SAN FRANCISCO | 350 Mission | 455 FT | 30 FLOORS | U/C - Page 20

peanut gallery · #**381** Posted **Nov 18, 2015, 3:40 AM**

^That is a shame.

As I mentioned in another thread, I wish it was possible for Planning to adjust height limits to upzone other lots to make up for cases like this (and 535 Mission and a few others) where there is unused height. These taller sites are too few to let them go to waste.

tech12 · #**382** Posted **Nov 18, 2015, 4:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hruski

I thought they built it up to the approved limit (which was still below the zoning)

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure they got a second approval for an additional few stories that they had requested after the first approval...but then they decided not to add those extra stories.

fflint · #**383** Posted **Nov 18, 2015, 4:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure they got a second approval for an additional few stories that they had requested after the first approval...but then they decided not to add those extra stories.

That is also my recollection. They got a variance for essentially a few extra floors, but stopped short.

SFView · #**384** Posted **Nov 19, 2015, 1:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

^That is a shame.

As I mentioned in another thread, I wish it was possible for Planning to adjust height limits to upzone other lots to make up for cases like this (and 535 Mission and a few others) where there is unused height. These taller sites are too few to let them go to waste.

I was thinking this also, but zoning heights are tailored to suit each site's location in relation to its surroundings to the maximum height that currently makes sense. Transferring unused height credits from one site to another is usually not an easy fit without good reason to do so. We will have better reason to raise heights once the current building cycle is complete, but it most likely will have nothing to do with adding unused height from elsewhere.

peanut gallery · #**385** Posted **Nov 19, 2015, 6:15 AM**

Yeah, I realize it's not feasible. There's also the effect zoning has on the value of the property. Owners aren't going to be too happy having their value given to someone else. Just a lament of mine.

SFView · #**386** Posted **Nov 19, 2015, 8:34 AM**

^^^I still sympathize with you. Your lament is very understandable. At least the building looks about as good as it can be given all the circumstances. Too bad I probably may not really see it, unless I'm within half a block of it once everything is built up. Ignoring practicality, if it can only trade locations with Jasper...