Admiral Safeway project change: More residential, no offices

(Click for a larger view; photo courtesy Safeway)
Days after Safeway shared that aerial of the Admiral construction site, a project change has turned up in the city Land Use Information Bulletin (a twice-weekly online publication): Instead of 40 residential units plus flex-work spaces, the building on the southeast side of the site (upper right side of the photo) is now proposed for 78 residential units and no office spaces. That building is being handled by a separate developer, not by Safeway itself, as listed on this section of the online documentation. According to the notice published today, comments on the change will be taken through February 10th.

1:12 PM UPDATE: We’ve also received a formal statement from Safeway, with graphics, regarding this change:

Safeway wants to update the community on the status of the redevelopment of its Admiral neighborhood property. Safeway is continuing to move forward with its redevelopment, and it looks forward to reopening to serve the community in August, 2011. Since obtaining its final permit approvals, there has been one slight modification to the project, which was dictated by the existing financing market. As approved, the project included both flex-work units and apartment units. After the approvals were obtained, Safeway’s development partner, who was going to construct the residential and flex work part of the project, learned that the banks would not finance flex-work units. For this reason, Safeway and its development partner have adjusted the project to eliminate the flex-work component and add additional residential units in place of the flex work spaces.

As can be seen in the proposed “before” and “after” renderings, the proposed change will not affect the exterior dimensions or design of the buildings except to add upgraded window treatments and some small balconies. There are also no parking or traffic impacts from the proposed change. In order for Safeway to open on time, it is important that construction continue on both the grocery store and residential phases of the development. Safeway is working with the City to obtain the necessary minor revisions to its project approvals to accommodate the change so that the entire project can be completed on time. If you have any further questions, please contact Safeway’s Real Estate Manager, Sara Corn at sara.corn@safeway.com

Here’s the “before/after” mentioned – 16-page PDF.

JanS January 27, 2011 (11:04 am)

interesting…wonder why? And I wonder how this will impact parking, whether they will have additional parking spaces for these additional living spaces. That’s double what was going to be. I live across the street from this, so it’s natural to wonder.

2wheels a-go-go January 27, 2011 (11:34 am)

Sounds good to me. I’m all for increasing density in our neighborhoods.

M January 27, 2011 (12:48 pm)

Separate developer or not, the project is still initiated by Safeway.

Have you reached out to Sara Corn and Fuller Sears Architects for additional details?

Jim Del Ciello January 27, 2011 (1:38 pm)

Showing commendable corporate stewardship, Safeway and Sears pitched their plans, among other amenities, with a specific vision for modest, pedestrian level work-space units–a sorely needed and highly sought-after need in our community. Changing these plans, which went through 5 thorough design review evaluations, raises some questions. Moreover, the change could be construed to undermine and/or vitiate the goals of the ANA neighborhood plan.

concerned January 27, 2011 (1:49 pm)

Do we really need more apartments or condos in an already dense expanding area? I was sooo hoping for a LARGE new store, not a repeat of Jefferson Square.(yuk!)

sam-c January 27, 2011 (2:07 pm)

admittedly, I did not attend the design review meetings (only read recaps and reports of it here at WSB), nor do I live nearby. but, this change does upset me a little; when I heard about the flex-work/ (‘live /work?’) type spaces, I thought that would be good for this area, especially for people trying to start their own small business. even in a struggling economy, starting a business may be the best option for some people. The statement calling it a ‘minor revision’, and ‘construction staying on schedule’, makes it seem even more like a bait and switch to me.

vmd January 27, 2011 (3:56 pm)

I don’t think a financing issue is going to be easily overcome. I am sure there was substantial cost on their end on having to change the designs/plan this far into the project. I’d rather have apartments then an unfinished structure or heaven forbid a hole in the ground.

dsa January 27, 2011 (4:44 pm)

Sucks, this bait and switch devalues the worth of the finished project.

NotMe January 27, 2011 (6:14 pm)

Lol… this does stink pretty bad. Really? “they” didn’t know the financing would change mid-way through the project and that once again, the “banks” are dictating what is going to be built?
.
I suppose it could be worse… we could have ended up with a big, gaping hole in our neighborhood.

Alvis January 27, 2011 (7:52 pm)

It’s easy for project reps to foresee “no parking or traffic impacts” from adding 38 living units to the block. I don’t buy their rosy prediction.

M January 29, 2011 (12:00 pm)

This is a terrible idea, just look at the parking problems in the Alaska Junction. I go to Admiral to get away from that. I’d much rather have the old Safeway then another rendition of Jefferson Square “Safeway from H*ll”

JR February 14, 2011 (11:18 pm)

It was pretty obvious all along that there was no way Safeway could do a project like this right. It shouldn’t have been done to begin with. As someone who’s seen it from the inside, Safeway’s upper management is like a less competent Three Stooges.

Sorry, comment time is over.