Agenda — Pacifica City Council, April 28, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

I. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2019, the Planning Commission approved Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 with the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-031 (Attachment B) to establish and operate a Cannabis Retail Operation with adult use and medicinal cannabis sales at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (File No. 2018-029). No appeal of the Planning Commission’s action was filed.

Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2019-031 includes conditions of the approval (“COAs”) applicable to CAP-8-

18. Many of these COAs are required to be met prior to the commencement of operations. While the Applicant made progress towards completion, the Applicant indicated that two COAs were infeasible to satisfy prior to commencement of operations. The Applicant explained that they had to commence operations to generate revenue through cannabis retail sales to be able to satisfy COA No. 9 and COA No. 18 (Attachment B).

Given the Applicant’s request, the City temporarily deferred compliance with COA No. 9 and COA No. 18 through the Agreement Regarding Deferral of Specified Conditions of Approval Relating to the Operation of Seaweed Holistics (“Agreement”) executed on September 21, 2020 (Attachment C), to allow the Applicant to commence operations to generate the revenue necessary to satisfy COA No. 9 and COA No. 18 provided that the Applicant expeditiously processed an application to modify these COAs. On February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2021-001 which formally amended CAP-8-18 amend COA No. 9 and COA No. 18 to defer the timing of compliance with those conditions until after commencement of operations (File No. 2020-020) (Attachment D).

Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.4806(e), the Planning Department is “authorized to conduct an annual review of the operation of each permitted cannabis operation … for full compliance with the operational, recordkeeping, nuisance and other requirements [of Pacifica’s Cannabis Regulations]...” COA No. 19 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-031 required the Planning Commission to conduct the initial annual review and established the timing of the annual review to be held not less than one year but not more than two years from the issuance of the Cannabis Public Safety License (CPSL).

The Police Chief issued the CPSL on October 16, 2019, however, the Applicant commenced cannabis retail operations in September 2020. Therefore, this annual report is being conducted within two years of implementation of the CPSL.

B. ANNUAL REPORT

1. Criteria
The City of Pacifica’s “Cannabis Regulations” are contained in Article 48 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the

7.c
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: ATT C. Planning Commission Staff Report_August 15, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Seaweed Holistics Annual Report
August 15, 2022

Page 3 ends

PMC1. The Cannabis Public Safety License requirements are contained in Chapter 16 of Title 4 of the PMC2
. Additionally, Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 sets forth compliance requirements in the conditions of approval in Exhibit A to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-031, as amended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-001. The following section lists each COA with staff’s assessment of whether operation of the site is compliant with the respective condition based on a site inspection conducted by the Police Chief and the Planning Director on August 27, 2020, an inspection by HdL Companies3 on December 1, 2021, and February 3, 2022, and Planning, Building, and North County Fire Authority staff on August 1, 2022.

2. Conditions of Approval
Table 1, below, lists the conditions of approval applicable to Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18:

Table 1.

COA
No.

Summary of Condition and Statusa
1 Summarized Condition. Development shall be substantially in accord with the plans as modified by the conditions of approval.

Status. Not Compliant. The Applicant has not complied with COA No. 9 which requires the modification of the storefront window.
2 Summarized Condition. The approval is valid for a period of two years from the date of final determination.

Status. Compliant. Operations were required to commence no later than September 26, 2021, or else submit a request for an extension and applicable fee prior to September 26, 2021. Operations commenced in September 2020.
3 Summarized Condition. The Cannabis Activity Permit and Cannabis Public Safety License shall be issued to Seaweed Holistics LLC, a California limited liability company (LLC), with Ana Leaño-Williams as the single member-manager. The transfer of the Cannabis Activity Permit and Cannabis Public Safety License shall hereafter be prohibited.

Status. Compliant. The Cannabis Activity Permit has not been transferred to any other person or entity. 4 Summarized Condition. The Applicant shall at all times maintain a valid Cannabis Public Safety License and a valid license/permit from the State of California.

Status. Compliant. Pacifica Police Department issued the Cannabis Public Safety License on October 16, 2019 and it currently expires on October 16, 2022. The California Bureau of Cannabis Control Cannabis – Retailer License (No. C10-0000719-LIC) was issued to Seaweed Holistics LLC on June 2, 2020 and currently expires on June 2, 2023.
5 Summarized Condition. The Cannabis Retail Operation shall operate consistent with all provisions of Article 48 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 applicable to Cannabis Retail Operations. 1 City of Pacifica Cannabis Regulations:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PLZO_CH4ZO_ART48 CARE
2 City of Pacifica Cannabis Public Safety License Requirements:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT4PUSA_CH16CAPUSALI 3 The City has contracted the services of HdL to provide annual financial audits and compliance inspections of all permitted cannabis businesses operating within the City.

7.c
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: ATT C. Planning Commission Staff Report_August 15, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Seaweed Holistics Annual Report
August 15, 2022

Page 4 ends

Status. Not Compliant. The operation is not in compliance with PMC sec. 9-4.4803(d)(5), which requires an operation to comply with conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. As further discussed under COA No. 9, 18, and 20, the operation is not compliant with these Planning Commission imposed conditions. HdL’s site visit on 12/1/2021 did not identify any other compliance issues. 6 Summarized Condition. The Applicant shall operate and maintain the Cannabis Retail Operation in a manner which does not constitute a public nuisance.

Status. Not Compliant. The Police Department and Code Enforcement Officer have confirmed that there have been no cases of concern related to the operation of this Cannabis Retail Operation. However, lack of compliance with three conditions of approval as further described in the annual report constitutes a public nuisance as provided in PMC sec. 9-4.4807.
7 Summarized Condition. Prior to commencement of operations, Applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Police Chief a revised Security Plan which incorporates the window modifications described in these Conditions of Approval.

Status. Compliant. The Police Chief approved the revised security plan in September 2020. 8 Summarized Condition. The Cannabis Retail Operation shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed space of the business premises.

Status. Compliant. No reports of business being conducted outside of the enclosed space of the business have been report.
9b Summarized Condition, as amended. Establishment of a milestone timeline for the modification of the front window to meet or exceed the requirements of PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii).

Status. Not Compliant. Window has not been modified and progress through the milestones was not completed.
10 Summarized Condition. Prior to commencement of operations, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Police Chief a physical barrier to secure the rear area of the first floor from the front “customer waiting” area in accordance with PMC Section 9-4-4803(d)(1)(x).

Status. Compliant. Police Chief found physical barrier on the first floor acceptable during August 27, 2020 site visit.
11 Summarized Condition. Prior to commencement of operations, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Police Chief a physical barrier to prevent public access to the second floor.

Status. Compliant. Police Chief found physical barrier on the first floor acceptable during August 27, 2020 site visit, except for the need of a locking mechanism. Locking mechanism was confirm by Building Department staff on August 1, 2022.
12 Summarized Condition. Prior to commencement of operations, the Applicant shall provide or cause to be provided and show on the plans, a trash enclosure on the business premises such that all cannabis waste is securely stored until it is removed from the premises by a vendor authorized under state law.

Status. Compliant. Confirmed by Planning staff prior to operation. 13 Summarized Condition. Prior to commencement of operations, the Applicant shall remove signage or bring it into compliance with a master sign program.

Status. Compliant. New sign was installed and building permit final inspection was passed on February 12, 2021.
14 Summarized Condition. Prior to commencement of operations, the Applicant shall submit for Planning Director review and approval of the required incidental signage to be posted at the entrance indicating that the premises are under camera/video surveillance and indicating age restrictions for entrance pursuant to PMC Section 4.16-03(c)(i)(ab) and PMC Section 9-4.4803(d).

Status. Compliant. Planning staff verified during the August 27, 2020 and August 1, 2022 site visits.

7.c
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: ATT C. Planning Commission Staff Report_August 15, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Seaweed Holistics Annual Report
August 15, 2022

Page 5 ends

15 Summarized Condition. Prior to commencement of operations, the Applicant shall provide evidence that it has retained the services of a cannabis waste management service and an inventory control service in accordance with state law.

Status. Compliant. Confirmed by Planning staff prior to operation. 16 Summarized Condition. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents from any claim, action or proceeding brought against the City.

Status. N/A. No action related to this permit has been brought against the City to date. 17 Summarized Condition. All cannabis-related products shall be stored in air-tight containers which are completely sealed in order to minimize unpleasant odors.

Compliant. Planning staff confirmed during the August 1, 2022 site visit. 18b Summarized Condition, as amended. Within 60 days of February 16, 2021, Permittee shall pay in full all outstanding fees associated with processing CAP-8-18 and fees and costs incurred by the City associated with preparing the Agreement Regarding Deferral of Specified Conditions of Approval Relating to the Operation of Seaweed Holistics and all city costs and fees associated relating to the Planning Commission hearing to consider the amendment of the CAP.

Status. Not Compliant. Outstanding fees associated with processing and amending CAP-8-18 and cost associated with preparing the deferral agreement have not been paid at the time of preparation of this report.
19 Summarized Condition. The Planning Commission shall conduct two annual reviews of the subject Cannabis Retail Operation at a public hearing. The first annual review shall occur not less than one year but not more than two years after issuance of the Cannabis Public Safety License to the Applicant. The second annual review shall occur not less than one year after the first annual review.

Status. Compliant. This review is the first of the required two annual reviews. 20 Summarized Condition. To achieve enhanced monitoring of this Cannabis Retail Operation, the Applicant shall, until completion of the second annual review described in these Conditions of Approval, comply with supplemental security requirements, including unannounced site inspections, quarterly reports of compliance to Police, and 24 hour access to security access.

Status. Not Compliant. Inspections and access to security cameras have been provided to Police as needed. Applicant provided two quarterly reports since opening, covering the timeframe of October - December 2020 and January – March 2021. The Applicant has stated that no quarterly reports have been submitted since March 2021.
21 Summarized Condition. Applicant shall obtain approval of a building permit by the Building Official prior to commencing any construction activity.

Status. Compliant.
22 Summarized Condition. Existing sprinkler/fire alarm system shall be altered/extended as required by the interior modifications described in these Conditions of Approval. Install per NFPA 13. Submit under separate fire permit if any partitions are added which affect proper fire sprinkler spacing as determined by the Fire Chief.

Status. Compliant. Sprinkler system was found compliant. NCFA staff provided Applicant some suggestions to improve the implementation of the sprinkler system on August 1, 2022. 23 Summarized Condition. Construction shall be in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program.

Status. Compliant. With exception of the installation of the sign, no exterior construction has occurred to date. Operation commenced within existing commercial space.

7.c
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: ATT C. Planning Commission Staff Report_August 15, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Seaweed Holistics Annual Report
August 15, 2022

Page 6 ends

24 Summarized Condition. Requirements related to protection and repair of public right-of-way as a result of construction activities.

Status. Compliant. With exception of the installation of the sign, no exterior construction has occurred to date. Operation commenced within existing commercial space. 25 Summarized Condition. Hours of operation of the business, which includes those hours in which the site may be open to the public for retail sales shall be as follows: 10:00 a.m. through 8 p.m. daily.

Status. Compliant. Planning staff confirmed store hours during the August 1, 2022 site visit. a. Full text of condition can be found in Attachment B (or Attachment D for conditions revised by Resolution No. 2021-001, see note b) to this staff report.
b. Condition was amended by Resolution No. 2021-001
Conditions which are detailed as not compliant in Table 2 are discussed in further detail below.

Condition of Approval No. 1
This condition requires the development to be substantially in accordance with the approved plans modified by the conditions of approval. As further discussed below for COA No. 9, the Applicant has not complied with COA No. 9 which requires the modification of the storefront window. Therefore the development is out of compliance COA No. 1.

Condition of Approval No. 5
This condition incorporates all the requirements of Article 48 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the PMC applicable to the cannabis retail operation. PMC Section 9-4.4803(d)(5) states, “The Planning Commission may impose additional conditions which it deems necessary to ensure that operation of the cannabis operation will be in accordance with the findings provided in Section 9-4.4805(a) and with the standards and regulations provided in this article and applicable state laws.” As further discussed below for COA No. 9, No. 18, and No. 20, the Applicant has not complied with these conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and therefore is out of compliance with PMC Section 9-4.4803(d)(5) and, therefore, COA No. 5.

Condition of Approval No. 6
This condition prohibits the operation of the cannabis retail operation from creating a public nuisance.

As established in PMC sec 9-4.4807, “[a]ny use or condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of this article shall be and hereby is declared a public nuisance and may be summarily abated by the City pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 731 or any other remedy available to the City.” The cannabis retail operation is in violation of provision of Article 48 as demonstrated in this annual report because there are Conditions of Approval that have not been complied with and, as a result, the cannabis retail operation is considered a public nuisance, as defined in the PMC. Therefore, the Applicant is non-compliant with COA No. 6.

Condition of Approval No. 9
This condition was initially included in Resolution No. 2019-031 to bring the existing storefront window into the glazing requirements of PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii), which states, “Windows and window coverings. Storefronts (front facade of the cannabis operation) shall be primarily glass with glass occupying at least forty-five (45%) percent of the entire store front and sixty (60%) percent of the horizontal length of the store. Window and door areas shall not be covered, tinted, or made opaque in any way, or obscured in any way by landscaping, floor displays, equipment, or the like.”

7.c
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: ATT C. Planning Commission Staff Report_August 15, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Seaweed Holistics Annual Report
August 15, 2022

Page 7 ends

Planning Commission’s findings in Resolution No. 2019-031 detail “The first floor of the proposed storefront is 24’ wide and 8‘ high for a total of 192 sf. The first floor of the existing storefront currently has a 10’ by 6’ window and a door with a 2’ by 5’-6” glass panel for a total of 71 sf of glass. Therefore, the existing glass along the first story storefront does not occupy at least 45 percent (86.4 sf minimum) of the storefront nor does the 10’ wide window plus the 2’ wide glass panel door meet the 60 percent of horizontal length of the store (14’-3” minimum). A COA would require modification of the front window to comply with PMC Section 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii).”
As discussed under section A of this staff report, COA No. 9 initially required the Applicant to modify the storefront window prior to commencement of operations. However, in response to the Applicant’s claims that revenue from the operation of the cannabis operation was necessary to generate the funds for the window modifications, the City worked with the Applicant to establish a mutually agreed upon schedule that would delay the window modifications until after the commencement of operations. The City entered into a deferral agreement with the applicant and the Planning Commission later amended the condition to be consistent with the deferral agreement. The Applicant’s progress on this condition, and the associated milestone deadlines contained in the condition, is detailed in Table 2.

Table 2. Applicant’s Progress with COA No. 9, as revised by Resolution No. 2021-001 Summary of Milestone Deadlines Identified in
Resolution No. 2021-001 Applicant’s progress
The Applicant shall apply for a building permit
within two weeks of approval of Resolution No.
2021-001 (March 2, 2021) to modify the firstfloor storefront to increase the horizontal and overall measurements of the glass on the first
floor storefront to meet or exceed the
requirements of PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii).

Applicant submitted building permit application
materials on March 1, 2021. Engineering, Building
and Planning had comments on the submittal,
which were provided to the Applicant by March
29, 2021. The applicant has not resubmitted a
response to the City’s plan check comments
issued in March 2021.

Within three working days of notice from City
that building permit is ready to be issued, the
Applicant shall pay all building permit fees.

The City has been unable to provide notice that
the building permit is ready to be issued because
the applicant has not made diligent efforts to
process the building permit application in
response to City plan check comments, as noted
above.

Within two weeks of building permit issuance,
Applicant shall complete the store front
modification and window installation and request
a building final inspection. Additional time may
be granted by Planning Director due to a special
order of materials.

The applicant has not completed a final building
permit inspection because the applicant has not
obtained the building permit as required.

On April 26, 2021, the Applicant requested additional time from the City due to a personal loss related to COVID-19. In response, staff did suspend its regular reminders and check-ins to the applicant for approximately one year, other than an email to update the Applicant on the total of outstanding funds as discussed under COA No. 18, below. Staff was unable to grant additional time to comply with the

7.c
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: ATT C. Planning Commission Staff Report_August 15, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Seaweed Holistics Annual Report
August 15, 2022

Page 8 ends

requirements of this COA because it was enacted by the Planning Commission. Thereafter, staff followed up with the Applicant in March 2022 to remind the Applicant of the outstanding window modification requirement (and outstanding fees as further discussed below), informed the Applicant that the annual report was upcoming, and encouraged resolution of these items before the report to Planning Commission. The Applicant responded stating that they were working with their landlord on next steps. On April 20, 2022, staff informed the Applicant the annual report has been scheduled for August 15, 2022 and further encouraged the Applicant to complete the window modification by July 27, 2022 so staff would have time to note satisfaction of the COA in the annual report. No progress was made on the window modification before publication of this report. Therefore, the Applicant is not compliant with COA No. 9.

Condition of Approval No. 18
This condition in Resolution No. 2019-031 is standard language that is generally included in all Planning Commission resolutions. The condition required that all outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this project shall be paid within 30 days of the approval of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 and that cannabis retail operations shall not commence operation until such fees are paid.

The City’s master fee schedule establishes a time and materials billing system for planning applications.

While staff collects an initial lump sum deposit and requires the Applicant to sign a reimbursement agreement form as part of the application, this standard condition provides an additional layer of authority for the City to collect any outstanding fees or payments prior to the commencement of the project.

The City calculated the outstanding fees associated with the permit to be $4,080.56. On January 31, 2020, the City sent the Applicant a written request for the funds within 30 days consistent with the payment terms in the reimbursement agreement. In February 2020, the Applicant requested to pay the amount in $1,000 monthly installments, which staff agreed to and established a payment plan over the next four months. The first payment was due March 31, 2020, however no payments for the outstanding fees were made.

In June 2020, staff began conversations with the Applicant of the option to enter a deferral agreement.

The revised condition required the permittee to pay all outstanding fees within 60 days of Planning Commission approval of the revised conditions (i.e., April 17, 2021). Staff calculated costs at the time and informed the Applicant of the outstanding fees of $25,299.29 to be paid by March 10, 2021. No payment for the outstanding fees was made.

On April 26, 2021, the Applicant requested additional time from the City due to a personal loss related to COVID-19. Staff followed-up again with the Applicant on June 10, 2021 and informed the Applicant that the final invoice for the processing of the amendment was received and updated the final outstanding costs for the processing of the CAP, preparation and execution of the deferral agreement and processing the amendments of the CAP was $25,952.89. No response was received from the Applicant. Staff followed up with the Applicant again in March 2022 to remind the Applicant of the

7.c
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: ATT C. Planning Commission Staff Report_August 15, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Seaweed Holistics Annual Report
August 15, 2022

Page 9 ends

outstanding fees (and window modification requirement as discussed above), informed the Applicant that the annual report was upcoming, and encouraged resolution of these items before the report to Planning Commission. The Applicant responded with a written request for a payment plan. On April 20, 2022, staff denied the Applicant’s request for the payment plan, and informed the Applicant the annual report had been scheduled for August 15, 2022 and further encouraged the Applicant to pay the outstanding fees by July 27, 2022 so staff would have time to note satisfaction of the COA in the annual report. No payment for the outstanding fees was made before July 27, 2022.

Condition of Approval No. 20
This condition was initially included in Resolution No. 2019-031 in response to concerns that the Police Chief had regarding the Applicant’s ability to comply with all PMC requirements and conditions of approval imposed on this permit, in particular the lack of completion of the storefront window modifications. The Planning Commission included this condition to require:
i) The Applicant to permit inspection of its cannabis operation by City officials during normal operating hours without advanced notice;
ii) The Applicant to submit quarterly compliance reports to the Chief of Police outlining how the operation is complying with all applicable laws and conditions of approval; and iii) The Applicant to provide a live stream of the Applicant’s video surveillance system which is accessible to the Chief of Police via remote access 24 hours per day.

There have been no compliance issues with the Applicant permitting inspection of its cannabis operation by City officials during normal operating hours without advance notice or providing access to the Applicant’s live stream video surveillance system 24 hours per as day. The Applicant did inform Planning staff that they have not submitted the quarterly compliance reports to the Chief of Police since March 2021.

3. Code Enforcement and Police Calls for Service
In addition to its analysis of the conditions of approval applicable to Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 (Section 2.B, above), Planning Department staff consulted with the Police Department and Code Enforcement Officer to determine if, pursuant to PMC 9-4.4806(b), violations of Article 48, the security plan or any violations which constitute a nuisance have occurred, which could be a basis for revocation of CAP 8-18. Captain Bill Glasgo found, based on an address search of 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 of reported calls for service, that there were no calls of concern between September 2020 through July 28, 2022. Calls of concern include illegal activity or activity that can be identified as a nuisance. The City’s Code Enforcement Officer also did not identify any code enforcement complaints related to the subject site.

4. Business License and Tax Filings
Planning Department staff also consulted with the City’s Finance Department to determine if the subject cannabis operation has complied with all recordkeeping requirements of Article 48 including business license and cannabis operation tax obligations. The Finance Department confirmed that Seaweed Holistics, LLC is in good standing with all business license and cannabis operation tax filings.

II. STAFF ANALYSIS

7.c
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: ATT C. Planning Commission Staff Report_August 15, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Seaweed Holistics Annual Report
August 15, 2022

Page 10 ends

As demonstrated in Section 2 of this report, the operator of the cannabis retail operation has maintained a cannabis retail operation that has not caused calls of concern from the Police Department or public nuisance complaints from the Code Enforcement Officer. The cannabis retail operation is in good standing with the state license, business license, and local tax filings. The operator has also complied with several conditions of the cannabis activity permit, however there are notable and continuing non-compliance issues related to COA No. 9, COA No. 18, and COA No. 20. Because of the compliance status of COA No. 9, COA No. 18, and COA No. 20, the operation is also not compliant with COA No. 1, COA No. 5 and COA No. 6.

The City has provided several accommodations to this Applicant to assist with achieving compliance related to COA No. 9 and COA No. 18, including establishment of a payment plan, an agreement to defer conditions, providing additional time to due to personal matters, and scheduling the annual report at the latest meeting opportunity. These accommodations are in addition to the several email reminders and extra guidance that staff has provided the Applicant. Staff has provided this assistance with the intention of helping the Applicant succeed and to be a business-friendly resource. However, the Applicant’s lack of progress on COA Nos 9 and 18 and has left staff with no indication that further extensions for compliance would result in completion of the applicable requirements by the Applicant.

Furthermore, it was the Applicant’s responsibility to submit the quarterly reports to Chief of Police in accordance with COA No. 20
Per PMC sec. 9-4.4806(e) as the result of the noncompliance finding of this annual report, staff may initiate a permit suspension or revocation proceeding against the cannabis operation if, upon completion of an annual review, the business is found to not be in compliance with Article 48 or is operating in a manner which constitutes a public nuisance.

For all the reasons provided in this staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the operation of the cannabis retail operation at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 to not be in compliance with the requirements of Article 48 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the PMC or the requirements of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2019-031 and 2021-001, to find that the cannabis retail operation is operating in a manner which constitutes a public nuisance, and to initiate suspension or revocation proceedings and direct staff to return within 60 days to conduct a public hearing regarding suspension or revocation of CAP 8-18.

III. COMMISSION ACTION
Move to ADOPT the attached resolution to FIND that the annual review of the cannabis retail operation is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; to FIND that the operation of the cannabis retail operation at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021-640) authorized by Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 (File No. 2018-029) is not in compliance with the requirements of Article 48 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the PMC or the requirements of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2019-031 and 2021-001; and taking other actions pertaining to a public hearing to consider suspension or revocation of CAP-8-18.

7.c
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: ATT C. Planning Commission Staff Report_August 15, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal)

PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
DATE: October 3, 2022 FILE: CAP-8-18
ITEM: 1
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of Public Hearing was published in the San Mateo Daily Journal on September 22, 2022 and mailed to approximately 120 surrounding property owners and occupants.

APPLICANT/
OPERATOR:

Ana Leaño Williams
Seaweed Holistics, LLC
450 Dondee Way, Suite 2
Pacifica, CA 94044

PROPERTY
OWNER:

Ronald E. Grindrod Trust
450 Dondee Way, Suite 15
Pacifica, CA 94044
PROJECT LOCATION: 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021-640) – Rockaway Beach PROJECT DESCRIPTION:File Nos. 2018-029 and 2020-020 – Consideration of revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 which authorizes the operation of a cannabis retail operation, Seaweed Holistics, LLC, for the sale of medicinal and adult use cannabis.

SITE DESIGNATIONS: General Plan/Local Coastal Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) / C-Z (Coastal Zone Combining District) / CO-RB (Cannabis Operation, Rockaway Beach Overlay District) Rockaway Beach Specific Plan: Mixed Use
RECOMMENDED CEQA STATUS: Exempt under the “Common Sense” exemption per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

ADDITIONAL REQUIRED APPROVALS: Subject to appeal to the City Council.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the attached Resolution.

PREPARED BY: Bonny O’Connor, AICP, Senior Planner
1 Packet Pg. 48

7.d
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: ATT D. Planning Commission Staff Report_October 3, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Revocation of Seaweed Holistic CAP
October 3, 2022

Page 2 ends

A. BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2019, the Planning Commission approved Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 with the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-031 (Attachment B) to establish and operate a Cannabis Retail Operation with adult use and medicinal cannabis sales at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (“Seaweed Holistics”) (File No. 2018-029). Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2019-031 included conditions of the approval (“COAs”) applicable to CAP-8-18. Many of these COAs were required to be met prior to the commencement of operations. While the Applicant made progress towards completion of some of the COAs, the Applicant indicated that two COAs were infeasible to satisfy prior to commencement of operations. The Applicant explained that they had to commence operations to generate revenue through cannabis retail sales to be able to satisfy COA No. 9 and COA No. 18 (Attachment B).

Given the Applicant’s request, the City temporarily deferred compliance with COA No. 9 and COA No. 18 through the Agreement Regarding Deferral of Specified Conditions of Approval Relating to the Operation of Seaweed Holistics (“Agreement”) executed on September 21, 2020 (Attachment C), to allow the Applicant to commence operations to generate the revenue necessary to satisfy COA No. 9 and COA No. 18 provided that the Applicant expeditiously process an application to modify these COAs. On February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2021-001 which amended COA No. 9 and COA No. 18 of CAP-8-18 to defer the timing of compliance with those conditions until after commencement of operations (File No. 2020-020) (Attachment D).

In accordance with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.4806(e) and COA No. 19, the Planning Commission conducted an annual review of the cannabis retail operation at the August 15, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. After receiving a report prepared by staff and testimony, the Planning Commission found that operation of Seaweed Holistics is being conducted in a manner that is not in compliance the requirements of Article 48 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the PMC and the requirements of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2019-031 and 2021-001 and therefore constitutes a public nuisance in accordance with PMC sec. 9-4.4806 and PMC sec. 9-4.48071. The Planning Commission also directed staff to schedule a public hearing within 60 days2to consider suspension or revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 in accordance with PMC sec. 9- 4.4806.

B. DISCUSSION

1. Compliance Status
As presented during the annual report to the Planning Commission on August 15, 2022, staff found that the applicant was out of compliance with COA No. 9 (as amended by Resolution No. 2021-001), COA No. 18 (as amended by Resolution No. 2021-001) and COA No. 20 of Resolution No. 2019-031. Status of each of these conditions are discussed below.
1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-016 (Attachment E) 2 The October 3, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting is the last regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting that occurs within the prescribed 60 day timeline which ends on October 14, 2022. 1 Packet Pg. 49

7.d
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: ATT D. Planning Commission Staff Report_October 3, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Revocation of Seaweed Holistic CAP
October 3, 2022

Page 3 ends

Condition of Approval No. 9
This condition was initially included in Resolution No. 2019-031 to bring the existing storefront window into the glazing requirements for the Security Plan standards of PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii), which states, “Windows and window coverings. Storefronts (front facade of the cannabis operation) shall be primarily glass with glass occupying at least forty-five (45%) percent of the entire store front and sixty (60%) percent of the horizontal length of the store. Window and door areas shall not be covered, tinted, or made opaque in any way, or obscured in any way by landscaping, floor displays, equipment, or the like.” Planning Commission’s findings in Resolution No. 2019-031 detail “The first floor of the proposed storefront is 24’ wide and 8‘ high for a total of 192 sf. The first floor of the existing storefront currently has a 10’ by 6’ window and a door with a 2’ by 5’-6” glass panel for a total of 71 sf of glass. Therefore, the existing glass along the first story storefront does not occupy at least 45 percent (86.4 sf minimum) of the storefront nor does the 10’ wide window plus the 2’ wide glass panel door meet the 60 percent of horizontal length of the store (14’-3” minimum). A COA would require modification of the front window to comply with the Security Plan standards of PMC Section 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii).” COA No. 9 initially required the Applicant to modify the storefront window prior to commencement of operations. However, in response to the Applicant’s claims that revenue from the operation of the cannabis operation was necessary to generate the funds for the window modifications, the City worked with the Applicant to establish a mutually agreed upon schedule that would delay the window modifications until after the commencement of operations. The City entered into a deferral agreement with the applicant and the Planning Commission later amended the condition to be consistent with the deferral agreement. The Applicant’s progress on this condition, and the associated milestone deadlines contained in the condition, is detailed in Table 1.

Table 1. Applicant’s Progress with COA No. 9, as revised by Resolution No. 2021-001 Summary of Milestone Deadlines Applicant’s progress
The Applicant shall apply for a building permit within
two weeks of approval of Resolution No. 2021-001
(March 2, 2021) to modify the first-floor storefront to increase the horizontal and overall measurements of
the glass on the first floor storefront to meet or exceed the requirements of PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii).

Applicant submitted building permit application
materials on March 1, 2021. Engineering, Building and
Planning had comments on the submittal, which were
provided to the Applicant by March 29, 2021. The
applicant has not resubmitted a response to the City’s
plan check comments issued in March 2021.

Within three working days of notice from City that
building permit is ready to be issued, the Applicant shall pay all building permit fees.

The City has been unable to provide notice that the
building permit is ready to be issued because the
applicant has not made diligent efforts to process the
building permit application in response to City plan
check comments, as noted above.

Within two weeks of building permit issuance, Applicant shall complete the store front modification and window
installation and request a building final inspection.

Additional time may be granted by Planning Director
due to a special order of materials.

The applicant has not completed a final building permit inspection because the applicant has not obtained the
building permit as required.

7.d
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: ATT D. Planning Commission Staff Report_October 3, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Revocation of Seaweed Holistic CAP
October 3, 2022

Page 4 ends

approximately one year, other than an email to update the Applicant on the total of outstanding funds as discussed under COA No. 18, below. Staff was unable to grant additional time to comply with the requirements of this COA because it was enacted by the Planning Commission. Thereafter, staff followed up with the Applicant in March 2022 to remind the Applicant of the outstanding window modification requirement (and outstanding fees as further discussed below), informed the Applicant that the annual report was upcoming, and encouraged resolution of these items before the report to Planning Commission. The Applicant responded stating that they were working with their landlord on next steps. On April 20, 2022, staff informed the Applicant the annual report has been scheduled for August 15, 2022 and further encouraged the Applicant to complete the window modification by July 27, 2022, so staff would have time to note satisfaction of the COA in the annual report. No progress was made on the window modification before July 27, 2022. Since the annual report to the Planning Commission on August 15, 2022, no progress has been made on the window modification. Therefore, the Applicant is not compliant with COA No. 9.

The City’s master fee schedule establishes a time and materials billing system for planning applications.

In June 2020, staff began conversations with the Applicant of the option to enter a deferral agreement.

The Applicant agreed to pay the cost of preparing the deferral agreement and processing the amendments to the conditions of approval. Staff worked with the Applicant to establish a mutually agreed upon payment deadline that would occur after the commencement of operations. The Planning Commission amended the condition to incorporate the deadline as established in the deferral agreement by adopting Resolution No. 2021-001 on February 16, 2021. The revised condition required the permittee to pay all outstanding fees within 60 days of Planning Commission approval of the revised conditions (i.e., April 17, 2021). Staff calculated costs at the time and informed the Applicant of the outstanding fees of to be paid by March 10, 2021. No payment for the outstanding fees was made.

On April 26, 2021, the Applicant requested additional time from the City due to a personal loss related to COVID-19. Staff followed-up again with the Applicant on June 10, 2021 and informed the Applicant that the final invoice for the processing of the amendment was received and updated the final total outstanding costs for the processing of the CAP, preparation and execution of the deferral agreement 1 Packet Pg. 51

7.d
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: ATT D. Planning Commission Staff Report_October 3, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Revocation of Seaweed Holistic CAP
October 3, 2022

Page 5 ends

and processing the amendments of the CAP to $25,952.893. The City received no response from the Applicant. Staff followed up with the Applicant again in March 2022 to remind the Applicant of the outstanding fees (and window modification requirement as discussed above), informed the Applicant that the annual report was upcoming, and encouraged resolution of these items before the report to Planning Commission. The Applicant responded with a written request for a payment plan. On April 20, 2022, staff denied the Applicant’s request for the payment plan, and informed the Applicant the annual report had been scheduled for August 15, 2022 and further encouraged the Applicant to pay the outstanding fees by July 27, 2022, so staff would have time to note satisfaction of the COA in the annual report. No payment for the outstanding fees was made before July 27, 2022. Since the annual report to the Planning Commission on August 15, 2022, no progress has been made on the outstanding fees before publication of this report. Therefore, the Applicant is not compliant with COA No. 18.

At the time of the annual review on August 15, 2022, it was presented that the Applicant did inform Planning staff that they have not submitted the quarterly compliance reports to the Chief of Police since March 2021. Since that time, the applicant has submitted the missing reports and Police staff have found the reports adequate. At the time of the writing of this report the applicant is now considered to be in compliance with this condition of approval. The next quarterly report is due September 30, 2022, which is after the publication deadline for this report and prior to the hearing.

Because staff finds that the operation remains out of compliance with COA No. 9 and COA No. 18, staff also finds that the operation is also not compliant with COA No. 1 (requiring development to be substantially in accordance with approved plans modified by the conditions of approval), COA No. 5 (requiring compliance with all conditions of approval and all standards and regulations in Article 48 and applicable state laws) and COA No. 6 (requiring the operation to refrain from creating a public nuisance) as further detailed in the August 15, 2022 annual report to the Planning Commission (Attachment F). 3 This amount is the sum of the outstanding $4,080.56 for the original processing of CAP-8-18 and the outstanding $21,872.33 for the processing of the deferral agreement and the amendment to CAP-8-18. 1 Packet Pg. 52

7.d
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: ATT D. Planning Commission Staff Report_October 3, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Revocation of Seaweed Holistic CAP
October 3, 2022

Page 6 ends

2. Criteria for Suspension or Revocation
In accordance with PMC sec. 9-4.4806, the Planning Commission may suspend or revoke a Cannabis Activity Permit if any of the following are found to apply:
(i) If any of the conditions or terms of such permit are violated4; (ii) If any law is violated in connection there with5;
(iii) If it appears to the Commission that the cannabis operation has violated any of the requirements of Article 48;
(iv) If the cannabis operation is being operated in a manner which violates the operational requirements or security plan required by the Code;
(v) If the cannabis operation is being operated in a manner which constitutes a nuisance; (vi) If the cannabis operation has ceased to operate for thirty (30) days or more; or (vii)If the cannabis operation is being operated in a manner which conflicts with or violates state cannabis law.

The Planning Commission found in Resolution No. 2022-016 (Attachment E), that Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 was in violation of conditions of the permit [Criterion (i)], that the cannabis retail operation is being conducted in a manner that is not in full compliance with the requirements of Article 48 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the PMC [Criteria (ii) and (iii)]and that the cannabis retail operation is being operated in a manner which constitutes a nuisance [Criterion (v)]. Staff finds that the Compliance Status updates noted in the Section A.1 of this staff report does not change the non-compliant finding the Planning Commission made during the annual review process when it adopted Resolution No. 2022-016 on August 15, 2022. Therefore, staff has identified at least four criteria that justify suspension or revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 pursuant to PMC sec. 9-4.4806.

C. STAFF ANALYSIS
As detailed in this staff report, the Applicant’s cannabis retail operation has notable and continuing areas of non-compliance with COA No. 9 and COA No. 18. Because of the compliance status of COA No. 9 and COA No. 18, the operation is also not compliant with COA No. 1, COA No. 5 and COA No. 6.

As discussed above, PMC sec. 9-4.4806 provides that the Planning Commission may suspend or revoke a Cannabis Activity Permit. Although there is no specific requirements regarding when a suspension should be utilized rather than revocation, generally suspensions are used when a suspension is likely to allow the applicant time to achieve compliance in a particular case. In this case, the City has provided several accommodations to this Applicant to assist with achieving compliance related to COA No. 9 and COA No. 18 and the Applicant remains non-complaint. Some of these accommodations include establishment of a payment plan, an agreement to defer conditions, providing additional time due to personal matters, and scheduling the annual report at the latest meeting opportunity to confirm compliance status. These accommodations are in addition to the several email reminders and extra guidance that staff has provided the Applicant. Staff has provided this assistance with the intention of helping the Applicant succeed and to be a business-friendly resource. However, the Applicant’s lack of progress on COA Nos. 9 and 18 and has left staff with no indication that further extensions for compliance, such as a temporary suspension of their permit would result in completion of the applicable 4 As detailed in PMC sec. 9-4.3309(a) per PMC sec. 9-4.4806(a). 5 ibid.
1 Packet Pg. 53

7.d
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: ATT D. Planning Commission Staff Report_October 3, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) PC Staff Report
Revocation of Seaweed Holistic CAP
October 3, 2022

Page 7 ends

requirements by the Applicant.

For all the reasons provided in this staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission revoke CAP-8-18 to be effective immediately upon final determination of this action (i.e., expiration of the 10- day City Council appeal period). Revocation of CAP-8-18 would remove the Applicant’s ability to operate, engage in, conduct or carry out any cannabis operation at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2, and prevent the Applicant from dispensing, selling, and/or delivering cannabis and/or cannabis products.

Staff notes that the Applicant’s Cannabis Public Safety License (CPSL) is set to expire on October 16, 2022 and actions that the Application must take before their CPSL expires includes payment of $23,577 for the Cannabis Public Safety License yearly license renewal fee.

D. COMMISSION ACTION
Move to ADOPT the attached resolution to FIND that action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; REVOKE Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 (File Nos. 2018-029 and 2020- 020) associated with the cannabis retail operation at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021-640); and, incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-031 (PDF) Attachment C - Agreement Regarding Deferral of Specified Conditions (PDF) Attachment D - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-001 (PDF) Attachment E - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-016 (PDF) Attachment F - Planning Commission agenda packet, August 15, 2022 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 54

7.d
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: ATT D. Planning Commission Staff Report_October 3, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/14/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Council call-up and consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 which authorizes the operation of a cannabis retail operation known as Seaweed Holistics, LLC at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021-640), for the sale of medicinal and adult use cannabis.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt the attached Resolution to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 (File Nos. 2018-029 and 2020- 020), which authorizes operation of a cannabis retail operation known as Seaweed Holistics at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021-640), and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A.

STAFF CONTACT:

Bonny O’Connor, AICP, Senior Planner
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:

The City of Pacifica’s “Cannabis Regulations” are contained in Article 48 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the
Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC)1. The Cannabis Public Safety License (CPSL) requirements are contained in Chapter 16 of Title 4 of the PMC.2 As the City processed applications for cannabis retail operations, all operators have been required to comply with the standards set forth in those Cannabis Regulations.

A. INITIAL APPROVAL OF CAP-8-18
On September 16, 2019, the Planning Commission approved Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8- 18 with the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-031 (Attachment B) to authorize Seaweed Holistics, LLC (“Permittee”) to establish and operate a Cannabis Retail Operation (“CRO”) with adult use and medicinal cannabis sales at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (File No. 2018-029). Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2019-031 included conditions of the approval (“COAs”) applicable to CAP-8-18. Many of these COAs were required to be met prior to the commencement of operations. The Permittee did not contest or appeal any of the COAs imposed as part of CAP-8-18.
1 City of Pacifica Cannabis Regulations:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PLZO_CH4ZO_ART48CARE 2 City of Pacifica Cannabis Public Safety License Requirements:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT4PUSA_CH16CAPUSALI 10 Packet Pg. 163

7.e
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: ATT E. City Council Staff Report_November 14, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) Pacifica City Council 2
November 14, 2022
While the Permittee made progress towards completion of some of the COAs, the Permittee indicated that two COAs were infeasible to satisfy prior to commencement of operations. Those two COAs primarily at issue are the following:
• COA No. 9 - “Prior to commencement of operations, the Permittee shall obtain a building permit to modify the first floor storefront to increase the horizontal and overall measurements of the glass on the first floor storefront to meet or exceed the requirements of PMC Section 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii), to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. New windows or doors proposed on the storefront shall be architectural compatible with the remainder of the building, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.”
• COA No. 18 - “All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this project shall be paid within 30 days of the approval of Cannabis Use Permit CAP-8-18.

The Cannabis Retail Operation shall not commence operations until such fees are paid.” The Permittee explained that they had to commence operations in order to generate revenue through cannabis retail sales to be able to satisfy COA No. 9 (requirement to implement storefront window modification to meet Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii)) and COA No. 18 (payment of outstanding fees) and requested that those COAs be modified to allow commencement of operations before compliance with COA No. 9 and COA No. 18.

B. DEFERRAL AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT TO CAP-8-18
Given the Permittee’s request, the City temporarily deferred compliance with COA No. 9 and COA No. 18 through the Agreement Regarding Deferral of Specified Conditions of Approval Relating to the Operation of Seaweed Holistics (“Deferral Agreement”) executed on September 21, 2020 (Attachment C), to allow the Permittee to commence operations to generate the revenue necessary to satisfy COA No. 9 and COA No. 18 provided that the Permittee expeditiously process an application to modify these COAs. The Agreement also provided that the Permittee was responsible for paying for City costs associated with preparing and processing the Deferral Agreement and modifying the COAs. The Permittee agreed to the terms of the Deferral Agreement.

On February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2021-001 which amended COA No. 9 and COA No. 18 of CAP-8-18 to defer the timing of compliance with those conditions until after commencement of operations (File No. 2020-020), consistent with the aforementioned Deferral Agreement (Attachment D).

C. ANNUAL REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
In accordance with PMC Sec 9-4.4806(e) and COA No. 19 of Resolution No. 2019-031 (Attachment B), the Planning Commission conducted an annual review of the CRO at its meeting on August 15, 2022. As part of the annual review, staff reported that the Permittee was still not in compliance with COA No. 9 and No. 18. Additionally, because the Permittee had not complied with the COAs imposed by the Planning Commission, the Permittee was also out of compliance with PMC sec. 9-4.4803(d)(5) and Conditions of Approval No. 1, No. 5, and No. 6, which are summarized as follows:
• COA No. 1 - This condition requires the development to be substantially in accordance with the approved plans modified by the conditions of approval. As further discussed below for COA No. 9, the Permittee has not complied with COA No. 9 which requires the modification of the storefront window. Therefore, the development is out of compliance 10 Packet Pg. 164

7.e
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: ATT E. City Council Staff Report_November 14, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) Pacifica City Council 3
November 14, 2022
COA No. 1.
• COA No. 5 - This condition incorporates all the requirements of Article 48 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the PMC applicable to the cannabis retail operation. PMC Section 9-

4.4803(d)(5) states, “The Planning Commission may impose additional conditions which it deems necessary to ensure that operation of the cannabis operation will be in accordance with the findings provided in Section 9-4.4805(a) and with the standards and regulations provided in this article and applicable state laws.” As further discussed below for COA No. 9, and No. 18, the Permittee has not complied with these conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and therefore is out of compliance with PMC Section 9-4.4803(d)(5) and, therefore, COA No. 5.
• COA No. 6 - This condition prohibits the operation of the cannabis retail operation from creating a public nuisance. As established in PMC sec 9-4.4807, “[a]ny use or condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of this article shall be and hereby is declared a public nuisance and may be summarily abated by the City pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 731 or any other remedy available to the City.” The cannabis retail operation is in violation of provision of Article 48 as demonstrated in this annual report because there are Conditions of Approval that have not been complied with and, as a result, the cannabis retail operation is considered a public nuisance, as defined in the PMC. Therefore, the Permittee is not in compliance with COA No. 6.

After receiving a report prepared by staff and testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-016, finding that operation of Seaweed Holistics is being conducted in a manner that is not in compliance the requirements of Article 48 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the PMC and the requirements of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2019-031 and 2021-001 and therefore constitutes a public nuisance in accordance with PMC sec. 9-4.4806 and PMC sec. 9-

4.4807 (Attachment E). The Planning Commission also directed staff to schedule a public hearing within 60 days to consider suspension or revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8- 18 in accordance with PMC sec. 9-4.4806. The Planning Commission staff report for August 15, 2022, is included in this staff report as Attachment F3.

D. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION During the Planning Commission’s regular meeting on October 3, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the compliance status of the operation of Seaweed Holistics and considered the criteria for suspension or revocation pursuant to PMC sec. 9-4.4806.

PMC sec. 9-4.4806 provides that the Planning Commission may suspend or revoke a Cannabis Activity Permit. Although there are no specific requirements regarding when a suspension should be utilized rather than revocation, staff explained to the Planning Commission that generally suspensions are used when a suspension is likely to allow the permittee time to achieve compliance in a particular case.

Ultimately, a majority of the Planning Commission supported revocation rather than suspension.

The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-021, finding the cannabis retail operation authorized by CAP-8-18 was out of compliance with COA No. 9 (requirement to implement storefront window modification) and COA No. 18 (payment of outstanding fees), as well as COA No. 1 (requiring development to be substantially in accordance with approved plans modified by the conditions of approval), COA No. 5 (requiring compliance with all 3 A recording of the August 15, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting is available online here:
https://youtu.be/fI5mI-4fv0Q?t=704
10 Packet Pg. 165

7.e
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: ATT E. City Council Staff Report_November 14, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) Pacifica City Council 4
November 14, 2022
conditions of approval and all standards), and COA No. 6 (prohibits the operation of the CRO from creating a public nuisance) and approved revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 by a vote of 3 to 2 with two absences (Attachment G). The Planning Commission staff report for October 3, 2022, is included as Attachment H 4.

DISCUSSION:

A. CITY COUNCIL CALL-UP
On October 10, 2022, the City Clerk received a written request from Councilmember O’Neill to call up the Planning Commission’s action on the subject item for City Council review pursuant to PMC sec. 2-1.105, which does not require a Councilmember to cite the basis for the call-up.

B. APPEAL BY ANA LEAÑO-WILLIAMS OF SEAWEED HOLISTICS
On October 13, Ana Leaño-Williams of Seaweed Holistics (hereafter “Appellant”) timely submitted a City of Pacifica Appeal form and applicable fee to the City Clerk’s office to appeal the Planning Commission’s revocation of the CAP for the Project (Attachment I). The Appellant cited two reasons for the appeal in the appeal form, which are summarized and addressed below.

Basis 1. “[D]ecision to revoke the Cannabis Activity Permit was based on a misapplication of the City’s storefront window glazing ordinance/requirements.

The project’s existing window glazing is compliant with the ordinance.” Staff Response: Staff disagrees with this basis. PMC Section 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii) details a quantitative standard CPSL condition for cannabis operations, which states, “Windows and window coverings. Storefronts (front facade of the cannabis operation) shall be primarily glass with glass occupying at least forty-five (45%) percent of the entire store front and sixty (60%) percent of the horizontal length of the store. Window and door areas shall not be covered, tinted, or made opaque in any way, or obscured in any way by landscaping, floor displays, equipment, or the like.” This window provision of the CPSL is a provision that was included in the initial adoption of the CPSL ordinance in 2017 5. This requirement was included in the Conditions of Operation for requirements for cannabis operations to address the Police Department’s concerns at the time that CROs are largely a cash-based business and are a high potential target for robbery. The window provisions ensure a consistent means of visibility into a CRO from the front exterior. This provision was also in effect when the Appellant submitted an application for a CAP for this commercial space in 2018.

In the September 16, 2019 Planning Commission staff report for the initial consideration of the approval of CAP-8-18, the storefront elevation was analyzed based on the Appellant’s provided project plans and dimensions (see Figure 1).
4 A recording of the October 3, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting is available online here:
https://youtu.be/5tAlcBy_Vo8?t=499
5 City of Pacifica Ordinance No. 818-C.S., adopted July 2017. Initially adopted with the title “Marijuana Public Safety Licenses”, which was subsequently changed to “Cannabis Public Safety Licenses” in City of Pacifica Ordinance No. 843-C.S., adopted in May 2019.
10 Packet Pg. 166

7.e
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: ATT E. City Council Staff Report_November 14, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) Pacifica City Council 5
November 14, 2022
Figure 1. Excerpt of Attachment C – Project Plans from the September 16, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report
Staff identified that the existing windows along the front facade did not meet the window requirements of PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii). Furthermore, staff’s recommended findings for approval of CAP-8-18 identified the use of the second floor as only for employee access and therefore recommended that the second-story portion of the front elevation not be calculated as part of the storefront for the purposes of calculating the window requirements of PMC sec. 4-

16.03(c)(1)(ii). While “storefront” is not defined in the PMC, staff recognized a reasonable interpretation of storefront to include only the retail space along the front facade as “office” or “employee only” space is not typically located along the storefront. Staff also recognized that this interpretation would be beneficial to the Appellant as it would reduce the scale of window modifications that would be necessary to meet PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii).

The recommended Planning Commission findings for Resolution No. 2019-031 found that the existing windows along the first floor of the storefront did not meet PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii).

However, with the inclusion of COA No. 9, which required modification of the front window to comply with PMC Section 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii), staff recommended approval of the CAP-8-18 6. The 6 Planning Commission’s findings in Resolution No. 2019-031 (Attachment B) state: “The first floor of the proposed storefront is 24’ wide and 8‘ high for a total of 192 sf. The first floor of the existing storefront currently has a 10’ by 6’ window and a door with a 2’ by 5’-6” glass panel for a total of 71 sf of glass. Therefore, the existing glass along the first story storefront does not occupy at least 45 percent (86.4 sf minimum) of the storefront nor does the 10’ wide window plus the 2’ wide glass panel door meet the 60 percent of horizontal length of the store (14’-3” minimum). A COA would require modification of the front window to comply with the Security Plan standards of PMC Section 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii).”
10 Packet Pg. 167

7.e
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: ATT E. City Council Staff Report_November 14, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) Pacifica City Council 6
November 14, 2022
Planning Commission adopted the staff’s recommended findings in Resolution No. 2019-031.

No appeal was filed to challenge this action.

During execution of the Deferral Agreement to defer COA No. 9 and the processing of the amendment of CAP-8-18 to incorporate the deferral amendments to COA No. 9 (File No. 2020- 020, Resolution No. 2021-001), the Appellant did not present any position that there was a misapplication of the City’s storefront window glazing ordinance or requirements and no timely appeal was filed on Planning Commission’s action.

Since no window modifications have been made to the first-story storefront, staff and the Planning Commission 7finds that Seaweed Holistics storefront remains out of compliance with PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii) and with COA No. 9 as revised by Resolution No. 2021-001, which sets a schedule to defer the installation of the window modification after commencement of operation of the CRO in accordance with the Deferral Agreement. Table 1 in Attachment H details the Appellant’s progress with this condition.

Finally, the Appellant did not provide additional details supporting their claim that the project’s existing window glazing is compliant with the ordinance in their appeal materials. However, as part of the Appellant’s presentation to Planning Commission at the October 3, 2022 public hearing, the Appellant claimed that the City miscalculated the storefront area. The Appellant’s presentation suggested that a portion of the first-story storefront should not be counted as storefront because the stairs that lead to the second floor are not a part of the customer area.

Additionally, the Appellant claimed that the width of the perpendicular walls against the front façade should also be removed from the storefront area calculation. Staff would not be supportive of this new and different interpretation of the calculation of the “storefront” area for the following reasons:

1. Based on August 1, 2022 staff site visit, staff understands that there is an ATM for customer use in front of the stairs as well as an area at the stairway landing that is accessible to customers. Therefore, the claim that first-story storefront area in front of the stairs is an employee only area is not accurate as it may be accessed by customers who wish to use the ATM.

2. The reduction of the storefront based on perpendicular wall area is also not consistent with the Code nor is it consistent with the plain meaning of the words in the Code. PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii) clarifies the term “Storefronts” by including in parenthesis “front facade of the cannabis operation”; therefore it is appropriate to use measurements from the exterior side of the wall which is considered the front façade rather than the interior area along the storefront. Furthermore, The City has not reduced the storefront area in any CAP application instance due to wall width as the front. Additionally, based on the figures provided by the Appellant the northern wall width is not counted as part of the current storefront as that wall continues past the storefront as part of the project perpendicular wall.

3. The interpretation that was suggested by the Appellant is not consistent with the manner that staff interpreted the requirement for other cannabis operations. Other cannabis operations have made modifications to their storefront to meet this requirement in the manner interpreted by staff. Furthermore, the only other two-story cannabis retailer (403 Dondee) has included areas where stairs/elevators occur along their front elevation as part of their storefront even though the second story is non-customer area as well as included the second story of the front elevation as “storefront.” For all the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the Council deny this basis of the appeal.
7 See Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2022-016 and 2022-021 (Attachments E and G, respectively) 10 Packet Pg. 168

7.e
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: ATT E. City Council Staff Report_November 14, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) Pacifica City Council 7
November 14, 2022
Basis 2. “Disputes the $25,962.89 in assessed fees largely and inappropriately incurred by the City to address the window glazing non-issue” Staff Response: As discussed above, Seaweed Holistics storefront remains out of compliance with PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii) and with COA No. 9 as revised by Resolution No. 2021-001.

Additionally, as further discussed below, the outstanding fees are not associated with the “window glazing non-issue,” but are associated with the City’s cost processing the Appellant’s CAP-8-18. As the Appellant was made aware of the requirement to pay for all costs associated with processing its CAP application and agreed to such by signing an Agreement for Reimbursement of City Costs (“Reimbursement Agreement”) as part of her initial application submittal. Because the City operates on a deposit system, an initial deposit is required with the submittal of an application, in this case $10,000 was provided and staff, including legal counsel, against which the actual costs to cover the time and expenses associated with processing the application are billed. By signing the Application 8 and the Reimbursement Agreement, the Appellant understood that the initial deposit may not be sufficient to cover the City’s costs processing the application and agreed to make one or more additional deposits within 30 days of being notified that additional funds are required. Additionally, staff included COA No. 18 in Resolution No. 2019-031 (Attachment B), which is a standard condition of approval for all development permits, to require the Appellant to pay all outstanding fees associated with the processing of the project within 30 days of the approval of the permit and prior to commencement of operation.

In January 2020, the City sent the Appellant a letter to inform her that City costs to process CAP-8-18 had exceeded the initial deposit and that an additional $4,080.56 was requested. At the Appellant’s request, staff began working on the Deferral Agreement to defer COA No. 9 and COA No. 18. As captured in the Deferral Agreement, the Appellant had indicated that she needed to commence operation of the cannabis retail to generate revenue to satisfy COA No.

18. The Appellant voluntarily entered the Deferral Agreement, which in addition to establishing a payment deadline for outstanding fees until after commencement of operation, included a provision that the Appellant would pay the outstanding $4,080.56, as well as, “all costs, including but not limited to, staff time, administrative costs, legal fees and any other cost incurred by the City (“City Costs”) associated with preparing this Agreement and all City Costs and associated fees relating to the Planning Commission hearing to consider the Application for Amendments and appeal(s) of the Planning Commission decision, if any.” The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021-001 on February 16, 2021 to incorporate the deferral amendments to COA No. 18. The revised condition required the Appellant to pay all outstanding fees within 60 days of Planning Commission approval of the revised conditions (i.e., April 17, 2021). By March 10, 2021 staff calculated costs known at the time and informed the Appellant of the outstanding fees. No payment for the outstanding fees was made. On June 10, 2021 the City provided written notice to the Appellant that the final invoices for the processing of the amendment were received and the final total outstanding costs for the processing of the CAP, preparation and execution of the Deferral Agreement, and processing the amendments of the CAP was $25,952.899. This amount remains outstanding.

For all the reasons provided above, staff recommends that the Council deny this basis of the 8 Subsection B of Section II. Acknowledgement and Agreement by Applicant and Owner of the signed Marijuana Use Permit Application (subsequently retitled Cannabis Activity Permit) states, in summary, that the undersigned agrees to pay any and all City costs incurred in connection with the application, enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for the payment of such fees, and satisfy requests for further deposit of funds within 30 days of a City request.
9 This amount is the sum of the outstanding $4,080.56 for the original processing of CAP-8-18 and the outstanding $21,872.33 for the processing of the Deferral Agreement and the amendment to CAP-8-18. 10 Packet Pg. 169

7.e
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: ATT E. City Council Staff Report_November 14, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) Pacifica City Council 8
November 14, 2022
appeal.

C. CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE
Pursuant to PMC Section 2-1.105 and PMC Section 9-4.3208, the Council may approve, deny or modify the Planning Commission’s decision on Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18, after considering the call-up and appeal. With respect to the appeal specifically, the City Council may also refer the matter back to the Planning Commission pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3208(b)(2).

In the event that the Council determines that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s revocation of the Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18, the Council should deny the appeal by adopting the attached Resolution.

If the Council decides to modify Planning Commission’s action to a suspension, the Council should provide staff with conditions and criteria for the suspension which would be inserted into a Resolution upholding the appeal, and modifying the decision of the Planning Commission to reflect a suspension, which would be brought back to Council at a later date. In the event that the Council decides to uphold the appeal and deny the revocation, Council will need to provide staff with the basis for those findings that are supported by substantial evidence which would be inserted into a Resolution upholding the appeal by staff and brought back to Council at a later date.

D. STAFF SUMMARY
As detailed in this staff report, the claims of the Appellant’s appeal are unfounded and inaccurate. The Appellant has been aware of her requirement to bring her storefront window into compliance with PMC sec. 4-16.03(c)(1)(ii) and her requirements to pay all outstanding fees to the City since at least the initial approval of CAP-8-18 on September 16, 2019. These appeal claims are untimely efforts by the Appellant to delay or avoid the responsibilities that are codified in the Pacifica Municipal Code for cannabis retail operations and which the Appellant has agreed to and that have been consistently applied to all other cannabis retail operators. The City has provided the Appellant more than generous support, accommodations, and time to address these continuing compliance issues, without receiving any notable response from the Appellant. Some of these accommodations include establishment of a payment plan, an agreement to defer conditions, providing additional time due to personal matters, and scheduling the annual report at the latest meeting opportunity to confirm compliance status.

These accommodations are in addition to the several email reminders and extra guidance that staff has provided the Appellant. Staff has provided this assistance with the intention of helping the Appellant succeed and to be a business-friendly resource.

Despite these significant efforts by staff, the Appellant has failed to satisfy COA Nos. 9 and 18 and is therefore also not in compliance with COA Nos. 1, 5 and 6. The Planning Commission agreed with staff that the Appellant’s lack of progress on COA Nos. 9 and 18 has provided no indication that further extensions for compliance through a temporary suspension of their permit would result in completion of the applicable requirements by the Appellant.

For all the reasons provided in this staff report, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s revocation of CAP-8-18 to be effective immediately. Revocation of CAP-8-18 would remove the Appellant’s ability to operate, engage in, conduct or carry out any cannabis operation at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2, and prevent the Appellant from dispensing, selling, and/or delivering cannabis and/or cannabis products.

Additionally, staff will continue to work to obtain the outstanding fees owed to the City of Pacifica.
10 Packet Pg. 170

7.e
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: ATT E. City Council Staff Report_November 14, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal) Pacifica City Council 9
November 14, 2022
Staff notes that the Appellant timely paid the $23,577 CPSL yearly license renewal fee before its due date on October 16, 2022. Should Council support revocation of CAP-8-18, staff will prepare a reimbursement of the Appellant’s recent payment for the CPSL.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The City Council may move to continue the appeal hearing in order to allow staff to prepare a resolution and associated findings to uphold the appeal and deny the Planning Commission revocation of the Coastal Development Permit, or to modify the revocation to be a temporary suspension. The City Council may also refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The proposed project is not directly associated with an item on the City Council’s Work Plan. It is the City Council’s normal governance process to hear and determine appeals of Planning Commission actions under the PMC.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The revocation of CAP-8-18 could result in reduced cannabis tax revenues collected by the City in the near term. However, purchases could shift to another existing or future permitted cannabis retail operation in the Rockaway Beach district or to another permitted cannabis retail operation elsewhere in Pacifica. Therefore, the potential fiscal impact of this permit revocation is unknown but has the potential to be negligible. Individual cannabis tax payment amounts are confidential.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
Police
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution 2019-031(PDF) Attachment C - Agreement re: Deferral of Specified Conditions (PDF) Attachment D - Planning Commission Resolution 2021-001(PDF) Attachment E - Planning Commission Resolution 2022-016(PDF) Attachment F - August 15, 2022 Planning Commission (PDF) Attachment G - Planning Commission Resolution 2022-021(PDF) Attachment H - October 3, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report (PDF) Attachment I - Appeal Form (PDF)
10 Packet Pg. 171

7.e
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: ATT E. City Council Staff Report_November 14, 2022 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: ATT F. Seaweed Holistics-Permit Termination 3.19.2025 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal)

7.f
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: ATT F. Seaweed Holistics-Permit Termination 3.19.2025 (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal)

7.g
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: ATT G. Appeal_20250325_Leano-Williams_SeaweedHolistics_CPSL_CAP (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal)

7.g
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: ATT G. Appeal_20250325_Leano-Williams_SeaweedHolistics_CPSL_CAP (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal)

7.g
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: ATT G. Appeal_20250325_Leano-Williams_SeaweedHolistics_CPSL_CAP (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal)

7.g
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: ATT G. Appeal_20250325_Leano-Williams_SeaweedHolistics_CPSL_CAP (5918 : Revocation of Seaweed Holistics LLC Appeal)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/28/2025
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution Declaring Results of Majority Protest Proceedings and Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Hold a final hearing and adopt the resolution establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD)
STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7402
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District
In 2004, the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (PHBID) was formed pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (‘89 Law). The City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 714-C.S creating the PHBID and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels within the City.

The City of Pacifica and Pacifica lodging businesses now seek to modernize the PHBID by forming a new Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD) pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq. (‘94 Law) and allowing the PHBID formed under the ‘89 Law to expire at the end of its current 1- year term on June 30, 2025, by not undergoing the annual renewal process at City Council.

In early 2024, the process to form the ’94 District was initiated and a Management District Plan (MDP) was drafted based on feedback from the PHBID Advisory Board (Board). At that time, the Board had decided on a 1% assessment rate for the new ’94 District. In April 2024, petitions in support of formation of the ’94 district at a 1% assessment rate were collected from lodging business owners paying over 50% of the proposed assessment - six signed petitions were received out of a total of eight hotel owners. Although the required legal threshold had been met, the City Council elected to not move forward with the formation of the ’94 district at that time.

With the ’89 PHBID approaching the end of its current term, staff brought the continuation of the ’94 district formation as an agenda item at the January PHBID Board meeting. At the meeting, the Board expressed concerns about the financial burden of the 1% assessment rate on their guests. While the Board agreed to continue with the ’94 district formation, they proposed to modify the 1% assessment rate that they approved previously. On March 21st, the Board reviewed various financial projections and considered several assessment rate scenarios, ultimately deciding on a 0.5% assessment rate by a unanimous vote. 8 Packet Pg. 217
Pacifica City Council 2
April 28, 2025
At the conclusion of the ’94 PTMD formation process, the City Council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 36624. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them. The attached MDP dated March 25, 2025, has been revised to reflect the updated 0.5% assessment rate as requested by the Board.

Management District Plan
The Management District Plan (Attachment 1) includes the proposed boundary of the PTMD, a service plan and budget and a proposed means of governance. The PTMD will include lodging businesses, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy located within the boundaries of the City of Pacifica.

The annual assessment rate is one-half of one percent (0.5%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue. Annually, the Owner’s Association may increase or decrease the assessment rate by a maximum of one-quarter of one percent (0.25%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; any officer or employee of a foreign government, which officer or employee is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty.

The proposed PTMD will have a five (5) years year term, beginning July 1, 2025 or as soon as possible thereafter, and ending five (5) years from its start date. The assessment will be implemented beginning July 1, 2025 or as soon as possible thereafter. Once per year beginning on the anniversary of PTMD formation there is a thirty (30) day period in which business owners paying fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment may protest and begin proceedings to terminate the PTMD.

The City will be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly basis from each lodging business located in the PTMD boundaries. The City shall forward the assessments to a nonprofit organization, which will have the responsibility of managing PTMD programs.

The PHBID will expire on June 30, 2025, and the new ’94 PTMD, if approved, will begin collecting assessments on July 1, 2025.
94 PTMD formation PROCESS
March 10, 2025 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION (COMPLETED)
Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the business owners in the proposed district who will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessments proposed to be levied, the City Council (Council) may initiate proceedings to establish a district by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to establish a district.

Petition Status: Petitions in favor of PTMD formation were submitted by 6 lodging businesses, which represent 50.10% of the total PTMD assessment, not counting a single business proposed to pay more than 40 percent (40%), pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code section 36621(a). This majority petition allows the Council to initiate proceedings for PTMD formation at the March 10, 2025 meeting.

No later than
March 14, 2025 NOTICE (COMPLETED)
The ‘94 Law requires the City to mail written notice to the owners of all 8 Packet Pg. 218
Pacifica City Council 3
April 28, 2025
businesses proposed to be within the PTMD. Mailing the notice begins a mandatory forty-five (45) day period in which owners may protest PTMD formation.

March 24, 2025 PUBLIC MEETING (COMPLETED)
Allow public testimony on the formation of the PTMD and levy of assessments. No Council action required.

April 28, 2025 FINAL PUBLIC HEARING
If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the proposed PTMD which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than fifty percent (50%), no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses shall be taken for a period of one (1) year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the Council.

At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the district, the City Council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements, maintenance, and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 36624. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them.

The adoption of the Resolution of Formation shall establish the PTMD and levy of the assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the Plan.

If the ’94 PTMD is approved after the foregoing process, the City will need to amend Chapter 17, “Hotel Business Improvement District” within Chapter 17, Title 3 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council may elect not to form the PTMD.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
"Fiscal Sustainability" includes investing in economic development to increase revenues for tourism and marketing that will directly benefit the lodging industry and improve the local economy.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No significant fiscal impact is associated with this action. The City currently collects no fee for administering the BID.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
8 Packet Pg. 219
Pacifica City Council 4
April 28, 2025
Attachment 1: Management District Plan (PDF)
8 Packet Pg. 220
Pacifica City Council 5
April 28, 2025
RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA ESTABLISHING THE

PACIFICA TOURISM MARKETING DISTRICT (PTMD)
WHEREAS, the Property and Business Improvement Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code § 36600 et seq., authorizes the City of Pacifica (City) to establish business improvement districts upon petition by a weighted majority of the business owners located within the boundaries of the district; and
WHEREAS, the proposed PTMD includes all hotels, RV parks, and all short-term vacation rental businesses (hereinafter referred to collectively as “lodging businesses”), existing and in the future, available for public occupancy located within the boundaries of the City of Pacifica; and
WHEREAS, lodging business owners who will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the proposed assessment, as weighted according to the amount of the assessment to be paid by the petitioner, within the boundaries of the PTMD have petitioned the City Council (Council) to establish the PTMD; and
WHEREAS, included with the petitions was a Management District Plan (Plan) summary that describes the proposed assessment to be levied on lodging businesses within the PTMD to pay for sales, marketing and destination development programs, and other improvements and activities set forth in the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the assessed lodging businesses within the PTMD will receive a specific benefit from the activities and improvements set forth in the Plan; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2025 at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers located at 2212 Beach Blvd., Pacifica, CA 94044, the Council adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 20-2025; and
WHEREAS, the public meeting and public hearing to consider the formation of the PTMD have been properly noticed in accordance with Streets and Highways Code §36623; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2025 at 5:00 PM at the Council Chambers located at 2212 Beach Blvd., Pacifica, CA 94044, the Council held a public meeting regarding the formation of the PTMD, and the Council heard and received objections and protests, if any, to the formation of the PTMD and the levy of the proposed assessment; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2025 at 7:00 PM at the Council Chambers located at 2212 Beach Blvd., Pacifica, CA 94044, the Council held a public hearing regarding the formation of the PTMD, and the Council heard and received all objections and protests, if any, to the formation of the PTMD and the levy of the proposed assessment; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has determined that there was no majority protest. A majority protest is defined as written protests received from owners of businesses in the established 8 Packet Pg. 221
Pacifica City Council 6
April 28, 2025
PTMD which would pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessments proposed to be levied.

