CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer
Vice Mayor Christine Boles
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Mayra Espinosa
Councilmember Greg Wright
City Council Special Meeting 1 December 02, 2025
SPECIAL MEETING
December 02, 2025 (TUESDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on December 2, 2025 at 6:06 PM 6:00 PM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor Present
Christine Boles Vice Mayor Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa Councilmember Present
Greg Wright Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director-Engineering; Chris Redfield, Planning Commissioner; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgement.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bier
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consideration of the following with respect to a proposed mixed-use project at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and the eastern 55 feet of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022- 162-420) that includes construction of a 43,696 square-foot development consisting of three buildings with 19 residential units, including three Below Market Rate units and 3,165 square feet of commercial use (Project): 1) Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and Adopting California Environmental Quality Act Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation and Monitoring and City Council Special Meeting 2 December 02, 2025
Reporting Program; 2) Adoption of a Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment to designate portions of the Project site C (Conservation); 3) Introduction, and waiver of first reading of an Ordinance Rezoning the Project site from the M-1 (Controlled Manufacturing) to the C-2 (Community Commercial) and OS (Open Space) zoning districts and amending the Zoning Code to allow residential in locations other than the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor (horizontal mixed use); 4) Introduction, and waiver of first reading of an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement between the City and Breakwater Crespi, LLC; 5) Consideration of Councilmember Call-up and Adoption of a Resolution Approving Planning Commission’s decision, and approving Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE183-19, and Tree Removal Permit TP-13-25; and 6) Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Breakwater Crespi, LLC for the Sale of a Portion of the City’s Property at 540 Crespi Drive
PROPOSED ACTION:
(1) Adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report, and adopting CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
(2) Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19; and (3) Introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ-194-16 and Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19 to rezone portions of the property to be developed as C-2 to allow residential uses and portions to remain undeveloped as Open Space, and allow horizontal mixed use as a conditional use in C-2 ); and (4) Introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Development Agreement DA-4-21 to establish a development agreement between Crespi Breakwater LLC and City of Pacifica to provide certain public and private benefits in conjunction with a development project at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of the City owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420); and (5) Adopt a Resolution approving the Planning Commission approval of, and approving Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-076-16, Subdivision Permit SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Protected Tree Removal TP-13-25, subject to the conditions of approval; and (6) Adopt a Resolution approving the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Breakwater Crespi, LLC for the Sale of a Portion of the City’s Property at 540 Crespi Drive.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked for any ex parte communications or conflict of interest that Councilmembers may have identified.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that she met with the Murphys in 2023.
Mayor Beckmeyer and Councilmember Bier also had a conversation with Eamon Murphy.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that someone from Murphys sent her an email to connect with her and she did not reply.
Community Development Director Updegrave, Asst. City Attorney Murphy, and Raney Consultant Rod Stinson presented the staff report.
City Council Special Meeting 3 December 02, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer suggested to have public comments first, followed by the applicant responding to any questions, and then Council can address questions and discussion.
Councilmember Wright thanked staff for being there after hours the night before Thanksgiving preparing this for Council and appreciated staff’s diligence.
Vice Mayor Boles thought it would be helpful to ask a couple of clarification questions about the wetland and the setback for Raney before public comment.
Mayor Beckmeyer assumed Vice Mayor Boles is proposing to hear from the applicant, then a statement clarifying wetland designation, and then reopen the public hearing.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that, if the desire is to ask some clarifying questions before the public hearing, she would recommend that the questions be asked first before the applicant speaks so then the entire public hearing can be opened.
Vice Mayor Boles asked Consultant Stinson to explain the different colors, designations, and where the wetland delineation is in relation to the drawing on packet page 117.
Consultant Stinson referred to a presentation slide that only highlighted the wetlands. There were multiple wetland delineation surveys (in 2020, 2022, and 2023) to take soil samples and make sure those sample locations identify where those three criteria are meant for wetlands.
The yellow dots on the map are some of the soil sampling locations and the biologists went out on multiple days to identify where that line should be drawn. He stated everything that is colored up to the dashed line is considered wetland. He thought there was a better figure that now has the proposed project overlayed on top of this and that line is shown on a tentative map, showing where that delineation line is.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that she was struggling because it is not on the tentative map but on some other drawings. She wanted to look at that later to understand what the setbacks to the wetland were and she wanted to clarify that dashed line is where the setback should be measured.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that she has the information on the setback from the wetland. For Building B, the setback ranges from 41 ft, 6 in., to 51 ft, 7 in. For Building C, the range is 6 ft, 5 in., to 16 ft, 6 in.
Vice Mayor Boles thinks it is important to pull up a plan that has the wetland delineation line on it.
Community Development Director Updegrave believed we can see the delineation on slide 41.
Vice Mayor Boles stated it is her impression that Building C has close to zero setback to the wetland delineation.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the setbacks are measured to the face of the building so that is not a setback to the retaining wall.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she was clarifying the definition. She understood the finished unit is inside from that but for the work, people are asking about the definite setback from the construction to the wetland. We know what the buffer is from where there is construction City Council Special Meeting 4 December 02, 2025
because that is what is impacting the wetland. She stated we can let the applicant address that if they have a different interpretation.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened the public hearing.
The Applicant representatives, Eamon Murphy and Stewart Welte, were invited to present a 10- minute testimony.
Eamon Murphy, applicant, stated his family has lived in Pacifica for over 50 years, and he and his brother grew up here. He stated that it has been four years since they stood before Council and they asked them to enter the CEQA process. They did the work and completed every required CEQA study, wetlands, habitat, species, hydrology, drainage, traffic, circulation, soil stability, etc. Everything was established by State regulations and the City’s environmental consultants. Because of the study, more than half their property will be left as conservation.
Where building allows, their project brings 19 new homes, including 3 below market rate, serving commercial space with hopes of a small medical office, a new driveway for drop off area for seniors at the Community Center, additional parking supporting Community Center programs, fully clean, restored and upgraded Crespi frontage. The lot will be transformed to strengthen the balance of the neighborhood. It is one of Pacifica’s most walkable active hubs, mentioning the Community Center, Post Office, hotel, Linda Mar Beach and Taco Bell. It will bring new residents, new customers for local businesses, better parking for the Community Center, and a walkable medical office for seniors, thus, an extension of a community that already works. It will create jobs, support long term employment, and new tax revenue for the City. They add growth in the area supported by existing infrastructure and this is what responsible infill development looks like. They thanked City Manager Woodhouse and his staff for guiding them through an extremely complex process and they are grateful to the Planning Commission for their thoughtful review and approval. It has been a ten-year journey, with studies, redesigns, delays, and staying the course because this project reflects Pacifica’s spirit, scale and character. They now ask Council to affirm Planning Commission’s approval and allow this project to finally move forward.
Stuart Welte, architect for applicant, stated they have listened and gone through every step of the way as recommended by Pacifica and the State. He stated the site is currently unusable but they have photos going way back that show this land has been agricultural with cattle and farmland, no water elements. He shared all the information on developments on all sides of their parcel and that half the site at the back will be retained in its natural open space manner while providing housing at the front portion of the site and stimulus for the economy and community. He felt it is a win-win situation, and he showed some of the visuals of the proposals on the site.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened Public Comments.
Adrian Jost, Pacifica, requested that the developer disable the backup alarms of CAT equipment and construction equipment during the phase of the project construction. He was in favor of the project’s vision but was generally against high density projects in Pacifica and did not want to change the character of the City.
Ron Maykel, Pacifica, spoke in favor of an interpretive sign like a kiosk and suggested that the Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee work on such a sign alongside the native people and the biology of the wetlands.
City Council Special Meeting 5 December 02, 2025
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared her thoughts, as a member of Pacifica Housing for All, on this project and what is the best deal they can make to benefit the community and offered a suggestion that the Murphys negotiate a plan to include a land donation to a nonprofit and amend the project to preserve the historic wetland.
Sue Vaterlaus, Pacifica, stated we have been working on this project for a long time and asked that Council approve this project which was approved by the Planning Commission.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the hearing date change, the 6-foot buffer, and the lack of appraisal.
Victor Carmichael, Pacifica, spoke on behalf of Margaret Goodale and asked for three things:
reject the infeasible reduced alternative chosen by staff that removes 4 units, avoid a precedent that contradicts the City’s General Plan that defines buffers for wetlands with concerns about a mere 6-feet of buffer zone from the delineated wetlands, and require an accurate and detailed map that honors the wetland delineation.
Connie Menefee, Pacifica, strongly encouraged City Council to approve the Planning Commission's decision regarding the long overdue and thoroughly vetted mixed-use project and adopt all of the recommended actions as outlined in Council's summary report.
Mario Pellegrini, Pacifica, stated he has been a friend of the Murphys for 30 years, and he shared his experience with helping them clean up the site and hoped that they will be able to move forward, as the project is a win-win and a nice enhancement to the area.
Kathy Moresco, Pacifica, asked that Council approve this project which was approved by the Planning Commission.
Cata Gomes, Pacifica, stated as a descendant of the original caretakers of this land, she had concerns about development in wetlands and shared her thoughts that more must be done to protect the wetland.
Haley Fiske, Pacifica, liked the project but emphasized that it was important to protect the scenic value of Linda Mar Valley.
Gail Benton Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated that she is speaking as a member of Tree City Pacifica. She shared a few of their concerns about the location and species of replacement trees in this project.
Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, shared his concern with the Lake Matilda area and asked that it be handled in a way to make sure it is safe.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she supports the concept of a mixed-use development at this site, and shared her concerns on this project, including the lack of timeline of the required surplus land act process, the lack of appraisal for the property, the outreach done to nonprofits, and the traffic impacts. She also stated it is a wetland originally and needs an appropriate setback.
Horace Hinshaw, Pacifica, shared the past history of this process and spoke in support of the project, including the benefits to the seniors and to the Community Center.
City Council Special Meeting 6 December 02, 2025
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, stated her primary concern about the project was that it appeared that the City was giving the applicants a deal with the sale of the surplus land and shared her thoughts that the project is not beneficial to the community as a whole and the Council does not have an obligation to approve it.
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on respecting the speakers on this issue, and then shared his thoughts on the consequences of the City denying this project when the developers did their due diligence to address community concerns. He hopes that 19 units of housing will be added to the City’s housing stock through this project.
Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, is a member of Pacifica Housing for All, and shared her concerns and thoughts on affordable housing and infrastructure to be considered, hoping this property would help address housing needs but questioning whether three below market rate units are really affordable, and was hoping for more low-income housing.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, shared his concerns and interpretations of the designs for the historical wetlands and asked for greater setback from the wetland while supporting a mixed-use project with affordable housing. He asked Council not to approve the Development Plan without a standard buffer from the wetland boundary.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, shared her concerns about the wetland setback being set by CEQA and the need for private developers to clean up the wetland and thoughts on the best use for public land and asked that they make the project better. She thought that this could be 100% affordable housing and was concerned about no appraisal of fair market value for the property.
Ryan Murphy, Pacifica, stated he is the son of Eamon Murphy and shared his support of this project, especially the possibility of a medical center.
Lesley, Pacifica, shared her concern about the need for more affordable housing and hoped this project ultimately reflected more than three units of below market rate housing.
Margit Bodie, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on this project which she feels is a perfect solution for Pacifica, and additional housing, especially affordable housing, is needed and felt this project was a win-win for the community.
Lisa Franck, Pacifica, stated she lived by Cabrillo School and strongly supported the project.
Akane Purser, Bay Area, stated she is speaking on behalf of her son who was forced out of his home and shared her thoughts on this project being an ideal location for housing with the benefit of location, aesthetics, and proximity to schools, shops and Community Center. She thought it would be a shame if the project did not move forward.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments. She called a break, reconvened the meeting, and continued the public hearing and asked the applicant to start with their 3-minute rebuttal and answers to any questions or clarifications.
Applicant’s Architect Welte stated that it has been a long process with many iterations satisfying all components and requirements for the project with an extremely thorough CEQA process. He stated that the interface with the community and the lot will change dramatically as it is not a large-scale mass produced housing idea. He stated that the homes allow people to transition through life in a healthy and community-oriented way such as for pedestrian activity. The City Council Special Meeting 7 December 02, 2025
community deserves an infill project that will bring life into this part of Linda Mar. This concluded the Applicant’s rebuttal statement.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked staff if there were any questions or comments that brought up issues they feel should be clarified or shed more light on and also invited Commissioner Redfield to make comments on what took place at Planning Commission.
Community Development Director Updegrave clarified that there are no buffer requirements from wetlands within Pacifica’s code. There were several references made to required buffers which are related to ESHA areas within the Local Coastal Land Use Plan but this property is not a classified ESHA and is outside of the coastal zone.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that it looks like the lot was approved for nine units previously and she wanted to know how they came up with adding City property to build more housing.
Architect Welte stated that it started out way back with a study session and it showed various options, one of which had nine units. It was a smaller project on one lot, not two. He stated that the land plan and concept of those homes were more of a suburban extension of the subdivision to the south of them. That community fabric is more of a traditional land use for single family homes on individual lots. They heard sensitivity about the southern portion of the lot and the idea that they should preserve it as open space; thus, the project started to become more condensed. The idea of mixed use was expanded upon to provide the three different buildings.
He stated that there were many iterations of the design process and the City, at one point, advertised that a portion of the Community Center land would be deemed as surplus land for the City and there would be an offer to affordable housing developers and others. There was some interest from other developers, but not serious interest, especially from affordable housing developers because, with most of the affordable housing he knows of, the developers wanted the land to be donated and the City did not want to donate it and that was a non-starter. He stated that the Murphys stepped up and worked out a way to make a project work while offering the City additional amenities, services, improvements at the Community Center for the senior drop off, additional parking and the EV charging stations, improved circulation of traffic flow, additional parking, and housing, which was so important. That preserved 50% of the lot as open space.
Councilmember Espinosa asked how they ended up approaching the City to enlarge their development. She is a real estate agent and they have to do due diligence when they sell a property and the appraisal is the only way they know what the price is. She is concerned that we are using an old appraisal. She is concerned that, later on, they will have the opportunity to sell this project to someone and, if it was used for a non-profit organization, she would not mind, but this is a private investor. She asked if they have any desire to sell this project later.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked Asst. City Attorney to clarify how real property negotiation works when it is City-owned land and how does it generally transpire.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that, generally, the sale of City-owned land, prior to the revisions to the Surplus Lands Act, could proceed in a number of different ways. There would be a variety of ways that the City could negotiate that sale which would be a confidential negotiation. After the Surplus Lands Act was amended, there are more provisions which require a declaration of surplus land, which was done for this site in 2023, offering the site to affordable housing developers and proceeding in a number of different ways, depending on what the responses are.
City Council Special Meeting 8 December 02, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer mentioned Councilmember Espinosa had asked about appraisal and process by which the City property adjacent to the private property would be purchased by the developer.
Councilmember Espinosa understands that, in order to come up with a price, they need an appraisal. As more time passes, property values increase as do property taxes.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked the City Manager if the City pays property tax on City-owned property.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the City does not pay property tax. He stated he would clarify the appraisal process. When you are in real property negotiations, you do an appraisal in order to negotiate the deal. The appraisal is confidential and confidentially discussed with Council. Council negotiates a deal and then the appraisal is not relevant anymore because they have arrived at the deal and that deal is what is before Council tonight.
Vice Mayor Boles stated, following up on that, there were public comment questions asking about the transparency and expecting to see the appraisal in the staff report. She stated we have a development agreement and we know $750,000 was agreed to by a previous Council as the sales price, but when or would the appraisal become available to the public for review.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that the typical process for appraisals being made available is when the transaction is concluded and then the appraisal would become a public record when the transaction closes and the property transfers.
Vice Mayor Boles asked when that would happen in the schedule of this project.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that the agreement for purchase and sale has a variety of conditions that need to be met before the property closes. There is a due diligence period and title review period and, in addition, the purchase and sale agreement has a requirement that, prior to the sale, a building permit be issued so that the City is assured that the project will move forward. Currently, there is an outside close date that is proposed in the agreement of December 31, 2026, which can be extended, but it can close any time before then.
Councilmember Espinosa wanted to hear from the Murphys if they are planning to sell this development later before they finish building those homes.
Vice Mayor Boles questioned if they can and what are the terms of our development and sales agreement, i.e. could they sell this tomorrow.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated both the development agreement and the purchase and sale agreement include assignment provisions which restrict the ability of the developer to assign to another party. They have to get the written consent of the City prior to any assignment which must be reasonable or they could create another entity. Other than that, they do need to get the written consent of the City.
Vice Mayor Boles assumed we do not have a lot of reasons to deny something like that.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that it is not spelled out in the agreement but there is provision that the identity of the developer and the terms that have been agreed upon were a material inducement to enter into the agreement.
City Council Special Meeting 9 December 02, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer thought it could be a different entity and she asked if that would be the same corporate ownership or instead of the project name that was currently on the documents they could create a different LLC.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy agreed, and the LLC may have already been created and that may be a non-issue but that is a regularly standard language in order to allow approvable assignments.
Vice Mayor Boles thought it was not required that it is the same entity and could be a completely different entity.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought that would imply sale and she thinks the question was answered that they cannot do that unless the City approved it. She asked if that is correct.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that they can create a new entity under common control so it would have the same basic ownership but be a new LLC. A sale or transfer to an entirely new third party or new entity would require the written consent of the City.
Vice Mayor Boles wanted to ask more about the type of appraisal that was done and wondered what is the highest and best use appraisal as part of the project approval.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, as noted by the City Manager, that appraisal process itself and negotiations took place in a confidential setting. With respect to the questions about the other agreed upon terms in the development agreement, those are not so much evaluation issues of the property but the terms of the project, in terms of the development agreement that was negotiated with the developer, such as the driveway or license evaluation was separate and apart from the purchase and sale agreement. That was an agreement that was agreed upon between the City and the developer subject to approval of the development agreement and that is separate from the purchase and sale agreement.
Vice Mayor Boles asked how long ago were all those terms, i.e, price for the driveway, $272,000 for the affordable housing. and when was all that negotiated.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that the development agreement that is before Council today is virtually in the same form as it was before the Council back in 2023. At that time, when the Planning Commission considered the project and it was appealed and considered by Council, Council directed that the project go back for an EIR and then the EIR was done. The project did not change. It was the same project that was analyzed in the environmental document with the heightened environmental review. It is the same basic agreed upon terms.
Vice Mayor Boles asked when were all the different numbers agreed upon by both Council and the developer.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that those negotiations took place over a span between 2017 and 2022 when the project went to the Planning Commission. She cannot speak to the exact date when certain terms were included.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated the concept we are addressing is did this Council make those negotiations. When a project like this has been ongoing with various iterations, changes in State law to be accommodated, overlayed with the reality of elections in Pacifica with term City Council Special Meeting 10 December 02, 2025
limits, it is very likely that there are going to be project approvals within the purview of Council to negotiate and approve that are going to have different people sitting in the chairs. It is very logical that it would happen and does not surprise her that this began before she was on Council. She asked the applicant, when looking at that wetland delineation on both of the parcels, she asked when that was determined and how does it relate to the timing of the appraisal.
Brendan Murphy, applicant, stated that they had the appraiser in 2017-18 and, at that time, they appraised the whole lot and; it was not divided, and there was no delineation line at that time. They appraised it for the full scope and now they are only using half of that. They are not going back to negotiate half of their development agreement which, for them, seemed reasonable as they are only getting half of the usable space with them donating the back half to open space and that is where they could go if they wanted to.
Vice Mayor Boles referred to the development agreement and how long ago it was due to the increase in land values. Building the project will be able to be sold for more money. A lot of the things negotiated a long time ago are not set in stone, but at some point, with the evaluation and cost of the $272,000 for affordable housing payment or cost of the driveway, we need to make sure we are doing full due diligence and responsibility for the City as this land belongs to the people of Pacifica, not Council or the Murphys yet. She wants to understand that we can negotiate if this Council chooses to some of those terms.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that was correct. Before Council at this meeting was consideration of approval of the development agreement and purchase and sale agreement.
He would like to clarify in going back is, when in negotiations over real property, you do an appraisal and negotiations about all community benefits to arrive at an agreement which was arrived at with the Murphys. The concept was brought forth and approved by the Planning Commission and then was remanded back to Planning for further environmental review.
Council at that time was in confidential negotiations directing that. An agreement was arrived at and that agreement is before Council at this time.
Mayor Beckmeyer recalls she was on the Council for that. She referred to Asst. City Attorney Murphy speaking earlier about Surplus Lands Act requirements and provisions. She asked if she was correct that there was a Surplus Lands Act prior to 2023.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated she was correct but it did not have all the same processes that are currently in place.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if the timing of when the processes for offering the property, making sure affordable housing developers were made aware, etc., was triggered in January 2023.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated it was 2023 but she does not recall the exact date.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought it was January 1. There have been questions about the highest and best use and, in regard to affordable housing, there have been questions about the appropriateness, the currency of the appraisal, and we had information about how it is not just the appraisal but also all the other arrangements in that deal and agreement with the private property and the City.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated she was correct.
City Council Special Meeting 11 December 02, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there is anything new on that topic; if there is not, she invited some of the other questions.
Vice Mayor Boles thinks we need to deliberate on the development agreement and there is an issue with the parking spaces and the Community Center from some concerns of the public.
She stated she has a few questions on the wetlands. She stated Mr. Stinson mentioned that there was no federal jurisdiction over the wetlands but there was State jurisdiction, and she asked if he can tell them a little more about that and what agencies would be involved.
Consultant Stinson stated that the federal jurisdiction would be the Army Corp of Engineers but, through the analysis, it was determined that the wetlands are not federally jurisdictional but they do qualify for water to the State. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Regional Water Quality Control Board would be the agencies that oversee the waters of the State, both of which were provided the opportunity to review the draft EIR and the analysis. CDFW provided comments back that had some discussion and request for clarification on some of the wetland language that was in the chapter and, as part of the recirculated chapter, there were some clarifying strikethroughs and underlines to make it clear. That was recirculated and provided back to CDFW for review as the State agency. They did not provide any subsequent comments and it is inferred that they essentially concurred with the revision made in response to their comments.
Vice Mayor Boles understood, but regarding the next step with the project review, she is assuming that the State waterboard would have some control and review as the project progresses.
Consultant Stinson stated that the project qualifies for C3 requirements, LID requirements, and flow requirements to ensure that the flow going into the wetlands does not exceed the existing flow so essentially the hydrology is maintained going into that same area. He thinks the next step for development process, where it comes to a head on wetlands, would be the grading permit. There are mitigation requirements for silt fencing to go along that wetland delineation line, and the grading permit and grading plans should show no disturbance and no grading occurs within the delineated wetland area; otherwise, it would be inconsistent with the project as analyzed.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that corner of the building is not habitable space and is still construction happening right next to the wetland delineation corner. She wants to be clear that no construction disturbance should be happening within that wetland delineation line.
Consultant Stinson stated, in analyzing what the project is proposing in the project description and the understanding of the project description within the draft EIR, no disturbance or grading would occur within that delineated wetland.
Vice Mayor Boles stated there is a corner shown right next to the delineation and there will typically be concrete formwork and construction workers working beyond that line. That is one concern she has. The silt fences also prevent debris from going in and creatures from coming out. Especially at the delineation line, she does not see how those fences would not be within the wetland delineation, hence leading to trampling in the wetland.
Consultant Stinson stated they are to be on the upland side of that delineation line.
Vice Mayor Boles stated, if you are building up to that line, there is no room for them.
City Council Special Meeting 12 December 02, 2025
Architect Welte stated that they are not building to the line, as it is clearly delineated with dimensions.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if he could pull up the plan where they are showing that.
Architect Welte stated imagine an infill project anywhere when you have even more visible and more easily tangible constraints like other buildings; a building is taken down between three other buildings and a new building is constructed with never touching the other buildings. In these situations, the other buildings are only inches away and there is no touching at all. In this case, they have a lot of room with minimum of 6 feet plus at that one point. Everywhere else along the delineation line, we have much more than 6 plus feet.
Vice Mayor Boles asked how wide the cantilevered walkway is at the delineation line.
Architect Welte stated that the retaining wall is 6 feet and some inches away. There is another drawing with some distinct horizontal dimensions. He stated, to alleviate her concern with that description, he reassured Council that this kind of construction technique is not foreign to most contractors who do this type of work.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she is an architect and is used to seeing formwork on both sides of a concrete wall that they are building and wanted to be sure if the edge of the concrete wall is at that wetland.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if during issuance of a grading permit in a project would these kinds of specific details be addressed.
Architect Welte stated that there is another document, Sheet A1.14, which has those details in larger scale, and you can clearly and easily see the delineation line and the retaining wall and other construction components.
Vice Mayor Boles stated it is her understanding, from the Raney Consultant, the silt fences also need to be outside the wetland delineation line. She thought this will all be reviewed by the Building Official or by the State Water Board to make sure there are no impacts. She stated there was another wetland question about the drain. On packet page 1169, there was a question about the drain in the southwest corner of the lot that may have been an existing drain.
Commissioner Redfield referred to packet page 1170 showing an emergency overflow 18-inch riser with atrium basket grade.
Vice Mayor Boles stated, at the top left, the wetland delineation line was revised to curve in and that black dot says emergency overflow, 18-inch riser, rim 10 feet, connect to existing 24-inch square for storm drain for city requirement, etc. She asked if someone can clarify if this is a new drain or an existing drain.
Architect Welte stated this is an example of one of those drains that one of the community members had mentioned was a very old pipe. There is a drainage easement that the City has along the southern property line east of their properties and runs out to Route 1 and in between the neighborhood to the south of them and also between them and the skate park and Community Center property. There is a swale of sorts that runs along that back property line which is not up to current code standards. The pipe back there is worked out primarily between City Council Special Meeting 13 December 02, 2025
the civil engineer and the DPW and the City engineering regarding updating that pipe to current code. That pipe is intended to be an overflow safety valve so the neighborhood to the south does not flood because, when the storm water runs off into their property and builds up, it has to get out somehow and the levee that has been built west of them, the skate park and parking lot, dams up the water.
