Planning commission certifies Lake Merced West final EIR despite unavoidable historic‑resource impacts

The San Francisco Planning Commission on Jan. 12 certified the final environmental impact report (EIR) for the Lake Merced West project, a proposed recreational facility on about 11 acres at 520 John Muir Drive.

Julie Moore, environmental planner for the department, told commissioners the final EIR found the project ‘‘would have a significant and unavoidable impact on the project site which is a historical resource even with mitigation measures’’ and that Rec Park ‘‘would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA’’ if it chose to approve the project. Moore said the final EIR was prepared under CEQA and planning department policies and is ‘‘adequate, accurate and objective’’ for decision‑makers.

The project would replace the former Pacific Rod and Gun Club uses with active and passive recreation, a community building, restaurant, boathouse and concession operations. The draft and final EIR analyzed three alternatives — full preservation, partial preservation and no‑project — and staff said the partial‑preservation option still would demolish substantial contributing features and leave a significant unavoidable impact on the historic cultural landscape.

Moore described other impacts (noise, biological resources and paleontological resources) as either mitigable to less‑than‑significant or, where mitigation could not eliminate the effect on the historic resource, requiring the statement of overriding considerations. The department recommended certification of the EIR; certification does not approve the project but records that the environmental review complies with CEQA.

After questions from commissioners about the EIR errata and the public‑comment responses, Commissioner Moore moved to certify the EIR. The motion passed unanimously.

Next steps: certification clears the environmental milestone; any project approval would be a separate action before the appropriate decision‑making body and, if adopted despite the historic‑resource impact, would require the recreation and parks commission to consider a statement of overriding considerations.