October 4, 2012

The 325 Fremont Tower Scoop: Twenty-Five Stories In The Works

325 Fremont Street Site

A plan to build a 200-foot, twenty-two story building with 59 dwelling units at 325 Fremont was first approved over a decade ago, a plan which was revised in 2004 to yield 70 units but which never broke ground. In 2005, the Rincon Hill Plan was certified and the 325 Freemont Street site was up-zoned to a 250-foot height limit.

Earlier this year, Crescent Heights purchased the 325 Fremont Street site for $4.85 million. And while many industry folks expected Crescent Heights to build the 200-foot project as entitled, Crescent has quietly submitted new plans for a twenty-five story tower with 119 dwelling units, 61 parking spaces, 43 slots for bikes and a 2,600 square foot roof deck.

As plugged-in people know, the construction of 83 units at 333 Fremont next door is underway. As always, we'll keep you posted and plugged-in.

The Original Designs (And A Few Additional Details) For 325 Fremont [SocketSite]
The 333 Fremont Scoop: Let The Shoring Begin [SocketSite]

First Published: October 4, 2012 7:45 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

MORE PARKING

Posted by: Jim at October 4, 2012 9:26 AM

Any renderings of the new design yet? I'm not convinced by the earlier design.

Posted by: Steve at October 4, 2012 9:34 AM

Seems that there's gonna be some activity on Fremont St. But I'm unaware of any retail being built there. Disappointing.

Posted by: Ivan at October 4, 2012 9:49 AM

I believe the plan for the Transbay and Rincon Hill neighborhoods is for retail to be concentrated on the new Folsom "Boulevard" just around the corner.

Posted by: Steve at October 4, 2012 9:51 AM

WAAAAY too much parking, but ok otherwise. Lop that down to ~10 spaces and we're good to go.

Posted by: anon at October 4, 2012 10:05 AM

I'm sure there's an interesting untold story around the previous two plans. If they couldn't get financing in 2005, something was seriously amiss.

I guess we should all hope they go ahead and build this time.

Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at October 4, 2012 10:07 AM

For Jim on one side and 'anon' on the other, The Rincon Hill area plan is so lucid on this issue that it's worth quoting extensively (from pg. 25, or II.3.25 of the acrobat file):

Parking

In accordance with the City Charter’s Transit-First Policy, the parking and loading requirements described below manage the siting and provision of parking to encourage travel by foot, bicycle and transit, while meeting the on-site parking and loading needs of new development. By managing supply and access, the parking and loading requirements described below support the creation of an active, walkable, and affordable neighborhood in Rincon Hill that capitalizes on its proximity to downtown and to nearby transit. These controls…encourage viable alternatives to driving, and ensure that above-ground space is used for housing and other neighborhood-serving uses, rather than for parking. The controls also encourage the storing of cars for occasional or weekend use, rather than for daily commuting.

Use your quadriceps and hamstrings, etc. while you can.

If that wasn't enough for you, later in the same section we get down to the brass tacks:

Policy 5.10: Permit parking up to one space per two units by right, and up to one car per unit, provided that any parking spaces above one space per two units are not independently accessible.

I'm guessing that "not independently accessible" would mean that the developer would have to include a stacker for the marginal increase in parking spaces. Anybody know for sure what this language refers to?

Policy 5.12: Require that parking be sold or rented separately from residential units and commercial spaces in perpetuity.

Policy 5.13: Require that parking will only serve those uses for which it is accessory in perpetuity, and under no circumstances will be sold, rented or otherwise made available as commuter parking.

Policy 5.14:Prohibit parking as a principal use.

So no dedicated RH parking garages for the foreseeable future, at least for the non-resident target market, and that's as it should be given its location.

Now all The city has to do is use the impact fee money to really step up muni service.

Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at October 4, 2012 11:20 AM

Posted by: SocketSite at July 31, 2013 10:40 AM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Only Twelve Feet Wide But Living Large On Telegraph Hill | HOME | New Designs For Dwellings And Retail At Market And Sanchez »