The Pacifica City Council on Dec. 2 approved a package of six actions to advance a long‑running mixed‑use project at 570 Crespi Drive, voting 3–2 to adopt planning permits and to approve a purchase‑and‑sale agreement for the adjacent city parcel.

Samantha Updegrave, the city’s community development director, told the council the proposal includes three buildings totaling about 43,700 square feet with 19 homes (three below‑market‑rate), roughly 3,165 square feet of commercial space, 47 on‑site parking spaces and about 1,600 square feet of usable open space; staff recommended approving the EIR, a general‑plan amendment, rezoning, a development agreement and the planning permits so the project can move forward. “Staff does recommend approval of the six actions before council,” Updegrave said during the presentation.

The project has been in various forms since 2016 and was the subject of a formal EIR process this year. Rainey Planning consultant Rod Stinson said the county and state agencies reviewed the draft and recirculated the biological chapter after comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Stinson said the EIR found most biological and other impacts could be reduced with mitigation, but vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse‑gas emissions would remain “significant and unavoidable” after feasible mitigation.

The applicant, Eamon Murphy, described the proposal as a local infill project that would preserve roughly half the combined parcel as conservation and deliver neighborhood benefits, including a new community‑center drop‑off and additional parking. “Pacifica isn’t just where we’re proposing a project, Pacifica is home,” Murphy said, noting the team’s long engagement with city processes.

Public commenters were divided. Supporters said the site is a longstanding eyesore and praised the project’s modest scale and the three below‑market‑rate units. Opponents focused on the wetland delineation and buffer, urging the council to require a larger setback than the plan’s minimums and to explore nonprofit options that could deliver permanently affordable housing. Victor Carmichael, reading a statement for an absent resident, urged the council to “require a reasonable buffer between the retaining wall and the delineated wetland.”

Key issues raised by council members and speakers included:
- Wetland protection: consultants said the on‑site wetlands do not qualify as federally jurisdictional waters but do qualify as waters of the state; council members asked whether grading, formwork and silt‑control measures would keep construction disturbance outside the delineated wetland. Rod Stinson said no construction should occur inside the delineation; details will be reviewed during the grading and building permit process.
- Trees and community‑center impacts: the council required additional tree protections and asked for a higher replacement ratio; Parks and Public Works staff and the applicant agreed to refine the community‑center circulation and to identify how up to 14 new parking spaces promised to the city would be provided without compromising mature Monterey cypresses.
- Affordability and public value: the development agreement commits three on‑site BMR units and a $272,000 contribution to the city’s housing fund; several public speakers and council members asked whether a different approach (for example a land donation to a nonprofit) could have produced more permanently affordable units.
- Surplus Lands Act and HCD review: staff reported a call earlier in the day with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and agreed to submit required paperwork; the council added a condition tying final city signature authority to submittal of required documents to HCD and HCD’s review.

Council action unfolded in six motions. The council unanimously certified the final EIR and adopted related CEQA findings. The general‑plan amendment and the introductory rezoning ordinance passed unanimously. Council voted 3–2 to approve the site development and related discretionary permits and to adopt the development‑agreement actions with edits to conditions (yes: Wright, Beier, Mayor Beckmeier; no: Vice Mayor Bowles, Espinosa). The purchase‑and‑sale agreement for the city parcel at 540 Crespi also passed 3–2 with an added HCD‑submission clause.

The vote concluded a night of detailed technical questioning and intense public comment. Vice Mayor Bowles and Councilmember Espinosa said they opposed the approvals because they wanted either stronger commitments (more permanently affordable units or a larger affordable housing payment) or an updated valuation before selling city land; other council members said the applicants had met negotiated obligations and the project secures community benefits while protecting a substantial portion of the site.

Next steps: staff will incorporate the council’s edits into final permit conditions, submit the required documents to HCD under the Surplus Lands Act and proceed with the plan‑check, grading and building permit reviews that will vet the project’s construction‑phase protections, tree‑preservation measures and final parking layout. The council adjourned at 11:13 p.m.

Sources: City staff presentation and EIR consultant testimony; statements by applicant Eamon Murphy; multiple public commenters; council roll‑call votes recorded at the Dec. 2 meeting.