This morning, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee meeting will consider providing millions for the stalled affordable housing project at 78 Haight Street in Hayes Valley. The project developer, TNDC, started work in 2022 but was stalled after a neighboring property owner complained about construction compromising their structure’s foundation.
Mayor London Breed and Supervisor Matt Dorsey are sponsoring the resolution. The resolution describes that the city loan to the property owner will increase by $8.56 million, increasing the total funds provided by the city up to $35.3 million. The developer, TNDC, will give another $1.1 million, raising the total new funds by $10.5 million.
78 Haight Street axon aerial view, rendering by Paulett Taggart Architects
In J.K. Dineen’s report for the San Francisco Chronicle, the paper shared that the added funds have increased the total project costs to $61.5 million, or nearly $1 million per unit. The new money will go towards structure work, foundation repairs, and escalating construction costs.
The committee presentation states that construction is expected to start next month, with completion as early as September 2025. The meeting is scheduled to begin today, February 14th, at 10 AM. For more information about how to attend and participate, visit the meeting agenda here.
Paulett Taggart Architects is responsible for the design, and TS Studio is the landscape architect. Illustrations show the white fiber cement-clad skin will be textured with sawtooth-style bay windows. Residents will benefit from the rooftop amenity deck. Guzman Construction Group and Suffolk have entered a joint venture as the project’s contractor.
78 Haight Street facade elevation, illustration by Paulett Taggart Architects
78 Haight Street seen from Haight and,Octavia Street image via Google Street View
The seven-story infill will create 63 units, including 32 for transitional-aged youth who are homeless or at risk of being unhoused. The remaining 31 units will be offered at lottery to all residents earning 35-60% of the Area’s Median Income. Apartment types will vary, with 58 studios and five one-bedrooms.
The seven-story structure will yield around 47,400 square feet, including 44,100 square feet for housing and 3,200 square feet for commercial space. The ground-floor retail was expected to become a childcare facility. The developer said childcare is no longer financially feasible and is considering transforming the space into three more units, expanded social services, or a community-serving commercial tenant.
The property is a narrow 0.12-acre parcel along Octavia Street between Rose and Haight Street. Future residents will be a block from Market Street and four blocks from the Patricia’s Green public park.
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
Developers want millions again and yimbys fall for it every time.
Maybe Breed-Wiener can turn this into another expensive photo op?
Of course bring corrupt lapdog Dorsey along for the big payout.
So, delays don’t incur additional costs as a result of global inflation in one of the most competitive sectors? And Dorsey trying to get a stalled BMR housing project built is a grift? It’s all Scoobie-Doo and greasy palms??
63 whole units 10 years from now “certainly solves the housing crisis.”
Of which 52 are going to be STUDIOS requiring 70+K/year salaries!
#Yimbymath
Breedy/Wiener can just pass more bonds to make Yuppie Yimby suckers responsible.
Who needs to see the pooooooor developer’s actual profits/losses? Nobody does,
and nobody did here. Keep pom poms moving while the cash is moving, cheerleaders.
Throw cash at the developer for a photo op. Yimbys fall for it over, and over, and over.
The cost was inflated because of NIMBYism. The nearby church sued to stop this project because they claimed it would hurt their foundation. In reality, they simply didn’t want an apartment complex built next to them. The reason for the extra funding is because construction costs went up while the project was delayed. If YIMBYs got their way, this project would’ve already been under construction. The funny thing is that on another post, you commented about “yuppie condos” and a new high rise not having enough “low income housing”, yet here you’re complaining when the city is giving money to build low income apartments, including for youths at risk of homelessness! Shouldn’t you support this? This is exactly the type of development you like. You can’t oppose the high-rise in Telegraph Hill for being too expensive while also opposing this development for consuming too many tax dollars. Either you can build new market-rate housing without tax dollars OR you can build new subsidized housing with tax dollars. Can’t have it both ways.
Preach SBU
“The cost was inflated because of NIMBYism.”
If damaging your neighbor’s foundation is “Yimbyism” and halting that damage to be studied prior to is “Nimbyism” then yes, the cost was inflated because of incompetent Yimby developers and is now being excused by dishonest and incompetent Yimby commentators mischaracterizing it deliberately.
Millions more for developers = the actual Yimby goal in almost every single project.
why doesn’t the city create its own developing company? why do they get ripped off everytime? it’s not hard to build, its not as expensive as they make it seem. SF could cut 30-40% in building expenses if they created their own developing company… seems like they’re either lazy or have no vision
The city family is way too corrupt not to screw up 100% of projects.
If we get rid of the Breed / Ed Lee / Walter Wong clan, maybe then.
SF.gov is a dirty little inbred circle of money, fueled by developers.
kqed.org/science/1991442/battle-over-san-franciscos-coastal-development-sparks-statewide-concerns
Scott Wiener needs a new job.
He should just become a developer and skip the middle-grift.
More of Scott Wiener follies,63 units no parking, 32 units for transitional aged youth (meaning homeless and drugs addicts) and 31 units via lottery? At a stangering cost of one million dollars per unit, but then again I guess since the San Francisco board of supervisors are providing my tax dollars funding what can possibly go wrong with that?