Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals postpones Hunters Point removal appeal amid pending environmental review
Summary
The Board of Appeals removed an appeal over the former Hunters Point power plant from tonight’s calendar because the planning department’s environmental review was not complete; public speakers urged full removal and remediation. The board continued the matter to Nov. 15 pending CEQA documents and possible appeals.
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
President Frank Fung announced that item 8 (Alex Landsberg v. Department of Building Inspection, property at 1000 Evans Street) could not be heard because the planning department’s environmental review document had not been issued and the board lacked jurisdiction. James Bryant, identifying himself as president of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, told the board community members want the power plant removed and the site fully remediated, and he urged the board to respect resident demands. Appellant Alex Landsberg said the project sponsor and planning had proceeded without adequate outreach and that some community members want the power plant preserved as a memorial while others want it removed; he asked the board to await completion of environmental review so the record would be complete.
Tina Tam of the planning department told the board she expected a formal determination on the environmental review within a week and supported a continuance to allow that work to be completed; she also noted that the planning determination could itself be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, which could require a further continuation. The board discussed scheduling and availability and agreed to continue the case to November 15. Unidentified board members and staff cautioned the audience that the board could not hear the matter on November 15 unless the planning department had completed the CEQA documents and they were not under appeal. The board voted to continue the appeal 4–0.
