The future of Build Inc.’s planned redevelopment at 700 Innes Avenue now depends on whether the developer can resolve a matured loan before its lender advances toward foreclosure. The Real Deal reports that a Build affiliate failed to repay a $34.9 million loan when it came due in March; interest and late charges have since increased the balance to about $45.4 million.
The lender served an initial notice of default in May and later served a second notice, according to The Real Deal. A California nonjudicial foreclosure generally begins with a recorded notice of default and a mandatory 90-day period in which the borrower may reinstate the loan before a public trustee’s sale is scheduled, according to California Courts. The available information does not establish whether a sale has been scheduled, whether the debt is being restructured, or whether the property will change hands.
The development at stake
A change in ownership would put a major approved-but-unbuilt piece of the India Basin redevelopment in play. Build Inc.’s project page describes a master plan for 1,575 homes, including 394 subsidized affordable units, 209,000 square feet of commercial space and 1,800 parking spaces, on a waterfront site of more than 24 acres. The plan was designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill with Bionic Landscape Architects and Gehl Studios, according to Build Inc.’s project website.
The affordable-housing component is described on Build Inc.’s project page as including 394 subsidized affordable units. The available source material does not establish how those affordable-housing obligations would be satisfied. The sources available here do not determine which obligations would remain unchanged, be renegotiated or be enforced after a foreclosure or restructuring.
A precedent, but not a prediction
Build Inc. has faced a similar ownership outcome at One Oak, its stalled project at 1500 Market Street. In 2023, city property records showed that the developer transferred the property to Washington Capital Management through a deed in lieu of foreclosure for a nominal $100 while owing more than $44 million, according to The San Francisco Standard. That case demonstrates one possible resolution to a distressed development, but it does not establish that the India Basin lender will accept a deed in lieu or that a successor would retain Build Inc.’s current design and timetable.
The public park is on a different track
The private 700 Innes parcels sit beside the publicly funded India Basin Waterfront Park, and the sources describe the two projects separately. San Francisco Recreation and Parks says the park’s southern portion at 900 Innes Avenue opened in fall 2024, while construction on the northern section began in fall 2025 and is expected to finish in 2028. The department also says the southern section includes a food pavilion, makers shop, dock and piers providing direct waterfront access, according to its project update.
That progress does not resolve the private site’s financing problem or guarantee that the planned housing and commercial development will proceed as approved. It does, however, mean that the neighborhood’s public waterfront investment is advancing while the outcome of the loan default remains unresolved.
Why the next filing matters
The next meaningful development may be a cure, restructuring, transfer or foreclosure action rather than construction. The Real Deal also reports that Build Inc. did not submit revised plans requested by San Francisco earlier this year and that the project website is inactive. Those facts indicate uncertainty around the current development process, but they do not by themselves show that the approvals have expired or that the project has been canceled.
The broader city context is difficult for any replacement developer: the California Department of Housing and Community Development has reported that San Francisco has the state’s longest timelines and some of its highest procedural hurdles for advancing housing projects to construction, along with some of the highest housing construction costs. That is a citywide constraint, not evidence that it caused the India Basin default or that a new owner could not revive the site.
