I thought the state indicated these local requirements are subjective and not in compliance with state laws. With AB2011, could BOS or discretionary reviews still stall or kill this project?

I don’t think so. It should get approved much more quickly than before. The only foreseeable obstacle which has proven to be a major one is for these projects to secure financing in these “challenging market conditions”.

Considering who the developer is...I'm not too worried.

I've got a gut feeling we might see this one rising before 50 Main

The updated specs for 530 Howard St:
- 72 floors, 844 ft
- 672 units (424 1BR, 180 2BR, 68 3BR)
- 68 of the units will be affordable
- Parking included for 149 cars and 456 bicycles

The site:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/bBKDZ974wwtX5vY28

https://sfyimby.com/2024/10/city-app...francisco.html

10/24/2024 - With the news that the developer of 30 Van Ness Avenue is meeting with the SF Planning Commission November 7 requesting to "no longer have on-site inclusionary affordable units", the change of the design for 10 South Van Ness, and then this Howard St. news is exciting to see anything happening with high rise. Hopefully we can see some construction in a couple of years. I need something new in my view!

I'm sure the big box design will get lots of pushback, but I think it looks nice overall and fits in with the skyline pretty well. We only have one other big box anyways (555 California) so its not like the skyline is unoriginal as is.

Ah yes, 555 California is iconic! It does look like a big box from far away, but up closer you can appreciate the texture from the bay window pattern a lot better. And with the carnelian granite cladding, it's actually a really high quality tower. And given its location on a hill, it does appear taller than it actually is, at a little over 800 ft rather than its 779 ft roof height would indicate.

Idk if this tower will be that intricate, but if they use high quality materials with some subtle texture (the skin sorta reminds me of JPMorgan Chase at 560 Mission St), it could still come out looking really nice, even if it does appear as a big box from far away. And at a height of 844 ft, it'll make quite an impact on the skyline as you mentioned and as rendered below.

https://sfyimby.com/wp-content/uploa...rd-Chilton.jpg

https://sfyimby.com/wp-content/uploa...rd-Chilton.jpg

https://sfyimby.com/wp-content/uploa...rd-Chilton.jpg

https://sfyimby.com/2024/10/city-app...francisco.html

And just for funsies a photo of 555 California:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...fb766aac_b.jpg
PC: homebucket

I thought this was rubber stamp development based on AB2011. We need to stop this nonsense of design by everyone. We have housing shortage. Who can pushback?