HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    350 Mission Street in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 4:52 AM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,450
I spoke too soon...was too excited to possibly see this one "officially" start on SSP (even though this is one of the most official projects in the country at this point - fully leased and financed with major excavation mostly done.

So 1 construction guy said 20 more feet of excavation, and another then said 12.
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2013, 10:25 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 613
The Planning Department website has the latest PDF for the proposed height increase. It's on the agenda to be approved this Thursday, 8/15.

It confirms everything I posted before, that it will be 30 floors, or 33 if some numbers are skipped:

     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2013, 8:29 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 613
Found a 5 min video on YouTube showing the excavation process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdMtZwqyOWU

On the one hand, it looks like a slow process. On the other, it looks like they can fill one of those large dump trucks in about 5 minutes with only three bucket loads.
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2013, 11:46 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,450
Speaking of which, they were pouring concrete today. Judging from the webcam it looks like it was for the bottom of the retaining wall, meaning that by SSP standards the building is still not UC. LoL.
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2013, 6:59 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 613
Webcor posted some photos

Looks like excavation is essentially done. They just need to finish removing the dirt.

Photo of concrete pour: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...89829838_o.jpg

Night photo from the bottom of the pit: https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...32191203_o.jpg

Source: Facebook
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 2:11 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,450
They poured a light concrete foundation the night before last, and now are covering it with a sealant.


http://www.350mission.com/tour/webcam


Does anyone know if they were approved to add 6 floors?
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 2:38 PM
hruski hruski is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 163
Doesn't this qualify the project for U/C?
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 2:56 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,450
^^^Fully pre-leased, financed, $52M into the 0.43 AC parcel, millions more into the 50-60+ ft excavation/shoring, which with all indications is complete - yes this thing is under construction.

I semi-answered my own question above. Reading the Aug 15 Planning Commission agenda (for which we won't get actual minutes for months), they recommended approval to add 6 floors with conditions. If Kilroy adds 6 floors, the height of this tower would be:

Quote:
The Project would reach a height of up to approximately 424 feet to the roof (with a six story
addition), with rooftop mechanical structures and screening reaching a maximum height of
approximately 455 feet. The Project therefore complies with the 700-foot height limit.
http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cp...013.0276BX.pdf



Reading further down, it appears that this project was approved for the 6 additional office floors - the height above is official and the documentation is below:


Quote:
DECISION

Based upon the whole record, the submissions by the Project Sponsor, the staff of the Department, and
other interested parties, the oral testimony presented to the Commission at the public hearing, and all
other written materials submitted by all parties, in accordance with the standards specified in the Code,
the Commission hereby APPROVES Application No. 2013.0276X, and grants exceptions to Sections
132.1, 148, 152.1, 270, and 272 pursuant to Section 309, subject to the following conditions attached hereto
as "EXHIBIT A", in general conformance with the plans stamped Exhibit B and on file in Case Docket No.
2013.0276X.

APPEAL AND EFFECTIVE DATE OF MOTION: Any aggrieved person may appeal this Section 309
Determination of Compliance and Request for Exceptions to the Board of Appeals within fifteen (15)
days after the date of this Motion. The effective date of this Motion shall be the date of this Motion if
not appealed OR the date of the decision of the Board of Appeals if appealed to the Board of Appeals.
For further information, please contact the Board of Appeals in person at 1650 Mission Street, Room
304 or call (415) 575-6880.

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion was ADOPTED by the Planning Commission at its regular
meeting on August 15, 2013.

Jonas P. Ionin
Acting Commission Secretary

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED: August 15, 2013

http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cp...013.0276BX.pdf
pg 33 out of 280

Last edited by simms3_redux; Aug 22, 2013 at 3:07 PM. Reason: added page numbers to approval
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 3:02 PM
hruski hruski is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 163
Why build under height limits?
There aren't many parcels zoned for 700ft in this city; it's a shame when one of them is used for a 450ft buildings instead of the max 700ft.
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 3:05 PM
shakman's Avatar
shakman shakman is offline
Chairman
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: PRMD - People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 2,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by simms3_redux View Post
They poured a light concrete foundation the night before last, and now are covering it with a sealant.


http://www.350mission.com/tour/webcam


Does anyone know if they were approved to add 6 floors?
Could this be a mud-mat for a floating foundation?
__________________
"I measure the value of life not by how much I have, instead by what I have done.

-sb
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 3:06 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by hruski View Post
Why build under height limits?
There aren't many parcels zoned for 700ft in this city; it's a shame when one of them is used for a 450ft buildings instead of the max 700ft.
I think in actuality height limits for that block are 450-550 ft. The 700 ft is confusing, but I don't think it applies to this parcel. Lots of reading to uncover all of the dialogue and ins and outs.
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 4:18 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by hruski View Post
Why build under height limits?
There aren't many parcels zoned for 700ft in this city; it's a shame when one of them is used for a 450ft buildings instead of the max 700ft.
Yeah, it's unfortunate that the full height limit isn't being used. I think there are two main reasons for the lower height, both having to do with the previous developer being deliberate and cautious. When GLL was entitling the project, the height limit was 550'. The parcel wasn't officially upzoned to 700' until 2012, so they would have had to re-entitle it, or entitle it without a guarantee that the height would be increased (181 Fremont took the latter route and reaches its full 700' limit). Also, the parcel is relatively small (19,000 sq ft), and here's what the previous developer said:

Quote:
At 27 stories, the 340,000-square-foot building proposed is shorter than the current 550-foot height limit allowed and dramatically less than the 700 feet the proposed Transbay District rezoning would allow. But with its relatively small lot -- about 19,000 square feet -- a higher building doesn't work economically, Wall said. Going beyond 27 stories would require a second elevator bank and force GLL to increase the "load factor" -- the non-leasable portion of the building dedicated to elevators, restrooms and mechanical rooms -- from 20 to about 30 percent.

"It just doesn't pencil," said Wall. "Believe me, I wish it did. Everybody wants more height. Give me a larger parcel, and I'll get more height."
It's interesting that having Salesforce pre-lease the whole tower suddenly made six more floors "pencil" out. It makes you wonder how tall it would be if a more ambitious developer had worked on entitling it. If they had really wanted to go to 700', they'd probably have to do what 181 Fremont is doing and make the top part of the tower residential, which works better with small floor plates.
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 5:00 PM
hruski hruski is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by minesweeper View Post
Yeah, it's unfortunate that the full height limit isn't being used. I think there are two main reasons for the lower height, both having to do with the previous developer being deliberate and cautious. When GLL was entitling the project, the height limit was 550'. The parcel wasn't officially upzoned to 700' until 2012, so they would have had to re-entitle it, or entitle it without a guarantee that the height would be increased (181 Fremont took the latter route and reaches its full 700' limit). Also, the parcel is relatively small (19,000 sq ft), and here's what the previous developer said:



It's interesting that having Salesforce pre-lease the whole tower suddenly made six more floors "pencil" out. It makes you wonder how tall it would be if a more ambitious developer had worked on entitling it. If they had really wanted to go to 700', they'd probably have to do what 181 Fremont is doing and make the top part of the tower residential, which works better with small floor plates.
Great info, minesweeper. Is there any precedent for the city "transferring" an unfulfilled height limit from one parcel to another? Like I said earlier, it would be a shame to lose one of our few parcels zoned for 500+. It would be great if the city upzoned another parcel currently zoned for 450 and raised the limit to 700.
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 5:56 PM
cv94117 cv94117 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by hruski View Post
Great info, minesweeper. Is there any precedent for the city "transferring" an unfulfilled height limit from one parcel to another? Like I said earlier, it would be a shame to lose one of our few parcels zoned for 500+. It would be great if the city upzoned another parcel currently zoned for 450 and raised the limit to 700.
This parcel is NOT one of the ones zoned for 700', so stop bellyaching. It is at 550 (or maybe 500, I don't remember exactly). Only four parcels are above 550: the Transbay tower, 1st & Mission (where Portico is now), 181 Fremont and one other parcel south of the Transit Center on Howard Street west of Foundry Square.
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 6:54 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 942
Quote:
Originally Posted by cv94117 View Post
This parcel is NOT one of the ones zoned for 700', so stop bellyaching. It is at 550 (or maybe 500, I don't remember exactly). Only four parcels are above 550: the Transbay tower, 1st & Mission (where Portico is now), 181 Fremont and one other parcel south of the Transit Center on Howard Street west of Foundry Square.
The real question is then why are there only four parcels zoned for over 550' in the midst of the largest building boom in SF in 20+ years. But that doesn't really have anything to do with 350 Mission.
__________________
San Francisco Projects List ∞ "The city that knows how" ∞ 2017 ∞ 884,363 ∞ ~2030 ∞ 1,000,000
San Francisco Projects Thread|Oceanwide Center - 275M/901'|Warriors Arena|706 Mission - 168M/550'
|Ferry Plaza Expansion Webcam
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 8:22 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by fimiak View Post
The real question is then why are there only four parcels zoned for over 550' in the midst of the largest building boom in SF in 20+ years.
If I'm not mistaken, it's because of worries about shadows on parks/plazas and views....the usual. I'd say we're lucky any exceptions above 600 feet were made at all. The original concept for the Transbay tower had it at just 500' if I'm remembering right, and then 850', before it got increased past the 1,000' mark.

Anyways, the Transbay/Rincon Hill plans call for a section of lower-height limits in between the Transbay Terminal and Rincon hill (with more sites in the 200'-550' range there than north or south of it, which have all the 550'+ sites) as well as a little extra spacing between all the new towers throughout the area, in order to create multiple peaks on the skyline instead of a solid mass of towers, and to preserve some extra views of the bay/bay bridge/east bay in between all the new buildings, as well to allow some extra light to reach the streets and transbay roof park. Meaning, fewer towers than if they decided to go 100% on skyscraper density, and fewer areas with 550'+ height limits than their might have been otherwise.
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 8:39 PM
slock slock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by cv94117 View Post
This parcel is NOT one of the ones zoned for 700', so stop bellyaching. It is at 550 (or maybe 500, I don't remember exactly). Only four parcels are above 550: the Transbay tower, 1st & Mission (where Portico is now), 181 Fremont and one other parcel south of the Transit Center on Howard Street west of Foundry Square.
350 Mission is actually zoned for 700' along with the three you mentioned and the Howard Street parcel at 750'. In addition, the parcel where Golden Gate University is located is also set at 700',

http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/CDG/d...2_CPC_Info.pdf

It's likely Golden Gate will sell the parcel to a developer in the future and take the bottom portion of a yet-to-be-built tower, as explored in 2009:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...08/story1.html
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 9:15 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by slock View Post
In addition, the parcel where Golden Gate University is located is also set at 700',

http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/CDG/d...2_CPC_Info.pdf

It's likely Golden Gate will sell the parcel to a developer in the future and take the bottom portion of a yet-to-be-built tower, as explored in 2009:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...08/story1.html
That one's part of the 50 First Street proposal. It's the proposed site of the 640' tower.

And there's also the spot that got upzoned for 600' at the palace hotel, so there's another 550+ footer. I wonder if the hotel tower proposal there will ever come back.

Last edited by tech12; Aug 22, 2013 at 9:33 PM.
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 9:16 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by cv94117 View Post
This parcel is NOT one of the ones zoned for 700', so stop bellyaching. It is at 550 (or maybe 500, I don't remember exactly). Only four parcels are above 550: the Transbay tower, 1st & Mission (where Portico is now), 181 Fremont and one other parcel south of the Transit Center on Howard Street west of Foundry Square.
As slock mentioned, this parcel is indeed zoned for 700 feet. A number of height limits were officially raised when the Transit Center District Plan was (finally) approved last year.

You can see the latest height limits here: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.d...lkDistrictMaps (click HT01)

The parcels zoned for 700+ are:
  • 50 First (850')
  • 350 Mission (700')
  • Transbay Tower (1000')
  • Golden Gate University (700')
  • Millennium Tower (700')
  • 181 Fremont (700')
  • Parcel on Howard between 1st and 2nd (750')
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2013, 9:55 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,283
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:54 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.