325 7th Street Site

As we outlined last June:

“Plans for a pair of residential towers to rise up to 275 feet in height at 325 Seventh Street, on the edge of Oakland’s Chinatown, were first approved by the city seven years ago [Editor’s Note: now eight], the ground for which has yet to be broken.

Two years ago, the project team was preparing to abandon the high rise in favor of a six-story building to rise across the site, the plans for which had been drawn and formally proposed but were subsequently abandoned prior to their public hearing.

And as now proposed and newly rendered for the project team by YHLA Architects below, while a tower would still rise up to 275 feet in height upon the site, the height of what was to be the second tower, fronting 7th Street, will be reduced from 207 to 125 feet, the amount of ground floor retail space will be reduced from 9,100 to 6,500 square feet, and the number of off-street parking spaces in the project’s garage will be reduced from 399 to 265.

But as designed, the number of residential units, which are now slated to be rentals versus condos, would remain at 380 with a 5 percent reduction in overall square footage.

And while currently slated to expire [in September of 2018], having already been extended five times, the project team is now seeking another extension of their entitlements to start developing the site through September of 2019. We’ll continue to keep you posted and plugged-in.”

The design change was approved by Oakland’s Design Review Committee this past October, after which the requested extension was granted.

And with the sixth extension slated to expire on October 24, 2019, and the ground yet to be broken, much less permitted, Balco Properties is now seeking a seventh extension of their entitlements for the development through October of 2021, an extension which is slated to be approved by Oakland’s Planning Commission tomorrow evening but with staff’s recommendation that the extension be limited to a “one-year” term, “to ensure that the site does not remain underutilized for an excessive amount of time.”

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Notcom

    Guess nothing will happen ’til the eighth extension…eight is a lucky number in China, right?
    OTOH, if we designate this as NONI (North Of NImittz) instead we might see some action now, ‘cuz seven is the lucky number for us Occidents!
    🙂

    • Posted by E. Gonsalves

      They should either build or get out of the way and give someone else a chance. This has gone on long enough.

  2. Posted by Jeffrey W. Baker

    These entitlements need to come with tax reassessments based on the proposals.

    • Posted by John

      Prop 13 only allows reassessment of land for change in ownership and for a limited number of “land adds” such as extensive grading, toxics remediation, and retaining walls in certain cases. Of course, if the land changes ownership after entitlement the reassessment should consider those entitlements when estimating current market value. And then there’s the split roll initiative.

  3. Posted by L'UrbanistaSF

    There should be a penalty for using that pastel filter on the rendering.

  4. Posted by Hancock

    Exempt commercial property from Prop 13.

    Problem solved!

  5. Posted by aerl

    Geez, with 7 extensions and still no permits, it’s more like YMMV Architects…

  6. Posted by AlamedaRenter

    It’s an absolutely terrible location. Traffic is already unbearable getting into and out of the Alameda tube.

    • Posted by Jeffrey W. Baker

      It’s not any worse location than any of the buildings in Jack London Square, really ideal for car-free or car-light life. Nobody who would live in this tower has any need or reason to go to Alameda. In any case we can fix the Alameda traffic problem by charging $50 to enter Oakland.

      • Posted by Chuck Johnston

        No reason to go to Alameda – except maybe to shop, go to a movie, go to work – are you kidding? And add that parking back in! This plan forces a third of the residents to park on the already overcrowded streets – ludicrous!

        • Posted by EducatedLiberal

          Are YOU kidding? There is nothing in Alameda––restaurants, museums, shopping neighborhoods, culture, diversity, parks, the whole shebang–-that compares favorably with what revitalizing Oakland currently offers. Oh, sure, the NYTimes named Alameda on successive years to its Top Destinations to Visit in the World, and just this year Bon Apétit and the National Geographic named Alameda to their Top Destinations in the World listings for 2019….

          Oh. Wait. That never happened. It was OAKLAND that received those accolades.

          Alameda? That’s the place where white people who feared and loathed people but needed to work in Oakland would settle, and I do mean settle, to live up until the 1990s.
          ‘Nuff said.

    • Posted by Matt of Uptown

      End bridge and tunnel congestion – Relocate I-880 to Alameda!!!

      • Posted by AlamedaRenter

        That’s dumb.

        But I’m 100000% a second BART tunnel that splits off at Fruitvale goes under Alameda with a station near the South Shore Mall then rejoining in downtown SF near the new Chase Center or Mission Bay/Dogpath areas.

Add a Comment

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