Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SF Zoning Department rules that Workshop Cafe is an office, forcing it to close [pdf]

sfgov.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: SF Zoning Department rules that Workshop Cafe is an office, forcing it to close [pdf]

#71

Post by zip1234 »

oppositelock wrote: post #55
Lukeas14 wrote: post #52

I once spent an hour sitting in the SF planning office on Mission and it was the most eye opening experience in regards to the city's building issues. Most of the discussions are done in the open so you can hear the conversations between the planners and people looking to get permits. Almost every convo started with "...so your permit looks good but I won't approve it until you make [some irrelevant, arbitrary change…

It's not just SF, I sat in on some such meetings in Mountain View. It's petty tyrants in positions of power showing the plebes the extent of their authority. One of them even acknowledged that everything was up to code in a restaurant, but they wanted changes made anyway due to subjective aesthetics.

Almost every single zoning rule or HOA rule out there is based on subjective aesthetics without taking into account the immense tradeoffs.

Re: SF Zoning Department rules that Workshop Cafe is an office, forcing it to close [pdf]

#72

Post by brudgers »

Decade wrote: post #69
brudgers wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From reading the appeal, it appears a restaurant use is by right in that location.

You would imagine so, but every permit that does not have a state-level override (for example, SB-35 of 2017) is subject to discretion of the Planning Commission. Which is an unelected commission with members appointed by the mayor or the Board of Supervisors. Most permits go through anyway, because the Commission chooses not to involve itself in everything, but every permit can be appealed with an application for Di…

The Commission website is https://sfplanning.org/resource/discretionary-review

From my experience as a planner and subsequent experience as an architect, I infer that the discretionary review process tends to prevent injunctive delays via the courts. Conclusion of the quasi judicial discretionary review process exhausts due process while direct decision by the board makes overturn by a court highly unlikely because the board has statutory authority to make the decision to issue the permit. From a project development standpoint, the timeline is predictable so long as it accounts for the discretionary review process. If discretionary review doesn’t happen then the project will be ahead of schedule.

To put it another way, discretionary review tends to benefit professionals but will tend to upset those attending their first rodeo. As I mentioned elsewhere it’s often worth hiring a local real estate attorney experienced at working with the planning department.

Re: SF Zoning Department rules that Workshop Cafe is an office, forcing it to close [pdf]

#73

Post by asveikau »

Ohn0 wrote: post #65
buss wrote: post #63

If you're tired of shit like this, you gotta vote for people who want the city to be more tech-friendly and have sensible rules. In particular, vote for me ;) https://buss2020.org

You can't ban the ban's... they're the favorite way to virtue signal your higher morality from the top down.

I have to say, I am really tired of right wingers claiming every SF or other government or political policy they don't agree with is "virtue signalling". It is a lazy ad hominem which I don't find the least bit convicning.

Re: SF Zoning Department rules that Workshop Cafe is an office, forcing it to close [pdf]

#74

Post by wtvanhest »

kapuasuite wrote: post #56
wtvanhest wrote: post #6

I used Workshop Cafe a little and liked it, but I agree with the planning commission. All they were asking was for 2/3rds of the space to be available to the public. They could have made 1/3 reservable. They could have charged for wifi in the other 2/3rds or came up with other ideas.

Why does a business need to appease one agency or another for the privilege of operating? If it’s dangerous to have them in that location they should be prohibited - if it isn’t, they should be allowed to operate their business without preconditions. The purpose of zoning should be to minimize actual harm, not micromanage the local economy.

That is the point of zoning. If every coffee shop became paid only, there would be no coffee shops and the financial district would be a dead zone of offices.

It isn't a micromanage, it is the intended feature of zoning.

Re: SF Zoning Department rules that Workshop Cafe is an office, forcing it to close [pdf]

#75

Post by masonic »

Decade wrote: post #68
kapuasuite wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And somehow this all passes Constitutional muster...

Sadly, the racist Supreme Court under former President Taft ruled that the city does have pretty much unrestricted ability to interfere with what people do in their homes and businesses, as a police power. Euclid v. Ambler (1926) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Re... .

  the racist Supreme Court under former President Taft
It was a 6-3 decision, and one of the dissenters was, in fact, a Taft nominee.

Re: SF Zoning Department rules that Workshop Cafe is an office, forcing it to close [pdf]

#76

Post by masonic »

asveikau wrote: post #73
Ohn0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't ban the ban's... they're the favorite way to virtue signal your higher morality from the top down.

I have to say, I am really tired of right wingers claiming every SF or other government or political policy they don't agree with is "virtue signalling". It is a lazy ad hominem which I don't find the least bit convicning.

  It is a lazy ad hominem
As opposed to your "right wingers" appellation?

Re: SF Zoning Department rules that Workshop Cafe is an office, forcing it to close [pdf]

#77

Post by asveikau »

masonic wrote: post #76
asveikau wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to say, I am really tired of right wingers claiming every SF or other government or political policy they don't agree with is "virtue signalling". It is a lazy ad hominem which I don't find the least bit convicning.

It is a lazy ad hominem As opposed to your "right wingers" appellation?

It is as far as I know an accurate description of who is doing this. I don't personally see a lot of centrists and leftists complaining about virtue signalling in non sequiturs to preemptively dismiss an idea or policy, or save them from thinking about why one might hold a position in good faith.

Re: SF Zoning Department rules that Workshop Cafe is an office, forcing it to close [pdf]

#78

Post by true_religion »

asveikau wrote: post #73
Ohn0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't ban the ban's... they're the favorite way to virtue signal your higher morality from the top down.

I have to say, I am really tired of right wingers claiming every SF or other government or political policy they don't agree with is "virtue signalling". It is a lazy ad hominem which I don't find the least bit convicning.

Virtue signaling can be a lot of things. It can be insisting that a bike be painted shale blue to prove that you have a trendy sense of aesthetics.

On a side note, I’m surprised you are calling out the right wing for being anti virtue signaling. In my opinion, people who name themselves the Moral Majority are the biggest virtue signallers of them all.

Re: SF Zoning Department rules that Workshop Cafe is an office, forcing it to close [pdf]

#79

Post by asveikau »

true_religion wrote: post #78
asveikau wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to say, I am really tired of right wingers claiming every SF or other government or political policy they don't agree with is "virtue signalling". It is a lazy ad hominem which I don't find the least bit convicning.

Virtue signaling can be a lot of things. It can be insisting that a bike be painted shale blue to prove that you have a trendy sense of aesthetics. On a side note, I’m surprised you are calling out the right wing for being anti virtue signaling. In my opinion, people who name themselves the Moral Majority are the biggest virtue signallers of them all.

Personally, these days when I see the term at all, it's usually a right wing complaint that nobody really cares about wealth disparity, the environment, equality among races creeds and gender, etc., but that any time anybody expresses support for any of these things it is "virtue signalling" and not an actual concern.

Re: SF Zoning Department rules that Workshop Cafe is an office, forcing it to close [pdf]

#80

Post by Ohn0 »

true_religion wrote: post #78
asveikau wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to say, I am really tired of right wingers claiming every SF or other government or political policy they don't agree with is "virtue signalling". It is a lazy ad hominem which I don't find the least bit convicning.

Virtue signaling can be a lot of things. It can be insisting that a bike be painted shale blue to prove that you have a trendy sense of aesthetics. On a side note, I’m surprised you are calling out the right wing for being anti virtue signaling. In my opinion, people who name themselves the Moral Majority are the biggest virtue signallers of them all.

It's one thing to wear a pin on your sleeve, but it's another thing to use the force of gvt to attempt to enforce morality, by banning things deemed "not good" like vapes, private cafeterias, plastic bags, straws, etc..

On a side note, trying to put a label into one or two buckets is very short sighted.

Post reply on HN