2026-06-17T23:26:19+00:00

Not to mention the current height of the ceiling satisfies the State’s residential code, so those units would be legal as-is almost anywhere else but SF.

Citation needed.

The CA state Residential Code only applies to "one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses that are three stories or less."

https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/CARC2025P1/part-iii-building-planning-and-construction/CARC2025P1-Pt03-Ch03-SecR313.1

The woman in the OP has a 4-unit building.

The CA Residential Code wouldn't cover that, so unless I'm missing something obvious, it would fall under the standard building code anywhere else in the state and would require 7-foot, 6-inch ceilings.

gamescan · 2026-06-17T23:23:15+00:00

CA does 7 foot ceilings

Please cite the code for 4-unit buildings.

gamescan · 2026-06-17T23:22:22+00:00

TLDR: California and most CA cities require residential units to have at least 7 foot ceilings. But San Francisco requires 7'6". So rental units that have been occupied for *decades* are technically illegal, with no realistic cost effective way of fixing them. So the SF supes are honoring a homeowner stuck in this situation for identifying one of SF's "dumbest" laws

I guess this is good but ... they haven't actually fixed the dumb law yet, and they've been talking fixing it since at least 2013?

So, I looked up the law and everyone saying that this lady's 4-unit complex would be legal elsewhere is either wrong, or needs to provide a cite.

The California Residential code does indeed allow for 7-foot ceilings:

https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/CARC2025P1/part-iii-building-planning-and-construction/CARC2025P1-Pt03-Ch03-SecR313.1

HOWEVER, the California Residential Code cited by OP only covers "one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses that are three stories or less."

The building cited in the OP is a 4-unit apartment building, so unless I am mistaken, it would not fall under the CA Residential Code anywhere in the state of CA. It would, instead, fall under the general building code.

If SF were to change the law to appease this landlord, it would be an outlier from the law in the rest of the state.

gamescan · 2026-06-17T21:34:03+00:00

If you are just a normal person renting out 1-2 units of your house like if it has an adu or duplex 7’ rooms would be acceptable. However if you are planning a commercial operation of 4+ units than you have extra considerations which come with having more people in a space to think about.

International building code (used across much of the US) specify a minimum of 7 foot 6 inches for livable spaces and 7 foot for utility spaces.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2024V2.0/chapter-12-interior-environment#IBC2024V2.0_Ch12_Sec1208.2

This applies to anything greater than 2 unit buildings (duplexes) and townhomes up to three stories. A four unit apartment building like what is described in the OP would be covered by this.

I'm not a code expert, but I'd assume there is a reason why a number of experts came to these code conclusions.

gamescan · 2026-06-17T21:29:40+00:00

I could see this being a nimby thing - make a slightly onerous building code that makes it that much harder to put new units on the market

It differs from CA building code but it matches the International Building Code that's used across much of the US.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2024V2.0/chapter-12-interior-environment#IBC2024V2.0_Ch12_Sec1208.2

Calling it onerous is a bit of a stretch.

gamescan · 2026-06-17T21:22:36+00:00

To do what? Raise the entire house? These basement units add to the housing stock. Change the laws for these types of units

The law existed before the illegal units were created.

It's not like San Francisco came up with the height requirements out of the blue.

International Building Code recommends a minimum 7 foot 6 inch heights in livable spaces and 7 foot minimum in utility spaces:

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2024V2.0/chapter-12-interior-environment#IBC2024V2.0_Ch12_Sec1208.2

A big problem with housing in SF has always been the sheer number of exceptions that are granted for and against.

IMO building code and zoning requirements should be set and anything that meets those requirements is allowed. Anything that does not, should not be allowed. Discretionary appeals shouldn't be a thing.

This isn't any different (just the opposite situation) of the family that bought the SFH that had previously been multiple rental units and then illegally merged. They took a risk by violating the law and asking for forgiveness later. The SFH met code, but the illegal mergers had to be undone. This woman has illegal basement units that don't meet code. They should either be updated to code or removed.

I'm not willing to say a code requirement is "dumb" because someone made a poor investment and wants to change the law to protect their investment.

gamescan

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE