Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permits for 265 Oak / 168–170 Lily redevelopment after hearing access and light concerns
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied appeals against a planned two‑unit redevelopment at a through lot on Oak/Lily Streets, finding the variance and site permits were properly issued; the board noted construction impacts and urged sensitivity to access and outreach. Votes were 3–0 on both items with recusals.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 18 denied appeals challenging a variance and a site permit for a through‑lot redevelopment at 265 Oak Street / 168–170 Lily Street, finding the permits were properly issued after planning‑commission review.
Appellant Jane Flurry presented satellite photos and testified that a proposed four‑story building on Lily Street would block light and air to multiple rear units, alter mid‑block open‑space character and create access difficulties for residents with limited mobility. She also raised concerns about insufficient outreach and the potential for disruptive demolition and construction that could impede access.
Project counsel John Kevlin and Zoning Administrator Corey Teague said the project is consistent with the Hayes Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District’s double‑frontage pattern, that it produces two new units (one about 478 sq ft) and results in a 17‑foot courtyard interior. Kevlin said the sponsor had offered accommodations during construction and attempted outreach. DBI confirmed the site permit was routed through required agencies and noted that construction will be disruptive but should be managed with standard mitigation and complaint channels.
Commissioners emphasized dense‑urban realities and the need for outreach and sensitivity to accessibility needs, and noted that enforcement and complaint mechanisms are available during construction. With two commissioners recused for financial conflicts, the remaining panel voted to deny the appeals on both the variance and the site permit (motions carried 3–0). The Board instructed parties to continue engagement during the construction process and to work with DBI and inspectors on any field issues.
Next steps: The project may proceed through site‑permit addenda and building‑permit scheduling; neighbors were encouraged to use DBI complaint channels if construction undermines agreed protections.
