Oakland, CA · 5727 College Ave · APN 014‑1266‑047 City Record ZW2600913 · Working Brief v1.0 · June 2026

Two Terrible Towerswhat the project is actually allowed to do

A plain-language look at the plan to demolish the Rockridge Trader Joe's and build two towers, up to 31 stories, assembled entirely from the developer's own filings with the City of Oakland.

The developer's rendering of the two proposed towers rising far above the low-rise Rockridge neighborhood, the BART and freeway corridor, and San Francisco Bay.
Cover. The developer's own rendering of the two proposed towers above Rockridge, looking toward the BART line and the bay. Shown in grayscale; the full-color original is in the plan set. Source: City Record ZW2600913.
A community research briefPublic records onlyNot legal advice
Abstract

A developer has applied to tear down the Rockridge Trader Joe's at 5727 College Avenue and replace it with two residential towers of 31 and 25 stories, 352 and 294 feet tall, holding 415 apartments. The site's height limit is 95 feet. None of the 415 homes would be affordable, and no grocery store would replace the one being demolished. This brief lays out what is proposed, what the neighborhood loses, and five specific points the City has the power to question, each tied to a document anyone can read.

§1The proposal, by the numbers

Filed April 2026 by Rockridge Property Owner, LLC. Developer: Align Real Estate. Landowner: Albertsons, the parent company of Safeway. Every figure below is taken from the application.

MeasureProposedFor reference
352 ftTallest tower (31 stories); second tower 294 ft (25 stories)Zoning height limit on this block: 95 ft (~9 stories)
415Apartments, marketed as senior housing371 independent + 18 assisted-living + 26 memory-care
0Affordable homesAll 415 units are market-rate
0 sq ftNew grocery, shops, or restaurantsThe ~20,000 sq ft Trader Joe's is demolished, not replaced
~120Union jobs at the store todayFirst Trader Joe's in California to unionize (2023)
782,000Square feet of building on a 1.5-acre lot≈ 12× the lot's area in floor space
Table 1. Key figures. Source: developer's SB 330 application and architectural plan set, City Record ZW2600913.

§2How tall is 352 feet here?

The number after "Height Area" is a limit in feet, not a number of units. Density (how many homes) is a separate rule based on lot size. This block's height limit is 95 feet. The developer is asking to roughly quadruple it.

0 95 200 294 352 FEET within the 95 ft limit height requiring a waiver 95 ft 294 ft 352 ft ZONING LIMIT 95 FT AS-OF-RIGHT~9 stories TOWER B294 ft · 25 fl TOWER A352 ft · 31 fl
Figure 1. Proposed tower heights vs. the 95-foot zoning limit, drawn to scale. The hatched portion of each tower is the height the developer asks the City to waive under the State Density Bonus Law. The same number of homes could fit in a far shorter, wider building; the extra height comes largely from the project's own design: slim towers, three levels of parking, and unusually large floor areas. Source: SB 330 application and plan set.

§3What the neighborhood loses

The Trader Joe's at 5727 College is the first Trader Joe's in California to unionize. Its workers voted to form a union in 2023. The developer has said the store would not return once construction begins. So the plan removes one of Rockridge's few walkable full-service groceries, ends the roughly 120 jobs there, and does so on a site marketed to seniors, the people who most depend on walking to food. In its place: two towers nearly four times the height the zoning allows, over a neighborhood of two- and three-story storefronts.

This is not an argument against housing. Rockridge needs more homes, including real senior housing and real affordable housing. The objection is to this project: losing the grocery and the jobs, a tower nearly four times the height limit, zero affordable homes, and a fast-track process built to limit the public's say.

§4Five points worth questioning

The raw unit count is, in fact, allowed under a generous zoning designation. So this brief does not claim the math is faked. The real openings are elsewhere. On each one, the City has lawful power to make the developer answer.

1

The ground floor appears to break the rules for this zone

This block is zoned CN-2, a neighborhood commercial zone built for active storefronts. Oakland's code requires ground-floor commercial space along College Avenue, requires most of that frontage to be clear windows, keeps parking back from the sidewalk, and bars new ground-floor apartments. The plan proposes no stores at all, with parking at the base. The state fast-tracks the developer relies on only protect projects that follow the city's objective rules, so a non-compliant ground floor is a lawful place to push back.