Vice Mayor Boles assumed this is a new overflow pipe.
Architect Welte stated it will be an updated version of the old pipe to be Code compliant. All of these details will get further worked out and vetted with the plan check process for the grading and drainage permits.
Vice Mayor Boles was confused as to who was asking for this to be put in as it seems like they are draining the wetland.
Architect Welte stated that they are not draining the wetland. It is up at 10 feet and most of the wetland area is down at 8-9 feet.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that it says the rim elevation is at 10 feet.
Architect Welte stated because the neighbors to the south are at 10.25 and it was put as high as it possibly could without flooding them, as they currently flood.
Vice Mayor Boles stated this is not something they asked for their project, so this is something the City is asking for.
Architect Welte agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles stated Consultant Stinson mentioned this pipe in the EIR and she knows it was moved and was originally in the wetland and now it is out of the delineation in terms of where the work is happening but she asked if the EIR analyzed the impact to the wetland hydrology by putting in a drain with a rim elevation of 10 which below the water level that is identified.
Consultant Stinson stated that actual elevation was determined based off of the drainage plan that was prepared for the site and it is based off of the 100-year flood elevation and capacity of the basin and is set at that emergency flood level to provide that release valve. He stated it is to be used in an infrequent emergency situation but would not somehow create more wetlands.
During flood events, it would drain off up to that max 10-foot level and then recede.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that, between 9 and 10 feet, there was not much depth of the wetland that they are allowing with a rim of 10.
Consultant Stinson agreed, adding the area over the depth results in a storage capacity that was determined based off of 100-year flood capacity.
Vice Mayor Boles thought this was something that will be of interest to the State Water Board if we are affecting the wetland hydrology. In the response to the comment from Green Foothills, they mentioned that the wetland hydrology was not being affected by the project, but it seems like it is. She had a concern about that EIR evaluation.
City Council Special Meeting 14 December 02, 2025
Consultant Stinson stated that the wetlands hydrology that results in the soil and vegetation that have become wetland are maintained at the delineation line now. The site currently experiences 100-year floods just like it will in the future and this provides the safety release valve and the overall hydrology will not change and that upstream flow into the wetland is not changing.
Vice Mayor Boles referred to packet page 1170. She referred to the drainage swale where she thinks some of the water is being filtered off the roof and into the wetland and the new proposed property line is next to that. There is a rock pocket where the drain will empty into the wetland.
She stated that the retaining wall continues up onto the City property and she could not find the grading information. She is trying to understand what is happening with the grading on the Community Center property, as they are filling their site to be level where the buildings are going, but there is a big dip now existing in that area so are they filling that up to the parking.
Architect Welte explained that the Community Center asphalt driveway is going to remain at its existing level, adding that years ago when it was built that site had been raised. She is correct that there is a swale between the driving surface of the parking lot by the Community Center and the property line and bio-retention area that is being enhanced along in the area between.
He stated that one of the elements provided by the project through the development agreement to the City is an enhancement of this driveway, a repaving of the driveway and a reworking of some of the amenities, one of which is the trash recycling pickup area for the Community Center, which currently needs updating and this project would build this for the City. Their project would also build curbs and extra parking along the driveway. The grading that would occur is minimal because most of the grading is occurring on what would be their project lots, simply because the land is being elevated to the 15-foot level to be level across here. The retaining wall that connects the rock basin to the trash recycling pad is part of that construction is one of the things that they are providing to the City through the development agreement.
Community Development Director Updegrave added that this is not a final design of the area and where the parking is going to be located or where the various improvements will be. There is a condition of approval that all of these improvements are to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she is aware of that. She measured the parking area and what is not shown on the plans are the existing parking at the Community Center. Her feeling is that this parking is not going to work but that is not her question now. She wants to understand what grading is required for their project. She does not think all of that area needs to be filled.
Architect Welte stated that it is not being filled.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that it shows that way on their renderings and that is construction on City property, not on property being sold. She wants to make sure there is not project related work that is happening on City property or maybe we need to sell them more property.
Architect Welte thinks that it was mentioned that it is one of those details that is going to be worked out through the grading/drainage permit process with the City Engineer. Part of the development agreement is to provide the additional curb work, parking, new pavement and the trash recycling pick up, etc. and he is not sure what grading is required to achieve that work.
Vice Mayor Boles thought it is something we can address in the conditions of approval.
City Council Special Meeting 15 December 02, 2025
Architect Welte agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles referred to the new trash area and an area labeled TR. She was at the site and it was an electrical transformer. She stated that there is a lot that is not working about parking and her concern is that the retaining wall is related to their building and not to what we are doing. She stated that there are other ways to do that by turning the retaining wall parallel to the building without impacting the City property.
Architect Welte agreed it was very possible, but those are the permits that are coming next and there is a lot of work to be done there.
Vice Mayor Boles stated her concern is that the development agreement does not address them doing work on City property beyond the new property line.
Architect Welte stated that the development agreement has some very specific items about doing work on the City’s property in terms of all these improvements.
Vice Mayor Boles agreed with the terms of those improvements, but she is talking about work on their building. She stated that we can address them in the conditions of approval. She also wanted to talk about the trees.
Councilmember Bier stated that would be her question.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she was reading in City documents that the tentative map is partly what defines the trees that are coming out and she thinks there are discrepancies on the drawings from the arborist report. It shows Tree 2 and 3 coming out on the northeast side of the property. Her understanding is that Tree 3 is staying and she thinks that is something we need to note. She stated there are two Tree 5’s labeled on here that are coming out and she thinks one of those is Tree 1. Her main question is about Tree 4. She noted that it is drawn much smaller than in reality when it cantilevers halfway into the Community Center driveway, over the street and parking. She stated that, on looking at the drawing, the trunk is mostly on City property, not on what will be the Murphy’s property, and there are columns as part of the deck above that are right up next to the trunk. When this project first came to Council in 2022, she was looking at the trees as a private citizen and this is one of the trees coming out that was not documented in the arborist report and it seemed to her that the building was not designed to keep the tree. It is a beautiful tree that frames the entrance to the Community Center parking lot and she asked about the likelihood of the tree surviving. She noticed that Tree 3 had also had evaluation done because that tree originally was coming out and asked if there should be an evaluation to this one if it somehow does not survive.
Architect Welte stated he was very confident that it can survive. He stated that they have been doing this for decades and they have a strong track record for working very close to very large trees, even for basements. It takes care and some cautionary measures and ongoing concerted effort by the construction team. In terms of the actual depiction of the tree in proximity to the building, they can make adjustments to work with that, as it was hard to tell sometimes since the trunk at the ground is not always where the trunk is at the bottom.
Vice Mayor Boles added that there are bigger branches as well.
Architect Welte stated one wonderful thing they have been able to do with their work over time is that, if you can work closely with the tree, in the end you have a strong emotional connection City Council Special Meeting 16 December 02, 2025
from inside the building to that tree because they are so close to it. Their goal is to keep trees healthy if they can.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that the arborist report does say it is likely that it is not going to survive.
Architect Welte stated that arborists are always hedging to be conservative, but their goal is to make sure the tree survives.
Vice Mayor Boles asked, if it does not, should there be an evaluation and what are the mitigation measures.
Architect Welte stated that it was the City’s purview.
Vice Mayor Boles stated, on the Community Center driveway, north, the parking was revised because of the trees between 2022 and now, as originally the trees were not considered. There is still no survey of those trees that she found done in that area, north, and the survey does not extend up in front of the Community Center. Her concern is that in the driveway, there may not be a possible way without taking out those trees or we cannot get these 14 spaces in the driveway between all of these constraints.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, if the 14 spaces cannot be provided, she would look to see if we would be able to classify that as 13 spaces and perhaps that could be deemed a minor amendment that we could process administratively. If there is a concern, the development agreement could also say up to 14 spaces or a maximum that can be provided.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that there were originally 17 and she understands it was reduced to 14 because of the trees.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy agreed and stated it was because we thought 14 could be provided.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that initially it was for 17 spaces and was reduced down to 14 to protect trees that the community had identified during the Planning Commission and Council hearings in 2022 as important to save (the trees in front of the Community Center). The way the development agreement is written is that those 14 spaces are on the Community Center site, not just limited to the one area shown conceptually, so there is flexibility in the final location.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, if they cannot provide the 14 spaces in this location, we would find alternative locations for them to provide the 14 spaces.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that the way this is written out, that would not come back to Council or a public meeting for a direct evaluation of whether those are appropriate locations.
Community Development Director Updegrave noted that PB&R Director Scott Leslie, Public Works, and Community Development have met on this project and have discussed options; as the construction documents and civils are being developed, we are all working together and with the applicant on the location of the parking.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she does not know at what point it does not make sense for this to be a key part of the development agreement if the numbers go down and that concerns her about losing other valuable parking to the Community Center.
City Council Special Meeting 17 December 02, 2025
Councilmember Bier thankedthe applicants for their comments as well as the public for their comments. She thanked the Murphys for this project. She asked if Tree 4 dies, then can there be a condition of approval to have tree-for-tree replacement.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the Tree Ordinance requires 2-1 replacement for protected trees that are removed. The Planning Commission added a condition of approval to require 3-1 replacement so that is in place on the project.
Councilmember Bier thought 3-1 was great.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that there was a nuance about species, as the landscape plan includes little trees that are constrained by how much they can grow because they are next to the building by the driveway. If we are replacing one of the important trees, especially the one on City property, which is an addition to what they have already called out, it should be similar species that can grow to a similar size.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there are provisions within the Tree Ordinance that set parameters for species and this is work we would do with the City arborist to determine comparable species and viable locations for those trees on the site, based on their growth and location of other improvements, whether buildings, driveways, etc.
Councilmember Bier stated that there were a lot of questions asked and a lot of answers received. She knows Vice Mayor Boles and Councilmember Espinosa have different expertise than she does and she thinks it is good and why they are here to hear each other. She knows what we have been through for ten years, and she has been here for seven of the years, and when the community came out and wanted an EIR, they sent it to Planning to get an EIR, she stated that was hard as she knew it would be delayed again. She appreciated all the EIR information staff shared as well as the report, including greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, etc. and considered the CEQA process completed.
Vice Mayor Boles referenced the parking exception and the potential impact to the Community Center lot. She referred to packet page 1167, which had the site plan.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we want to find out how this traffic is going to affect the Community Center already and how is this building going to impact the Community Center in terms of getting in and out of the Community Center.
City Manager Woodhouse stated one of the impacts will be improved drop off for seniors near the front door of the Community Center. That flow will be improved with additional parking.
Councilmember Espinosa asked how we will avoid people who live in that complex parking at the Community Center. She thought it would be good to have one way to go to the new building and not a way for the people who live on those subdivisions to go to the Community Center parking.
PW Dep. Director/Engineer Yip stated that is currently how the circulation is on the site. The development leads them straight to Crespi and does not go to the Community Center. In terms of the drop off, he mentioned during the Planning Commission meeting that the most significant drop off is going to be during commute hours and during school times. He has been there for walk audits and the 19 additional units do not seem to increase it significantly enough to impact City Council Special Meeting 18 December 02, 2025
the level of service there. There is a traffic study for the intersection of Highway One with Crespi and the level of service it will be. Outside of the commute hours, there will not be a significant impact.
Councilmember Espinosa thought it would be good to ask PB&R Director Leslie questions to see if he sees any impact.
Mayor Beckmeyer referenced Director Updegrave saying PB&R and Community Development had been meeting together addressing these questions.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that she has met with PW Director Tiqbao, Dep. Director Yip, and PB&R Director Leslie.
Councilmember Bier stated there were also other directors before Director Leslie.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, and he can speak for the directors as well. Everyone is involved and the improvement is a community benefit to the Community Center.
Vice Mayor Boles thinks the community concerns are about the intersection, not on the street but where their driveway comes out; that is a new flow of traffic plus the new Community Center driveway and new flow of traffic. She asked earlier if that information on the site had been studied in the traffic report.
Consultant Stinson stated, as a component of the EIR evaluation, they addressed bicycle, pedestrian transit, safety, as well as anything about the project that has a geographic design that becomes hazardous, as well as site distance and access. All of that was addressed with two traffic consultants and, in their reporting, they did not identify any potential affects that needed to be mitigated.
Vice Mayor Boles appreciated the information. She stated, when the project first came to the Planning Commission, there was also concern, especially since we were granting a parking exception with 6 spaces short of what is required.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated 6 spaces short, from 53 to 47.
Vice Mayor Boles stated the concern was that people would come in and not find parking and then turn left onto the Community Center and the Community Center would become overflow parking for this complex. She asked about a right turn only so they are not turning left and that would help have one less complication.
City Manager Woodhouse thought one component to that is that the Community Center parking lots are public parking so they can be used by anybody during the day and there is not parking allowed at night there. The normal parking restrictions apply, but it is public parking just like folks drive and park in the back parking lot at the Community Center and go to the beach or surfing. It is there to serve anybody in the public for whatever they are doing during the daytime.
Mayor Beckmeyer knows that Seniors in Action have an arrangement for members where they have ability to park in the back with a permit arrangement with Senior Services but that is generally during the daytime. When we go to a meeting at the Community Center after 6:00 p.m., a permit is not required. During the day, it is a permitted lot.
City Council Special Meeting 19 December 02, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the front lot that faces Highway One is a pay permit lot except for the other authorized uses.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked what Vice Mayor Boles’ suggestion was.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that, in terms of safety and encouraging them not to park in the Community Center, to have a right turn only out of their driveway. She stated the intersection is offset in terms of visibility and she worries about pedestrians.
PW Dep. Director/Engineer Yip stated that we can address that with the building permit comments and have them install the right turn only sign. We can put some striping down to guide them to the right turn as well.
City Manager Woodhouse added that this is why we have the City Engineer during specific design of the project to assess the safety requirements and we should not be requiring a no left turn if there is not a safety concern.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if that would be a condition of approval or an amendment.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there is a condition of approval about the final improvements being to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. She does not know if there is additional analysis needed or how detailed to get on the final requirement. There is a condition for the City Engineer to review all of those in detail.
Mayor Beckmeyer concluded that would address ingress/egress from the development and combined with the Community Center ingress and traffic flow.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed.
Architect Welte stated, as a site design and land planning concept and livability of a community, there are no community in the world that has more signs than America. We have so many signs for everything that, if this kind of idea could be handled with striping, that would be preferable to yet another sign sticking up in the air, cluttering the landscaping.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that was her actual question, i.e., do we need to specify that or is it within the scope of what is already in the conditions of approval.
Community Development Director Updegrave thought it is something we would keep in mind during that evaluation.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks there are a lot of scenarios of site flow that need to be kept in mind from our City Engineer. He stated there are a lot of details that would be complications to limiting the appropriate available flow of vehicles.
Vice Mayor Boles was happy allowing PW to review that and look at safety.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we are looking at the minimum impact of the Community Center in terms of parking.
City Council Special Meeting 20 December 02, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer referred to trees and asked if there are provisions in our Tree Ordinance or is this something worked out upon determination that it is occurring with the building permit.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there are provisions within the Tree Ordinance. A requirement of the discretionary and building permits is a condition of approval that they submit their tree preservation and protection plan as part of that, and a second layer of tree removal and tree encroachment permit that happens with the building permit as well. There is detailed attention on that as well during the building permit and is reviewed by the City arborist in conjunction with planning and zoning, as well as new conditions for the 3-1 replacement, etc.
Vice Mayor Boles stated, when the architect spoke at the Planning Commission meeting, they talked about the way they were doing green building but still allowing the buildings to both have gas and electric. In the utility plan, TM5, there are gas meters shown on all three buildings.
That seems to conflict with the EIR, as packet page 407 says the proposed project would not include new gas service connections within the proposed building and, as a result, appliances requiring natural gas would not be used. She asked if someone can clarify that discrepancy.
Consultant Stinson stated as part of the analysis for the greenhouse gas modeling, consistent with one of BMP thresholds from the Air District, they included all electric for the project. He does not know if that is a standard note or component of the plan but that was what was committed to.
Vice Mayor Boles concluded there should not be gas shown here.
Councilmember Wright asked the applicant what they plan to do about EV parking and how many charging stations they plan on putting in and how many spaces they plan to pre-wire for them. He also wondered if they were considering any solar panels.
Architect Welte stated the infrastructure for the units and the buildings will be sized so the circuits will be available and the room will be available in the electrical capacity for the individual homeowners to decide whether they want solar or not. Every garage can have an EV charger and the panel will be set up for it. The EV charger might not be installed in every unit. There will be a number of them installed per CEC (California Energy Code) and in general for the guest parking on site, there will be four EV chargers on the Crespi project side and four on the Community Center side.
Councilmember Wright stated it is cheap to pre-wire and put the wire in before you put the sheetrock on, and he asked if that is something they are doing for each of the parking spots.
Architect Welte responded affirmatively, stated that is the capacity infrastructure. He stated that it is either going to be wire or a chase so that the wire can be pulled easily.
Councilmember Wright stated that it has been considered and is going to be part of the project.
Architect Welte responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Wright loves that kind of forward thinking.
Architect Welte stated that the owners have decided that every garage will have at least one charger installed.
City Council Special Meeting 21 December 02, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that the EIR required the four EV chargers outside, four on this property and four at the Community Center, but it says EV capable.
