Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission upholds SFPUC soil-remediation review for Pacific Rod & Gun Club
Summary
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to uphold the Planning Department’s preliminary mitigated negative declaration for a San Francisco Public Utilities Commission plan to excavate and remove contaminated soils at the Pacific Rod & Gun Club, rejecting an appeal that argued the project was improperly piecemealed and needed an EIR.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on Oct. 23 upheld the Planning Department’s environmental review of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) proposed soil‑remediation project at the Pacific Rod & Gun Club, sustaining a staff recommendation that the project’s mitigated negative declaration is adequate. The vote was unanimous.
The SFPUC’s remedial action plan would excavate and remove tens of thousands of cubic yards of soil from the club site at 520 John Muir Drive, then backfill the excavated areas with clean material to address historically elevated levels of lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Planning staff said the cleanup responds to a cleanup order issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and that the department’s responses to the appeal show no substantial evidence that would require an environmental impact report (EIR).
"Staff believes that no substantial evidence of a significant environmental effect has been presented that would warrant the preparation of an environmental impact report," Planning Department presenter Tim Johnston said, recommending the Commission adopt the motion to uphold the preliminary mitigated negative declaration.
Appellants representing the Pacific Rod & Gun Club argued the environmental review was incomplete and effectively "piecemealed" — that the soil work was being considered separately from potential lake and sediment impacts and that alternatives, historic resource impacts and other issues warranted a fuller EIR. "This is piecemealing and this is why an EIR is done," appellant David Sincotta said during public comment, urging the Commission to send the document back for further study.
SFPUC project manager Obi Nzewi told the Commission the regional board ordered two separate tasks: a remedial action plan for on‑site soils and a separate study of lake sediments. "Those two processes are on two different paths," Nzewi said. He described the proposed remedy as excavation and off‑haul of roughly 46,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and said the PUC selected cleanup levels intended to avoid long‑term deed restrictions or ongoing regulatory oversight.
Commissioners pressed on several technical points in questions, including tree removal required by the proposed cleanup, whether sediment remediation would be treated separately, historic‑resource mitigation for features that staff found to be part of the site’s period of significance, and how removed artifacts might be catalogued and preserved. Cultural‑resources specialist Brad Brewster described work to protect historic features from the site’s 1934–1941 period of significance.
After nearly three hours of public testimony that included neighborhood concerns, preservation issues and technical arguments about exposure pathways, the Commission moved and voted to uphold the department’s preliminary mitigated negative declaration, placing the cleanup proposal back on the consent calendar for future procedural steps. The motion passed 6–0.