Basis: Oakland Planning Code Ch. 17.33 (CN-2 standards) vs. the plan set, which shows zero non-residential space.
2

Care-home rooms are counted as "apartments"

Of the 415 "units," 18 are assisted-living rooms and 26 are memory-care rooms: staffed care, typically licensed as a care facility, not independent apartments with their own kitchens. Yet they are counted as dwelling units to build the project's size and justify its height. The City should require proof that each of those rooms legally qualifies as a dwelling unit, and that the building still counts as housing rather than an institution.

Basis: the SB 330 application counts 26 memory-care rooms as "efficiency units" and 18 assisted-living rooms as one- and two-bedroom dwelling units.
3

An affordable-housing law is being used to build zero affordable housing

The extra size and the height waiver come from California's State Density Bonus Law, a law meant to get affordable homes built. This project qualifies through a senior-housing door that lets it skip affordable units entirely. The result: 415 market-rate apartments, using an affordability law to deliver nothing affordable.

Basis: the application lists 415 of 415 units as market-rate and 0 affordable, claiming the bonus under the senior-housing provision of Gov. Code § 65915.
4

The 352-foot height comes from a loophole, and from the design

The 95-foot limit is not being changed through a public rezoning. It is being waived under a state provision, on the argument that the height is needed to fit the units. But much of that height comes from the developer's choices: slim towers instead of a wider building, three levels of parking, and an unusually space-heavy design. A waiver is only meant to go as far as actually necessary. The City can demand proof that 31 stories is the minimum required.

Basis: the cover letter requests a waiver of the 95-foot limit under Gov. Code § 65915(e); the plans show 782,000 sq ft, far more floor area per home than a normal apartment building.
5

They want to skip environmental review

The developer claims a 2025 state exemption (AB 130) to avoid the normal CEQA environmental study, the review that would examine shadows, traffic, and the loss of neighborhood food access. Yet a state search for tribal sacred lands at this site came back positive, and no cultural or environmental study has been done. Skipping review here deserves a formal challenge.

Basis: the AB 130 consistency analysis (Public Resources Code § 21080.66) and the City's tribal-consultation notice confirming a positive Sacred Lands File result.

§5Built to move fast and quiet

The developer is stacking several state streamlining laws (a vesting application that freezes the rules in their favor, a density bonus, and a CEQA exemption) to limit hearings, limit changes, and limit the public's say. That is exactly why early scrutiny matters. The more neighbors who put specific, factual concerns on the record now, the harder this is to wave through. The project is in Oakland's permit system as record ZW2600913 (also referenced as planning record ZP260014).

§6What you can do in one click

Decision-makers weigh specific, local, factual comments far more than form letters. These buttons open a pre-written email in your mail app. Add one sentence in your own words, fill in your name, and send.

Email the City & CouncilmemberOpens a ready-to-send draft → just add your name Write the Rockridge VoiceA short letter to the editor to keep this public
  1. Send the email. Change a line or two so it sounds like you. Name the concern you care about most.
  2. Ask the City to make the developer prove their numbers in writing: that the care rooms count as apartments, and that 352 feet is the minimum height truly required.
  3. Talk to the store's workers and your neighbors. Sign and share the neighborhood petitions.
  4. Show up when the project reaches a public meeting. Bring two neighbors.
Councilmember Zac Unger (District 1): zunger@oaklandca.gov
Oakland Planning & Building: oakplancounter@oaklandca.gov · subject "5727 College"
Rockridge Community Planning Council: landuse@rockridge.org
Rockridge Voice (letters): editor@RockridgeVoice.com

§7Materials & sources

The developer's actual filings with the City, all public records. Download and read them yourself.

SB 330 Vesting Preliminary Application The core filing: unit counts, floor area, height, parking, density-bonus request · 636 KB Cover Letter & AB 130 Consistency Analysis The legal theory: senior density bonus, the 95 ft height waiver, the CEQA exemption · 328 KB Architectural Plan Set Drawings, zoning summary, the developer's own density and height-waiver math · ~14 MB (compressed for web; full-resolution copy at the City record, ref. 5) AB 130 Tribal Consultation Notice The City's notice confirming the positive Sacred Lands File result · 812 KB

Rules, laws, and the record: