Plans to level the Oakland Mitsubishi automobile dealership at 2500 Webster Street, adjacent to Mua at 2442 Webster, are in the works.

And while the Auto Row site is principally zoned for building up to 45 feet in height, Signature Development Group is planning to seek Conditional Use Authorization for a six-story building to rise up to 85 feet in height.

As designed by YHLA Architects, the proposed development includes 30 residential units (a mix of 15 studios and 15 one-bedrooms) over 6,400 square feet of commercial space and a mezzanine storage room for 30 bikes.

And as with the proposed tower to rise down the street at 2305 Webster, the 2500 Webster Street project has qualified for a streamlined review under the previously approved Broadway Valdez District area plan.

At the same time, plans to level the Oakland Kia/Avis at 2424-2428 Webster Street, on the other side of Mua, are in the works as well, a development which is expected to yield nearly 50,000 square feet of office space over 6,300 square feet of retail and will likely put the squeeze on the building between.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Notcom

    Kind of a side comment, but what’s w/ all of these “bike storage” provisions (not just here, particularly, but, in many projects)? Are the units so small that people can’t just put their bikes inside there…or do they not want people using the elevator for transporting them?

    • Posted by SocketSite

      They’re typically now required by code.

      • Posted by Notcom

        Thanks, but that’s the “cuz I said so” explanation: the reason for the code is ??? …. presumably egress issues, or something like that – I’m not sure whether you’re referring to building codes or planning codes – but seems like micro-managing.

        • Posted by SocketSite

          The idea behind the Planning Code is to encourage the ownership and use of bikes while discouraging automobiles.

          • Posted by Notcom

            Ah….the fog of mystery is clearing up now.
            Seems like this project should get an exemption, though: can’t do much more to discourage car ownership than getting rid of the car dealerships !! 🙂

          • Posted by Occupied in Oakland

            Notcom, bike storage is a thing renters ask for today -it’s considered a luxury amenity, like a gym or community room.

        • Posted by Tony

          Have you ever been a bike commuter? It’s a pain to try to fit your bike in a tiny apartment when they didn’t have the forethought to build the space for it. The reasoning is that is a pretty small investment for the development, but is a big contribution to the public good when it makes it easy for people to bike more rather than drive.

        • Posted by Mike F.

          Please tell me where in your apartment you keep your bicycle(s) ? Without any provisions for storage, the bicycles get stored onto the balconies, if there are any, by default. Unless you’ve spent $12,000 on a bike and want it to be the center of your living space, tell me where does your bike go? Do you lug it into the elevator, all the way up to your unit? Only to have to lug it down again the next day? What would be your ideal situation here. The code is there to avoid bikes on balconies, for one.

    • Posted by Occupied in Oakland

      Bike storage means a lot less wear and tear on hallways, stairwells and elevators. Also, why store a bike in a finished apartment space when it can be stored elsewhere?

      • Posted by Brian M

        Fear of theft, among other things (Cycling Fanatic here. Don’t want my bike in some closet a long way out of view)

  2. Posted by c_q

    Hmm, both buildings are used by the same dealership (oakland mitsubishi/kia), i’m guessing they will make much more money on the real estate deal than selling cars?

  3. Posted by Dubs

    They are going to run into the same issues in SF with Mua right there. Hopefully people know what they are getting into with the noise.

    Also Mitsubishi still sells cars?

  4. Posted by Casey Hildreth

    Wow. I would have assumed being in the Broadway-Valdez sub-area plan, this parcel would have been zoned for much more. Makes one wonder what the City was thinking when they did that plan…

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles