That’s why they’ll often get approvals for a project up to X feet high, but then build smaller. It all depends on what kind of financing they can get and how much they can get out of a building they can afford to build. Some go higher, some not. Rarely do you actually get the exact thing that was approved at the Planning Commission. Many changes are made along the way and unless they are significant, they don’t go back to the PC.

But yeah, wouldn’t it be nice if plans were properly kept on file. Maybe the majority are, but the two times – two different buildings – I’ve needed the plans, no one could find them.

Actually your building illustrates why planners always ask for current plans when you go to get a permit.
Case A: If you submit plans for a 5 story building, and they can find the approvals and old plans for a 4 story… Houston, we have a problem.
Case B: If all the old plans just fall into a records keeping disaster black hole, then they need new plans because they can’t find the old plans without hours or days of searching. You do not want to pay for 12 hours of time and labor for them to find that old plan.

As for the zoning update, I’m with V Smoothe to just chuck the current proposal out and start over. But I say it is the 21st Century, use a form-based code! OSA is on the right track with that one, the code needs to incorporate the context of what streets its on and where the building is at.

As for looking at approvals from the archive and reality, they are apparently often different. For example, the building my store is in was originally approved for X of feet tall, with 4 stories. Instead, they shortened the height of each floor to the bare minimum and went for an extra floor. There was much talk of filing suit against the developer, but it was already built by the time anyone figured it out. There were fewer of us here in the Jack London District. Plus, just when construction was almost complete, the project was sold to the current owners.

The Jack London Square Redevelopment Project is also an example. They are limited by height, not so much by square footage. The square footage affects their parking requirements, but they can figure out how to make that work for them as well.

But it is interesting that the City doesn’t keep the final numbers on file with the plans – because I’m pretty sure they get final plans. Although, again, their record keeping sucks… when I went to change my address from Suite 101 (aka Suite 1, Suite A, Suite 1A) because of conflicts with an apartment on the 2nd floor – 101 (why?????) they said that they needed me to provide plans of the building. I even grabbed a friend who used to work in planning and he went with me to explain that planning has the plans. Nope, they didn’t. I was told that I could draw the plans on paper (me draw?!) and that would be sufficient. So I drew the plans for a doghouse as a joke. They changed the address and I went my merry way. In all honesty, it seemed like they got their kicks on making it difficult because I wasn’t a regular. Whatever. Here we are six years later and PGE, ATT, & even 911 has my old address. I have tried valently to resolve that but have come to realize that anytime someone moves in or out of apartment 101 there will be phone problems. Hopefully apartment 101 will never need 911 service without staying on the phone.

re: “is … staff is providing egregiously false information on purpose … or (are they) just completely inept.”

Yes. To both.

This is all a symptom of the totally broken zoning system used by 99.5% of all cities out there. Euclidian zoning is evil, and worse, it is counter-productive. I was shocked reading that OBA proposal. Like drinking from a beautiful rejuvenating mountain spring. How did all these great urbanists take over the Builders Alliance? And how can I get them to talk sense to other cities around the Bay?

My handle? Signing lease this week, moving to Oakland (Adam’s Point) first of the month. Goodbye suburban dreariness… goodbye long commute… hello Oakland! Hope it turns out alright…