399 Fremont Rendering
As we first reported a year ago:

Approved for development in 2006 with a performance period set to expire in June 2008, Fifield started clearing the site for the proposed Californian at 399 Freemont in November of 2007. In August of 2008 the Planning Commission granted a 12 month extension of the performance period to June 2009, and then again in June 2009 to June 15, 2010.

On Thursday the Planning Commission is expected to grant another 12 month extension for the now 452 unit (and 238 parking spot) project which would expire on June 15, 2011. The site will be planted and bloom with wildflowers in the interim.

399 Fremont Flowers
Granted the extension to June 15, 2011, the project sponsors are now seeking another one year extension with plans to start construction by June 15, 2012 as they redesign the building to hit the market as smaller rental units versus condominiums, with no proposed changes to the height or envelope of the building.
399 Fremont: Interim Plans Set To Bloom For The Californian Site [SocketSite]
399 Fremont: April Showers (And Site Prep) Will Bring…Wildflowers [SocketSite]
The Californian on Rincon Hill: 375 Fremont St. [SocketSite]
Are They Clearing The Way For Someone’s Californian On Rincon Hill? [SocketSite]
The Californian on Rincon Hill (375 Fremont): Website And Renderings [SocketSite]
The Californian On Rincon Hill: No Longer Coming Soon (If At All) [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by sf

    Yes! This is exactly what this city needs. High rise rentals!! A step in the right direction to supplying more housing to the majority instead of “luxury” condos to people that end up defaulting.

  2. Posted by Grant Hammond

    Maybe it’s just me, but that parking ratio seems to be way out of wack. Is this an area where more than half of the residents will not own a car?

  3. Posted by anon

    ^If you build more parking, of course more of the residents will own cars.
    If you build the amount proposed, folks without cars (or the need for cars, or folks who park their cars elsewhere, etc) will self-select to live here.
    You’re getting the cause/effect backwards. Residences without parking appeal to a different group of folks than residences with parking. People don’t look at the place that they want to live in some kind of vacuum where they don’t consider parking – if they need parking, they won’t live here (if there are indeed very, very few of these people, as you assume, the rents for the residences will fall until they attract enough people that don’t need/want/will deal with not having parking, etc).

  4. Posted by Modernqueen

    Yay! build higher and build more!

  5. Posted by uluo

    I consider this to be a negative for the neighborhood. I hope the conversion to rental and to smaller units does not become the norm in Rincon Hill (2RH, 45 Lansing, 201 Folsom).

  6. Posted by Modernqueen

    Good comments anon! The market system will, in fact, determine who lives here and what rents will be.
    Let the free market system rein!

  7. Posted by Alai

    Reign, not rein! Funny: mostly I see people making the opposite error.

  8. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “instead of “luxury” condos to people that end up defaulting.”
    As if that’s the norm?

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles