The File at Market and Duboce
The San Francisco Planning Department approved a 23-story tower at 1965 Market Street in July 2026. The approval covers 201 units on a corner lot of about 0.4 acre. The owners now expect to list the entitled site for sale.
The record at this address supports one narrow position. California's streamlining laws delivered approved capacity here. No construction start is published.
The Capacity the Approval Added
Keller Grover Properties filed in 2015 for a seven-story, 96-unit building, as the Chronicle reports. The approved plan reaches 23 stories, 201 units and 239 feet. SF YIMBY reports the application used Senate Bill 330, Senate Bill 423 and the State Density Bonus law together. The same report puts the gain at nearly 89 percent above the site's base zoning. The entitlements took less than two years.
Two years is the interval the three laws delivered for 201 units on a 0.4-acre corner. A ministerial route and a density bonus converted a small mid-rise filing into a 239-foot approval.
What the Record Dates
SF YIMBY reports the estimated cost and timeline for construction have not yet been established. The approval date is the only dated event after the application.
The property is going to market. Chris Foley, a broker and developer who worked with Keller Grover on the approvals, told the Chronicle the listing will carry the first project offered for sale that was approved under the new state laws. "There are zero land comps," he said.
The Terms Inside the Approval
SF YIMBY reports the plan carries 30 deed-restricted homes with the affordability split between low-income and moderate-income households, 62 car spaces, 138 bicycle spaces, and the retained three-story 1926 structure that forms the podium. The building yields around 237,650 square feet, of which 206,060 square feet is housing and 2,450 square feet is retail. The application requested waivers on the rear yard, usable open space, dwelling-unit exposure, ground-floor commercial use, parking sizes and retail concessions.
The tower's below-market-rate count differs across three published vintages of the project. No publisher reconciles the figures.
The Financing Gap
Riyad Ghannam of RG Architecture told the Chronicle the owners funded predevelopment work, including structural and mechanical engineering, so a buyer can move quickly after a sale. The same architect said the design is deliverable and named financing as the missing item.
The strongest position against the narrow reading holds that the zoning tools were never designed to supply capital. The constraint at 1965 Market is the financing gap the project's own architect names. The entitlement is the precondition and the capital is the variable. An entitled site with completed engineering is a more financeable asset, and a sale is how the site reaches a builder with money behind it.
The Control Case at 1939 Market
The project across Duboce supplies the comparison within the same block. 1939 Market Street is a 15-story affordable building developed by Mercy Housing and Openhouse. The Chronicle reports the project carries 187 units and that construction is set to start. SF YIMBY reports the start is expected in late 2026 and early 2027, the development will cost at least $117 million, and completion could come as early as 2029. The project secured funding from the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
1939 Market carries committed funding and a published start window. 1965 Market carries a completed entitlement and a published approval date.
What Would Settle the Question
Three events would settle it. A sale would establish the first land comp for a site approved under the density bonus and streamlining laws, which is what Foley told the Chronicle the market lacks. A published construction cost and timeline would move the approval onto a schedule. A construction start at 1965 Market would show the three laws converting to homes without a subsidy award.
The position this record supports: the streamlining laws produced a valuable entitlement at 1965 Market Street, and the housing question there waits on a published start.