Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 655 Fourth topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves Tishman Speyer’s 655 Fourth Street project with exceptions and conditions
Summary
The commission approved a large project authorization for 655 Fourth Street (the Creamery site), a mixed‑use development proposing 960 residential units, retail, office space, and a 38‑room hotel; staff recommended exceptions under the Central SoMa special use district and the commission approved the project with conditions, unanimously 6–0.
The Planning Commission on June 20 voted to approve a large project authorization and related conditional use requests for 655 Fourth Street, a major mixed‑use development in Central SoMa proposed by Tishman Speyer.
Planning staff described the project as approximately 1,082,157 square feet that would include about 960 residential dwelling units, roughly 18,454 square feet of ground‑floor retail, about 21,840 square feet of office, a 38‑room boutique hotel, and approximately 24,495 square feet of privately owned public open space (POPOS). Linda Hoagland of the Planning Department said staff finds the project “on balance, consistent with the Central SoMa plan” and recommended approval with conditions; she noted the project seeks exceptions under Planning Code Section 3.29 for setbacks, tower separation, street wall articulation and other bulk controls.
Carl Shannon of Tishman Speyer introduced the sponsor presentation and said the development would provide a substantial contribution toward citywide affordable‑housing funding: "This project alone, the Creamery project, will provide approximately a third of that or provide the fees that would help support as much as 300 units coming forward," he said. The design team walked commissioners through a strategy that breaks up the podium and provides plazas, alleyways and interior public spaces.
Public comment was mixed. Residents of the adjacent 601 Fourth Street live‑work building and other neighbors expressed concern about notice, late posting of final plans, inadequate setbacks, loss of light and air, and proximity of tower massing. Several speakers asked for postponement to review materials posted the previous night. Representatives of labor and local businesses — including the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council and HD Buttercup — supported the project, citing jobs and neighborhood activation. The sponsor said it negotiated a 32‑foot permanent no‑build easement and conducted multiple outreach meetings.
After deliberation — which included questions about tower separation, unit exposure on certain mid‑tower levels, wind mitigation and the basis for some floor‑plate exceptions — the commission approved the revised motion to grant the large project authorization with conditions and findings. The motion passed unanimously, 6–0.
