Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Drew School topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board affirms Drew School final EIR; conditional‑use appeal tabled, leaving planning commission approval in place
Summary
After multi‑hour testimony, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to affirm the Planning Commission's certification of the Drew School Final EIR and then tabled the separate conditional‑use appeal, leaving the commission's approval intact for now while preserving options for further review.
The Board of Supervisors voted to affirm the Planning Commission's certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Drew School expansion project and then considered but did not overturn the Planning Commission's conditional‑use authorization.
On the EIR certification (item 7), the board voted 11–0 to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. The EIR concluded that demolition of a three‑unit building at 1831'1835 Broderick Street would be an adverse historic resource impact and analyzed a series of mitigation measures and alternatives; appellants argued the EIR failed to consider other feasible alternatives, including relocating the existing structure or using other nearby parcels to avoid demolition.
Appellant attorney Steven Williams said the EIR omitted feasible alternatives that would avoid demolition of historically significant, rent‑controlled housing and that project description and alternatives were insufficient under CEQA. "A reasonable range of alternatives must include options to preserve the resource," Williams told supervisors during the hearing.
Drew School Head of School Sam Kuttabak and the project's counsel said the school had pursued other sites and partnerships, that the building had been vacant and that the proposed new assembly and theater space was required for programming that could not be accommodated at off‑site locations. "Our students and teachers desperately need this building," Kuttabak said, noting partnerships with the Booker T. Washington Community Center and other neighborhood institutions.
Planning staff and the Department of Environmental Analysis (MEA) replied that the EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives, including partial preservation options and off‑site assembly, and that moving the structure would not eliminate the historic loss in context and therefore would not change the EIR's conclusions.
For the separate conditional‑use authorization (items 11'13), the board heard competing arguments over whether the demolition of the three units met the criteria the planning code sets out for demolition of housing used to expand an institutional use. Appellants argued the project failed to meet the planning code's tests intended to protect housing stock; the department and the project team said the overall public benefits of the school's expansion outweighed the loss and that the commission had properly weighed conflicting public policies.
Rather than overturn the Planning Commission's approval, the board ultimately voted to table the items (motion to table passed 7–4). By tabling the appeal of the conditional use, the supervisors left the planning commission's approval in effect for the moment while retaining the board's option to revisit the matter when and if it reappears on a future agenda.
Ending: The case illustrated tensions between preserving neighborhood housing and enabling institutional expansions; the board directed no immediate change to the commission's decision but left room for further review if petitioners pursue additional filings or new evidence is presented.
