Formal permits have been filed for the Safeway grocery store redevelopment at 850 La Playa Street in San Francisco’s Outer Richmond neighborhood. The latest application shows a slight increase in residential capacity and a significant increase in affordable housing. Align Real Estate is the project sponsor, working on behalf of the property owner, Albertsons Companies.
850 La Playa Street pedestrian view, rendering by Steinberg Hart
The roughly 85-foot-tall structure is now expected to yield around 820,000 square feet, including 520,600 square feet for housing, 79,750 square feet of retail, and 179,900 square feet for parking. The garage will include two podium floors and one basement level. Parking will be included for 441 cars and 266 bicycles. Customer parking will be centralized in the basement, accessible from La Playa Street. The residential garage will be accessible from La Playa and 48th Avenue.
Of the 562 units, 113 will be deed-restricted as affordable for households earning between 50% and 80% of the area’s median income. Unit sizes will vary with 124 studios, 188 one-bedrooms, 192 two-bedrooms, and 58 three-bedrooms. The application invokes Senate Bill 330 and the State Density Bonus Law to increase residential capacity and streamline the approval process.
850 La Playa Street facade elevation, illustration by Steinberg Hart
850 La Playa Street pedestrian view, rendering by Steinberg Hart
Steinberg Hart is responsible for the design. Renderings show that the overall design has not been significantly changed since the preliminary permits were filed last November. The exterior is expected to be clad in fiber-cement panels and brushed bronze-colored aluminum. Miller Company Landscape Architects is designing the sidewalk improvements and courtyards. The third-floor amenity deck will feature a playground, a fire pit, an outdoor dining area, and a zen garden.
Since November 2025, Align Real Estate and Albertsons Companies have unveiled six plans to redevelop grocery stores with over four thousand apartments across the Bay Area. Five Safeway locations are expected to be replaced with new grocery stores and housing. The sixth and most recent proposal is the only one that would not replace the existing grocery store. The plan would demolish the Rockridge Trader Joe’s store and build a senior housing tower.
850 La Playa Street, illustration by Miller Company
850 La Playa Street site outlined approximately by YIMBY, image via Google Satellite
The 3.3-acre property occupies a full block bound by 48th Avenue, Playa Street, Fulton Street, and Cabrillo Street. Demolition would be required for the existing store, which is the only full-service grocery store in the densely populated neighborhood.
The estimated cost and timeline for construction have not yet been shared.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
Safeway/Albertson’s is the new McDonalds…where the real estate holdings ended up being worth more than the business itself!
People will complain about the parking but I’m fine with it. This far out, you need a car and a spot. It’s just a bit of a waste, as self-driving car networks will change the need for parking significantly in about 10 years.
My biggest complaint is about the lack of family sized units. Only 10% of the units are three bedroom and zero are larger than that. This is one area I’d be fine with some regulation: something like 10% of units must be a 4 bedroom or larger.
Tonight, I’ll be dreaming of the renderings for the Safeway on Market St supercomplex to be revealed!
The rent they would need to charge for a new three-bedroom or four-bedroom unit would be so high (probably $6k-$8k) that there’s not much of a market for them. For that price you can generally rent a house, even in SF.
Did a quick check and there are a smattering of 4 bedroom units (and a lot more 3 bedroom units) for rent in the western half of the city. yes, as you say they’re generally $6k and up, but I’m not sure I see that as an issue – plenty of market for those units at those prices for families that would like to stay in the city but just don’t even have available inventory. These units would be modern and brand-new, in a well-located building with amenities instead of being the first or second floor of a house in the sunset or the Richmond with no amenities and the issues of an older home with shared plumbing and electricity.
Those aren’t real problems, corporate rent jacking is, Yimby tool.
There’s definitely a market for that IMO. Could be couples who want to be near the beach and need an office to work from home. Could be a young family. And the key point is, a brand new place that’s $6K-$10K slowly degrades over time, and becomes naturally affordable as it ages. Every “luxury” unit is no longer luxury in 40 years.
Don’t sleep on the fact that these types of buildings, with vast numbers of studios and one bedrooms, may be contributing to society’s downward trend when it comes to co-habitation, having children, or the loneliness epidemic. Requiring more 3-5 bedroom units is perhaps one of the simplest ways for government to help these issues.
Hah! Good point. I never thought of it like that.
You break a gasket when “tech-bros” share a multi-bed unit, and even said that the practice should be banned.
Now you’re intrigued by the concept?
All it takes is for someone to butter your bisket?
The hell you on about?
I kind of feel badly for you…you seem very damaged. Who hurt you?
IMO unit size is a red-herring. If we had enough housing, then unit sizes would correct themselves, as building space is reconfigured for demand.
Example: if there was enough housing, but too many studios, then studio rent would fall, while rents for larger buildings would rise. The market addresses this imbalance by transitioning studios to larger dwellings.
Once you build enough, unit sizes balance themselves
Chicken and egg problem. I think there’s demand for it, but if it doesn’t exist, you can’t move in. I’d be willing to bet that studios and one bedrooms make more per square foot since they are a full home vs just another bedroom. Location dependent to some degree, but developers will just keep cranking them out unless told otherwise…
I don’t think the government needs to be involved in family planning.
A big part of the reason there aren’t more 3+ bedroom units in these types of buildings is because we don’t allow single-stair point access block buildings. These buildings all have double loaded corridors, and that makes difficult or impossible to put larger units in most parts of the building without ending up with a bunch of windowless bedrooms.
Yes, this apparently is a big YIMBY talking point. The reality is that fire risk is greatly diminished from yesteryear: fewer people smoke, smoke detectors and sprinklers are mandatory, and more stoves are electric or induction, and I’m sure other engineering standards which diminish fire’s ability to spread.
I think your point that double stair fire codes being onerous and unnecessary for smaller buildings IS the YIMBY talking point and exactly the point this commenter was making… That said, this is a pretty big building, I think its mostly smaller 2-20 unit buildings that are the target of single stair reform from YIMBY and other pro-housing groups.
You can build larger projects like this as conjoined point access blocks and many countries do. At a glance it still looks like a single large structure, but the difference is that there are a bunch of dedicated entrances, stairs, and elevators for separate parts of the structure. It’s like what you have for townhouses (appear connected, but are separate) but scaled way up.
Yes, and the fire death rate in residential buildings is much lower in countries that allow point access blocks than it is in the US. And the simple math is that point access blocks have more exits per person and shorter distances to those exits than double loaded corridor buildings.
This is a good plan. The building isn’t too tall and it brings life and movement to this block. This Safeway and its parking lot is always full of homeless people and sketchy campers. By bringing housing here, the ability for people to loiter nearby will be greatly diminished. This should be approved and accepted by the city and neighbors… The alternative is either status quo or the next iteration of the building being way taller.
Perfect example of infill development. Looks good.
I’m so happy that Panhandle Pro and Scotty approve this plan.
Agreed. The fact that both of them support it probably bodes well for this project.
People saying “worth more than the business” are missing that that a core part of all these proposals (except maybe TJs and Western Addition?) are newer and larger Safeways.
Residential is financing the grocery component.
Sadly, it’s already being value-engineered. Small design changes, but clearly less activation on the street and less articulation in the facade overall.
In terms of scale, it works well. Pretty common sight in Paris with 6-8 stories over a Monoprix
Paris is a slum.
This looks good. Build it!
This should be the minimum kind of project all over the bay area. Retail at ground level, like grocery stores and larger “Family sized housing. The rent will go down if there are enough of them. Currently it is just crazy that families are crammed into 2 bedroom flats with no garage. Progress is being made on transit corridors but not nearly fast enough.
“The rent will go down if there are enough of them” IS BULLSH*T FROM TOOLS.
They are NOT concerned with that and they make it known all day long.
It’s fairly boring. Mind you, I’m in favor of boring buildings in general — we need a lot more boring buildings to bring prices down — but this is probably going to be the only project of this size in the area, since it’s the only block-sized lot, so it’ll be a landmark regardless of what happens. And it’ll be a shame if the only landmark in the area is a boring one.
Would be neat to have a high rise building here.
Good density but unfortunate street level interaction. So much uninteractive wall space.
All these people saying it looks good has to be the same person: the designer lol
This literally looks like NYC projects.
Are we in Eastern Europe now? This is absolutely awful from a human experience and an aesthetic standpoint. Height is fine, residential is good, but the massing is bulky and boring and I would hate to have an inward facing unit. It’s a shame that this is the architecture we get nowadays.