Architect Welte stated that the owners decided that they are going to be functional.
Councilmember Wright stated that this is better than we had hoped for.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked how we address that in the document as that is different.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that we can add that as the developer has concurred to the conditions of approval.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked to discuss the mitigations suggested for vehicle miles traveled. She agreed with Councilmember Bier that we are on the coast and do not control public transportation and what are the mitigation measures and ways in which that can possibly be addressed, recognizing it cannot fully be addressed.
Consultant Stinson stated Hexagon traffic engineers took a look at the VMT and did their analysis and identified it exceeds the applicable threshold. For measures that could apply to this project, they identified three and two of the three are ones that the project already began implementing. One is integrate affordable or below market rate housing and the second is pedestrian network improvements. The other is subsidized transit program. There are only three identified as could be applied to this project and there are certain percentage reductions that can be applied to each one. Doing those calculations and adding them all up, they still would not get to the full reduction. Even with subsidized transit program, it does not get the reductions needed to be less than significant and that is why it is significant and avoidable. It still remains as a mitigation measure to include all feasible mitigations that they can, even though it cannot be reduced to a less than significant number.
Mayor Beckmeyer knows it is speculative. With the applicant agreeing to put in chargers for every unit, she asked if using more EVs can be tied with this finding.
Consultant Stinson stated that the intent of the law that required the change from LOS to VMT was somewhat tied to reducing regional greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources. While that is the case, the actual evaluation that is done to look at the metric is trips created multiplied by the average distance and comparing that to the regional average and if the project is 15% below the regional average to get at the amount of single vehicle travel that is happening, based off the project. The project would still result in vehicle trips on the road. From the transportation standpoint, it would be hard to try to capture those reductions. From a GHG standpoint, the emissions are not coming out of those tail pipes anymore. From a transportation standpoint, those cars still are on the road.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there was a change in the calculation and requirements from level of service to VMT. She asked if it was possible that, as originally submitted and approved by the Planning Commission before the EIR redo, before the Surplus Lands Act, and new requirements by State law, it might have met the requirements then.
Consultant Stinson stated she was 100% correct. The previous analysis, not being VMTrelated, showed less than significant impacts related to LOS which was the metric at the time.
The requirement to then prepare an EIR sets the new baseline for your environmental analysis.
City Council Special Meeting 22 December 02, 2025
In doing so, then they are required to look at VMT instead of LOS which then triggered a significant unavoidable impact which then triggered an additional chapter that had to be included in the EIR. He stated that it also ties to the greenhouse gas thresholds that had changed to the BMP-based which had the VMT metric as well and there was a new significant unavoidable impact related to GHG. That is why there is a GHG air quality chapter in the EIR versus only looking at bio originally.
Architect Welte added their track record as a company, Environmental Innovations and Design, is that they have always specialized in sustainability and energy efficiency. In all of their buildings, they won the Governor’s Award for Sustainability and Energy Efficiency. All of their projects are typically LEED Platinum, Net Zero energy, passive house certified, etc. They have assemblies in their buildings that make their units extremely energy efficient. They will be emitting very small amounts of greenhouse gases from these buildings.
Vice Mayor Boles asked about the other two options besides the transit passes that were possible mitigations.
Consultant Stinson stated that the ones they identified that would reduce VMT included affordable housing in the project and improving pedestrian connectivity.
Vice Mayor Boles knows because of the school across the street and with the seniors, there are some projects in the works to try to improve the walkability. She asked if that is something this project could contribute to.
Consultant Stinson stated he does not know how easy calculating what that VMT reduction would be, but providing additional connectivity and ways that people can opt not get into their car to go to their destinations would reduce VMT.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if there were alternate mitigation measures that would help those in this area that they could ask for.
PW Dep. Director/Engineer Yip stated that we have a project from our Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) and there are bike and pedestrian improvements all across Crespi as part of that proposed project. He deferred to the City Attorney on the fair share of contribution question for these 19 units that would be contributing to that project.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, at this point, the EIR analysis concluded that there were some mitigation measures that could be required. There were some feasible mitigation measures and what was feasible was already included in the EIR. Even with those feasible mitigation measures, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable. At this point, that is the CEQA analysis that was concluded. If there are additional conditions that Council might want to add, unrelated to CEQA, those could be added, but the CEQA analysis concluded that those were what was feasible.
Mayor Beckmeyer was very happy with the EV addition.
Councilmember Wright stated he has a question about bicycle storage and how they envision their occupants charging their electric bicycles.
City Council Special Meeting 23 December 02, 2025
Architect Welte stated that there is three times more storage room by volume provided in each garage than is required and there is plenty of room spatially and the owners have committed to installing recharging receptacles of the right kind for EV bikes.
Councilmember Wright thought there were going to be some changes to the C2 zoning, and he asked if that is only for this lot or is that C2 zoning in general.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that would apply in all C2 districts.
Councilmember Wright asked about any potential conflicts that may create outside of here.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated residential mixed-use is already an allowable conditional use within the C2 district. Now it is committed to vertical mixed-use only and this would just be adding horizontal mixed-use residential as a conditional use. What was discussed by Planning Commission was this increase in flexibility for site design allows for more responsive designs to a particular site. In the case of this project, it allows the breaking up of the massing and, instead of having one very large building, they get three buildings that fit within this scale of the area. She stated that the 2040 General Plan’s new mixed-use designations that were adopted and are in effect allow vertical and horizontal mixed-use and this is also addressing an inconsistency that our old zoning has and, lastly, this does not introduce the allowance of residential uses in areas where it is not already allowed in vertical mixed-use.
There are certain land use designations that do not allow residential use and are zoned C2.
That project could not have a residential component unless it went through a General Plan amendment, etc. It is not introducing a new use that is not already permitted and it maintains the conditional use as well.
Councilmember Wright asked if she can foresee any potential unintended consequences.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it will be consistent with our 2040 General Plan and still a conditional use that would have to go to the Planning Commission. We are not introducing residential use in other C2 districts and we are not introducing a residential use where it would not already be permitted in a different form. Then we also have this improved ability to respond to the site conditions and contacts.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought it would require a conditional use permit for that project at that site at that time.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed, adding a site development permit.
Councilmember Wright asked City Manager if the rent for the driveway going into the General Fund or can it go into our Housing Fund.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, typically, that rent would go into the General Fund but it is Council’s discretion and he would suggest, during budget development in the context of all the City’s budget challenges, if they wanted to specify an amount that would go into a different fund, that would be the time to do that but they would not restrict it now. It is the Council’s discretion, but they need to make those large budget decisions in the context of the entire budget.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she has a follow up to the C2. She stated that we do not have a list of all the other properties that the zoning amendment would apply to and that is what she worries about unintended consequences, as we do not know. With vertical mixed-use, if they were City Council Special Meeting 24 December 02, 2025
following the C2 designation for this site, which we are changing it to C2, that does not allow residential unless it is above commercial.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles stated if they were developing this project in full compliance with C2, all three buildings would have commercial underneath them.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed, adding that she does not know that it would work with the current design.
Vice Mayor Boles knows the design might change, but with the current design, that is what would be appropriate. She stated that is her concern with this blanket change to that law that we might be restricting how much commercial we can have in our C2 zone. She is okay granting the waiver for this project, but it bothers her to grant that waiver without knowing where the other sites are.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the C2 zoning does not have any minimum commercial requirement and there is no minimum floor area for non-residential or commercial uses, but 100% residential is not allowed because it has to be mixed-use. The General Plan designations do set a maximum commercial FAR for the sites. Her understanding is that this does not necessarily change that as there is no minimum required now. This would mean, in order to have residential, it still needs to be mixed-use. She thinks that the piece is that there is no minimum FARs and the General Plan establishes only a maximum.
Vice Mayor Boles thinks that could be problematic because, in this economic time, most developers do not want to build commercial and they will try to minimize that as much as they can versus what the zoning would require more if they were building this way. She stated it seems like we are limiting and we have so little commercial space as it is and that is her concern. She stated that solves this project but she wonders if there is a way that we can improve that here but not yet for everything else until we have more of that analysis of where it applies.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, at this point, the Zoning Ordinance allowing it to be zoned to C2 would require a change to the entire C2 area but, when projects move forward, an individual analysis would be done for those use permits which would allow the City to look at this issue.
She appreciates the question but she cannot think of a way to allow the rezone of this to C2 but then to only allow the code amendment for this one parcel.
Commissioner Redfield stated it was his understanding that this adds discretionary flexibility to the sites to allow for horizontal and vertical and it can be site specific. He stated that it is not always approved automatically in those cases. It depends on the site specifically. He stated that applied here for the FAR ratios for the lot coverage. It is completely different.
Vice Mayor Boles appreciated that, adding that her concern is all the laws that take away our discretion about a lot of projects.
Councilmember Wright shares the concern with our 4% commercial percentage with 94% residential and the amount of leakage we have going over to Colma, Daly City, etc. He asked if this will potentially be one of the unintended consequences that we are going to continue to hemorrhage our sales tax dollars over the hill.
City Council Special Meeting 25 December 02, 2025
Councilmember Bier stated, if you look around the City, there are so many empty spaces.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that there are empty retail for sale but this also includes medical offices and other businesses that could be larger. If you have space underneath all these buildings, you could have a real office.
Councilmember Wright stated he is concerned about sites like Eureka Square and some developer comes in and wants to put a McDonald’s and everything else housing.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought this seems like a topic for the overall zoning update since the 2040 General Plan was approved. She thought that may be the right time, place and manner in which we can begin to enumerate and work on these particular issues more directly because it does not seem completely pertinent to this decision at this meeting.
Vice Mayor Boles stated, if there is a way that we can approve it for this project without having to be a citywide now, then we can study that as part of the zoning amendment we are doing citywide next year.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, as currently proposed and reviewed by the Planning Commission and agendized for tonight, it does involve the zoning amendment but, any residential uses on the ground floor would require a use permit as this does which is a discretionary permit. She understands the concern about housing laws and, if the housing laws change, she is not sure how much this additional conditional use permit might affect those, but as currently drafted and put into the code, use permits would be required which are discretionary actions.
Councilmember Espinosa stated if this development has HOAs, do they know how much in fees it is going to be.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if an HOA is something within the scope.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that creation of an HOA for CCNRs can be a condition of approval. The specifics of the HOA are more of a private matter.
Councilmember Espinosa was concerned about someone in an affordable unit paying a high HOA fee, as it will be very difficult for someone in a low budget to afford the HOA.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy agreed, and she thinks that may affect the ultimate price of the unit.
In the affordable housing covenants, they get recorded against the sites and that is something we can address and consider and discuss with our affordable housing consultants in terms of making sure that they are still affordable in the covenants when they get recorded.
Councilmember Wright believes that HOA fees are not allowed to be calculated as part of the affordable index.
Councilmember Espinosa was excited about the three affordable units, but she does not know if people will be able to afford the HOA fees. When they purchase the property, they have to include paying for the HOA in the loan and that would reduce the amount of money they qualify for.
City Council Special Meeting 26 December 02, 2025
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that will be something we address when we are entering into the affordable housing specific agreements that are recorded against the site.
Councilmember Espinosa suggested an initial three years where the person purchasing an affordable unit does not pay for HOA. She asked to see if Council can add something like that into the agreement.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked what influence the Council can have on this specific issue, i.e., exempting or reducing HOA fees for affordable units or below market units, adding that Councilmember Wright opined that it cannot be legally done.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy does not believe we can include a condition. We have conditions that require CCNRs but we cannot regulate the specific fees among various users. There will be calculations of the affordable housing costs and we will be working with their affordable housing consultants to make sure that the units remain affordable and it will be something we will consider moving forward. We cannot regulate the specifics of the fees, and all the CCNRs have to be approved through the Department of Real Estate.
Mayor Beckmeyer understood it is beyond Council’s jurisdiction.
Councilmember Wright asked for progress on questions prior to deliberations.
Vice Mayor Boles referred to her wetlands setback question and had questions about the resolution and legal.
City Manager Woodhouse stated Councilmember Espinosa shared with him a secured property tax bill for 540 Crespi which shows that there are no property taxes. The San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement Assessment charge does apply because the site is considered to be a medium or large potential for vector creation. That is a unique circumstance, not a property tax, as City public property does not pay property tax. The annual cost is about $702.29 for the mosquito abatement services we receive.
Vice Mayor Boles thought there was some plan that showed the setback dimensions to the wetland.
Councilmember Bier stated that Director Updegrave addressed that.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we had addressed the setbacks verbally.
Vice Mayor Boles concluded there is a minimum of 6-foot setback to the building, not to a construction line. She stated all these dimensions are to the face of the buildings, but not to the face of the construction. She thinks that is the difference, as all the building construction needs to be outside the wetland delineation and the construction is not that far, especially for Building C, from the wetland delineation.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed, adding that Consultant Stinson shared that the conditions of approval require fencing to be placed on the upland side of that boundary and there will not be construction happening on the other side.
City Council Special Meeting 27 December 02, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles wanted to confirm the building setback from our Community Center property line.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the setback is measured to the base of the building, which is 10 feet, and the balcony is projected over.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that the legal planning setback is to the edge of construction because you need a fire rated construction separation usually.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated we measure setbacks to the face of the building.
Vice Mayor Boles stated no, we measure the setbacks to the face of any construction that is hitting the ground, which are the posts that are supporting the balcony above on the right side.
The C2 does not require setbacks, but the reason she is pointing it out because there is construction being right next to the property line that will limit in the future what we can do because we need to be setback from their construction. She thinks that was an inaccuracy.
One of her questions was about the height because it seemed to go over 35 feet and the answer was that we could condition that.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that Buildings B and C show that they have a skylight over a stairwell that appears to project about 6-8 inches above the height limit and staff would recommend a condition of approval saying that, prior to issuance of a building permit, the skylights are lowered to comply with the maximum 35-foot height limit.
Councilmember Wright asked if the architect could explain to them if that is feasible without changing the entire height of the entire roofline.
Architect Welte stated that it is a complication and another expense for the project. It is a small skylight, not an overly large element. They are often exceptions for antennas and satellite dishes, etc., but if they want it to be that way, it can be done.
Vice Mayor Boles was happy granting an exception, just like we did the parking exception, but she thought it needed to be noted as it does contradict the EIR.
There was Council consensus on supporting the exception.
Vice Mayor Boles referred to the resolution on packet page 1083, Item 13, where it talks about a tree protection and preservation plan and it says for a total of 9 minimum trees. She does not think that is accurate and it is left over from when they were only analyzing removing three trees.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it should be 15.
Vice Mayor Boles wanted to ask for a minor change on page 1087, where No. 28 says “the project shall require review and approval of a grading permit and a building permit prior to commencement of any construction activities,” and she wanted to add “and tree removals”.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the tree removal permit process is somewhat complicated and requires different permits at different times. She believes it can be accommodated.
City Council Special Meeting 28 December 02, 2025
Councilmember Wright asked if it would impede the project.
Community Development Director Updegrave does not believe so.
Councilmember Wright stated, if it would not impede the project, he would be okay with adding it.
Vice Mayor Boles stated it is making sure they have their permits before they start removing trees.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated to add “the applicable tree removal permit”.
Mayor Beckmeyer added with the understanding that it is not impeding.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it is required anyway as they have to put those measures in place before they start site work.
Councilmember Espinosa stated there is a question that says “to clarify what changes to the project or development agreement after our approval could trigger coming back to Council”.
She asked about the final subdivision map.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated it is on page 15 of the Council questions, and there are a number of parts to that question. The final subdivision map will come back to Council for approval. With respect to changes to the development agreement, Section 8.2 of the development agreement specifies differences between major amendments and minor amendments. Major amendments address the key terms of the agreement, i.e. the terms, the permitted uses, conditions or requirements for subsequent actions, density or intensity, maximum height or any of the monetary contribution; any changes to those terms would come back before both the Planning Commission and the Council with a public hearing and a formal amendment. Other changes would probably be more along the line of just language changes and the development agreement could be approved by the City Manager. Amendments to the actual project approvals, such as a change to the zoning or the permits, would have to come back, either to the Planning Commission or Council, whatever body is approving authority for those permits.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she needed further clarification. She has one condition that every garage will have one EV charger.
Mr. Murphy stated that they were providing one 50 amp outlet receptacle for them to plug in their charger for their car. He stated they are not providing the charger as every car is different.
Community Development Director Updegrave concluded that the condition is that every garage will have one 50-amp receptacle for EV charging.
Councilmember Bier stated there was an exception for the skylight.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, for the skylight, there was a Council consensus on allowing it.
Councilmember Bier stated change the number of trees in the resolution.
City Council Special Meeting 29 December 02, 2025
Community Development Director Updegrave stated changing from 9 to 15 on Condition 13, Condition 28 adding the applicable tree removal permit and they have to be in place prior to construction activities and tree removal. The other two conditions we heard were related to more assurances, i.e. no grading, retaining walls or other site improvements beyond those expressly allowed in the development agreement shall occur on City property and all improvements required for the project shall be located entirely on the owners’ private property unless separately authorized in writing by the City.
Councilmember Wright stated he has a question about the gas meter for the building that has the commercial spaces and there is an exception for gas for restaurants. For the structure that has the commercial space in it, he thinks it is important to encourage the applicant to put in a gas meter on that structure in the event that he wants to rent one of those commercial spaces to a restaurant, which is one of the exceptions to all-electric.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the all-electric is not applicable under the Ninth Court Ruling.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that the all-electric is required in the EIR.
Consultant Stinson stated the draft EIR assumed it was based on conversations with the applicant that they were committing to it, and the minor increase in emissions associated, if a restaurant went in, would not change the conclusions of the draft EIR and would not change the mitigation that is already required.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that this could be a decision for the developer to make, but it is very expensive to bring in a gas line and they might choose not to.
Councilmember Wright stated that is okay with him as it is their building.
Architect Welte stated that they are appreciative of Councilmember Wright’s suggestion because, from their experience, commercial restaurant tenants always want the option for gas, so having at least one gas meter to accommodate a potential restaurant like that would be a good idea. Overall, the project is committed to electric.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that EIR requires mitigations of four capable EV chargers on their property and on the Community Center property and what she heard was that they were offering to wire those in, not that they are capable, but be functional.
Mr. Murphy stated that they discussed doing four on their property, but he was not sure how they are going to be able to wire four on the City’s property and where that power is going to come from, who is paying for it, etc.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she raised this question when she met with the City Attorney and there were issues about capacity.
Mr. Murphy agreed. He stated they will put four on their side and put one in every single garage.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that the EIR calls for EV capable on the Community Center.
City Council Special Meeting 30 December 02, 2025
Asst. City Attorney Murphy added, with respect to the exception for the height for the skylight, that can get incorporated in the resolution on packet page 1078 that approves the Planning Commission decision and approves site development permit, PFD 811-16, with height exception on Buildings B and C to allow the skylight as shown in the plan if that is the desire of Council.
There was Council consensus.
Councilmember Wright wants to tell the applicant how much he appreciates the fact that there has been an affordable component, an environmental component, commercial component, residential component, $272,000 going to our affordable housing plus more which he would personally like to see go to the Affordable Housing Fund.
Councilmember Espinosa feels that she wants to renegotiate because this happened so long ago and everything has changed and it is only reasonable.
Vice Mayor Boles wanted to suggest one other condition of approval and referenced the driveway in terms of the vehicles for the people who live there and are using the space. She is concerned that during construction large vehicles would use the Community Center driveway.
She asked if we can consider a COA that does not allow construction vehicles of a certain size.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, as part of the building permit, they will need to do a construction management plan.
Consultant Stinson stated, as one of the mitigation measures that came out of the EIR analysis, transportation and traffic during construction was identified as a potential impact and there is a construction traffic management plan required that goes into scheduling and access and truck routes. It ensures there is safe ingress and egress of construction vehicles.
Councilmember Wright asked if that includes consideration for the school down the street.
Consultant Stinson stated it would take that into consideration. It is a standard mitigation measure and a standard requirement of the City.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it would be site- and project-specific.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if we could still ban construction vehicles if we wanted to from using the driveway just during the period of construction. She is worried about pedestrians.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she does not have enough information to know what those thresholds would be.
Vice Mayor Boles stated it may be considered when looking at those plans.
Councilmember Wright stated understands the concern about parking on the public byway but, at the same time, we all live in houses that were built by people driving construction vehicles and that is how things get built.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought Dep. Director/City Engineer would be part of that oversight of the construction management plan.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she is correct.
City Council Special Meeting 31 December 02, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 PM; seconded by Vice Mayor Boles.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Asst. City Attorney Murphy referred to the EV chargers on the Community Center spaces and she thanked Vice Mayor Boles who correctly noted that one of the mitigation measures requires that.
Consultant Stinson stated functions of the thresholds of significance related to GHG is one of the BMPs from the Air District is to adhere to Tier 2 standards for EV charging at all associated parking and that calculates out to four onsite for the Community Center.
Mayor Beckmeyer concluded that they have to figure out how to do that.
Councilmember Wright concluded that they are required to do eight altogether.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy noted that there are six separate actions that will require separate motions, starting with the Environmental Impact Report.
Councilmember Wright moved to adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report, and adopting CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
AGENDA ITEM #1-1
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Wright moved to adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment GPA96-19; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
AGENDA ITEM #1-2
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Wright moved to waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ-194-16 and Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19 to rezone portions of the property to be developed as C2 to allow residential uses and portions to remain undeveloped as Open Space, and allow horizontal mixed use as a conditional use in C2; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
City Council Special Meeting 32 December 02, 2025
AGENDA ITEM #1-3
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Wright moved to Introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Development Agreement DA-4-21 to establish a development agreement between Crespi Breakwater LLC and City of Pacifica to provide certain public and private benefits in conjunction with a development project at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of the City owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420)”; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she was not comfortable approving this project now because this Council has not talked about and looked at all the numbers. She has no idea where the $7,000 a year for the driveway came from and that would barely cover repaving, much less the use and benefits from the affordable housing payment which was negotiated some years ago. She thinks that number should be reevaluated. She is disappointed that the previous Council was not able to negotiate more affordable units. If we are going to be able to build our very low income and extremely low income units which are also required by RHNA, that takes either City money or City land and we are giving up City land that could accommodate even more units. She thinks it is a huge missed opportunity. She mentioned if Council was open to reopening the negotiations and either a bigger fee or another unit, as she is not comfortable approving the project now.
Councilmember Wright is afraid of fiduciary effects of making a deal with somebody and breaking their word. No one will want to build anything here under those kinds of conditions. He is not comfortable with that.
Councilmember Espinosa supports housing and it is unfortunate she does not feel comfortable voting for this project. She cannot vote for something like that due to concerns about transparency and value. She stated that Council negotiated a long time ago. She would love to move forward and vote for it, but she feels like their property value went up as did the City’s property. She does not think that is responsible because Council is responsible for making a decision for the public. She would like to renegotiate and see more affordable units. We may have to give out the land to build more affordable units or maybe get more in fees for allowing them to use our parking or raising the benefit for the community that was done years ago. She felt everything has changed now and her vote will be no for the record.
Councilmember Bier added that, for as long as she has been involved with this, everything we have asked the Murphys to do, they have done; after all the delays, construction costs have gone up so much. She appreciates what Councilmember Espinosa is saying but she does not agree with it for this project.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated we need affordable housing desperately. This project and the development agreement was agreed to with our inclusionary housing ordinance in mind, and we are receiving a substantial deposit and payment to our Affordable Housing Fund and she agrees with Councilmember Wright’s assessment that, when we make an agreement, we need to stand by that agreement. It was thought through by Councils prior to this one and by this one. She knows the public was not thrilled with the idea that they did not have full access to all of it but that is the purview of Council to do real property negotiations. She is very comfortable with this City Council Special Meeting 33 December 02, 2025
project. It is hitting every mark we asked for, what Pacifica wanted in more housing, more affordable housing, protection of the environment, etc. With regard to the assessment, she knows some think it has gone up and it is only going to go up, but when you have to remove 46% of the evaluation because you are 100% open space and conservation and cannot build on it, that has to affect the evaluation. She stated that appraisal is not the only part of the deal, but a whole constellation of things that went into this deal. That is why she is comfortable with this deal and looking forward to the opportunity to address 100% affordable project in the future on another parcel.
AGENDA ITEM #1-4
RESULT: ADOPTED [3 TO 2]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Wright
NOES: Boles, Espinosa
Asst. City Attorney Murphy recommended, based on the discussion, that Council move to adopt a Resolution approving the Planning Commission approval of, and approving Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-076-16, Subdivision Permit SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Protected Tree Removal TP-13-25, subject to the conditions of approval with the following modifications: a change to page 1078 regarding the approval to add an exception that the approval of the site development permit with a height exception to allow the skylights on Buildings B and C per the plan, a revision to condition 13 to change the number of trees from 9 to 15, additional language at the end of condition 28 to require grading and building permits prior to any tree removal, an additional brand new condition to require no grading, retaining walls or other site improvements beyond those expressly allowed in the development agreement to occur on City property with all approvements required for the project to be located entirely on the owners’ private property unless separately authorized in writing by the city, and another new condition that every garage will have one 50- amp receptacle for EV charges.
Councilmember Wright so moved; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
AGENDA ITEM #1-5
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [3 TO 2]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Wright
NOES: Boles, Espinosa
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated on No. 6 the recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Breakwater Crespi, LLC for the Sale of a Portion of the City’s Property located at 540 Crespi Drive with a revision to the resolution to the end of Section B to add a language after submittal of required documents to California Housing and Community Development, HCD, and HCD’s review.
Councilmember Wright so moved; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
City Council Special Meeting 34 December 02, 2025
AGENDA ITEM #1-6
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [3 TO 2]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Wright
NOES: Boles, Espinosa
Councilmember Wright thanked staff for their patience and all their hard work on getting this done.
Mayor Beckmeyer thanked everyone and looked forward to progress on this project.
ADJOURN
Mayor Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 11:13 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 2/9/2026
__________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor