[mthd]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Quoting from the BizTimes: ". . . the smaller project (at 550 ft) is code compliant according to company officials."

If you feel otherwise, please explain why, but I somehow believe with the amount of time and money these people have riding on this they know what they are talking about. And I can't imagine why they would dissemble about it to the BizTimes.

The S Height and Bulk Zone requirements are only *part* of the story. On many projects, especially office projects, the governing factor is the FAR limit.

From section 123 of the planning code :

(a) The limits upon the floor area ratio of buildings, as defined by this Code, shall be as stated in this Section and Sections 124 through 128. The maximum floor area ratio for any building or development shall be equal to the sum of the basic floor area ratio for the district, as set forth in Section 124, plus any premiums and floor area transfers which are applicable to such building or development under Sections 125, 127 and 128, and as restricted by the provisions of Sections 123(c) and (d) and 124(b) and(j).

The basic floor area ratio for this site is 9.0:1. (table 124 in the planning code)

The maximum floor area ratio can be increased through the use of TDRs but is limited as follows :

(c) The amount of TDR that may be transferred to a development lot, as allowed by Section 128, is limited as follows:
(1) The gross floor area of a structure on a lot in the C-3-O and C-3-O (SD) Districts may not exceed a floor area ratio of 18 to 1

The site in this case (block 3710, lot 017) is 18,905 square feet. That gives them 340,290 square feet plus all the things which are exempt - parking and loading up to 7% of the FAR, ground floor circulation, mechanical spaces, ground floor retail spaces up to 5,000sf each, etc etc. If you (very) generously tack on 20% to the above grade area you're at 400,000 square feet, which suggests a building of about 25 stories on this site. Of course it's theoretically possible that they would build a 400,000 square foot 40 story, 550 foot building on this site (and it would be perfectly code compliant) but it would be extraordinarily (almost comically) inefficient, difficult to lease, and totally unprecedented.

This is how projects in San Francisco have always gone since the current interpretation of FAR in the planning code, and it's why the proposed 'unlimited height / unlimited FAR' district is so revolutionary. Why do you think 560 mission street, 101 second street, and 555 mission street are all about so very far under their height limits? It's not because of a lack of creativity on the part of Pelli, SOM, and KPF, respectively - it's because of the FAR limits... and it's worth noting that those projects had significantly more site area to work with.

We'll just have to wait and see what the architect they select (they've just begun interviewing potential teams, so it's not like there is a design yet) comes up with, but unless they have some other way around the FAR limits of the current zoning this is not going to be a 550 foot tall building.