Protests are weighted based on the assessment proposed to be levied on each lodging business; and
WHEREAS, the City bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an assessment imposed for a specific benefit or specific government service is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the costs to the City in providing the specific benefit or specific government service, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the specific benefits or specific government services received by the payor.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL THAT:

1. The recitals set forth herein are adopted by the Council as findings and they are true and correct.

2. The PTMD is hereby established for a five (5) year term, beginning July 1, 2025, or as soon as possible thereafter, and ending five (5) years from its start date, unless renewed pursuant to Streets and Highways Code § 36660.

3. The Plan dated March 25, 2025 is hereby adopted and approved.

4. The activities to be provided to benefit businesses in the PTMD will be funded by the levy of the assessment. The revenue from the assessment levy shall not be used: to provide activities that directly benefit businesses outside the PTMD; to provide activities or improvements outside the PTMD; or for any purpose other than the purposes specified in this Resolution, the Resolution of Intention, and the Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements and activities that must be provided outside the PTMD boundaries to create a specific benefit to the assessed businesses may be provided, but shall be limited to marketing or signage pointing to the PTMD.

5. The Council finds as follows:
a) The activities funded by the assessment will provide a specific benefit to assessed businesses within the PTMD that is not provided to those not paying the assessment. b) The assessment is a charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.
c) The assessment is a charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.
d) Assessments imposed pursuant to the PTMD are levied solely upon the assessed business, and the business owner is solely responsible for payment of the assessment when due. If the owner chooses to collect any portion of the assessment from a transient, that portion shall be specifically called out and identified for the transient in any and all communications from the business owner as the “PTMD Assessment” or “Tourism Assessment” as specified in the Plan.

6. The assessments levied for the PTMD shall be applied towards sales, marketing and 8 Packet Pg. 222
Pacifica City Council 7
April 28, 2025
destination development programs to market Pacifica lodging businesses as tourist, meeting and event destinations, and other improvements and activities as set forth in the Plan.

7. Assessments levied on lodging businesses pursuant to this resolution shall be levied on the basis of benefit. Because the services provided are intended to increase sleeping room rentals, an assessment based on gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue is the best measure of benefit.

8. The annual assessment rate is one half of one percent (0.5%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue. Annually, the Owner’s Association may increase or decrease the assessment rate by a maximum of one-quarter of one percent (0.25%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; any officer or employee of a foreign government, which officer or employee is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty.

9. The assessments for the entire PTMD will total approximately $143,000 in year one (1).

10. Bonds shall not be issued to fund the PTMD.

11. The PTMD shall include all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy located within the boundaries of the City. A boundary map is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

12. The assessments shall be used for the purposes set forth above and any funds remaining at the end of any year may be used in subsequent years in which the PTMD assessment is levied as long as they are used consistent with the requirements set forth herein.

13. The assessments to fund the activities and improvements for the PTMD will be collected by the the City on a monthly basis, and in accordance with Streets and Highways Code §36631.

14. The Council, through adoption of this Resolution and the Plan, has the right pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36651, to identify the body that shall implement the proposed program, which shall be the Owners’ Association of the PTMD as defined in Streets and Highways Code §36612.

15. The Owners’ Association shall cause to be prepared a report for each fiscal year, except the first year, for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvement and activities described in the report. The first report shall be due after the first year of operation of the PTMD.

16. The PTMD established pursuant to this Resolution will be subject to any amendments to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (California Streets and Highways Code §36600 et. seq.).

17. The City Clerk, or his or her designee, is directed to take all necessary actions to complete the formation of the PTMD and to levy the assessments.

18. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Council. • • • • •
8 Packet Pg. 223
Pacifica City Council 8
April 28, 2025
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution of Formation was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council on April 28, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

PACIFICA TOURISM MARKETING DISTRICT

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Prepared pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq.

March 25, 2025

8.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) Contents
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................3 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................5 III. BOUNDARY.......................................................................................................................................6 IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES................................................................................8 A. Annual Service Plan............................................................................................................ 8 B. Annual Budget .................................................................................................................. 10 C. California Constitutional Compliance .............................................................................. 11 D. Assessment........................................................................................................................ 12 E. Interest and Overdue Charges........................................................................................... 13 F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments................................................................. 13 V. GOVERNANCE...............................................................................................................................15 A. Owners’ Association......................................................................................................... 15 B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance ............................................ 15 C. Annual Report................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX 1 – LAW....................................................................................................................................16 APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES .............................................................................................28 APPENDIX 3 – DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................32 Prepared by
Civitas
(800)999-7781
www.civitasadvisors.com

8.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 3
I. OVERVIEW
Developed by Pacifica hotel and short-term rental businesses and City of Pacifica (City), the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD) is an assessment district proposed to provide specific benefits to payors, by funding marketing and sales promotion efforts for assessed businesses. This approach has been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the country to provide the benefit of additional room night sales directly to payors. In 2004, the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (PHBID) was formed pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (89 Law). This effort seeks to modernize the PHBID by disestablishing the 89 Law District and forming the PTMD pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (94 Law). The rules and regulations for the PTMD are set forth herein, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36622 (see Appendix 1).

Location: The PTMD includes all hotels, RV parks, and all short-term vacation rental businesses (hereinafter referred to collectively as “lodging businesses”), existing and in the future, available for public occupancy located within the boundaries of the City of Pacifica, as shown on the map in Section III.

Services: The PTMD is designed to provide specific benefits directly to payors by increasing awareness and demand for room night sales. Marketing and sales promotions and destination development programs will increase demand for overnight tourism and market payors as tourist, meeting and event destinations, thereby increasing demand for room night sales.

Budget: The total PTMD annual assessment budget for the initial year of its five (5) year operation is anticipated to be approximately $143,000. A similar assessment budget is expected to apply to subsequent years, but this budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales do and as lodging businesses open and close.

Cost: The annual assessment rate is one half of one percent (0.5%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue. Annually, the Owner’s Association may increase or decrease the assessment rate by a maximum of one-quarter of one percent (0.25%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; any officer or employee of a foreign government, which officer or employee is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty.

Collection: The City will be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies, interest and overdue charges) from each assessed lodging business located in the boundaries of the PTMD. The City shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each assessed lodging business.

Duration: The PTMD will have a five (5) year life, beginning July 1, 2025 or as soon as possible thereafter, and ending five (5) years from its start date. After five (5) years, the PTMD may be renewed pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq. (94 Law) if business owners support continuing the PTMD programs.

8.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 4
Management: The City of Pacifica may enter into a contract with a non-profit organization to serve as the Owners’ Association for the PTMD. The Owners’ Association is charged with managing funds and implementing programs in accordance with this Management District Plan (Plan), and must provide annual reports to the City Council.

8.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 5
II. BACKGROUND
TMDs are an evolution of the traditional Business Improvement District. The first TMD was formed in West Hollywood, California in 1989. Since then, over 100 California destinations have followed suit. In recent years, other states have begun adopting the California model – Illinois, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Montana, South Dakota, Washington, Colorado, Texas and Louisiana have adopted TMD laws. Several other states are in the process of adopting their own legislation. The cities of Wichita, Kansas and Newark, New Jersey used an existing business improvement district law to form a TMD . Additionally, some cities, like Portland, Oregon and Memphis, Tennessee have utilized their home rule powers to create TMDs without a state law.

California’s TMDs collectively raise
over $300 million annually for local
destination marketing. With
competitors raising their budgets,
and increasing rivalry for visitor
dollars, it is important that Pacifica
lodging businesses continue to
invest in stable, commerce-specific
marketing programs.

TMDs utilize the efficiencies of
private sector operation in the
market-based promotion of
tourism districts. TMDs allow tourism business owners to organize their efforts to increase commerce. Assessed business owners within the TMD pay an assessment and those funds are used to provide services that increase commerce.

In California, most TMDs are formed pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994. This law allows for the creation of a benefit assessment district to raise funds within a specific geographic area. The key difference between TMDs and other benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the district.

There are many benefits to TMDs:
• Funds must be spent on services and improvements that provide a specific benefit only to those who pay;
• Funds cannot be diverted to general government programs; • They are customized to fit the needs of payors in each destination; • They allow for a wide range of services;
• They are designed, created and governed by those who will pay the assessment; and • They provide a stable, long-term funding source for tourism promotion.

8.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 6
III. BOUNDARY
The PTMD will include all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy located within the boundaries of the City of Pacifica, as shown in the map below. “Lodging businesses” means all hotels, RV parks, and short-term vacation rentals, as defined below:
“Hotel” means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied, or intended or designed for occupancy, by transients for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, and shall include but not be limited to, any hotel, motel, and inn, existing or in the future, in the City of Pacifica. “Transient” means any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Any such person so occupying space in a hotel or short-term vacation rental shall be deemed to be a transient until the period of thirty (30) days has expired, unless there is an agreement in writing between the operator and the occupant providing for a longer period of occupancy.
“Short-term vacation rental” means the use of a dwelling unit, or portion of it, for a rental of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less.

A complete listing of assessed lodging businesses within the PTMD can be found in Appendix 2. The lodging business list was compiled from records provided by the City. The list was developed with the most reliable information provided, however, the list may contain discrepancies due to any of the following reasons: 1)The short-term vacation rentals included in the list are businesses that have obtained a permit or license to operate as a short-term vacation rental at the time of formation, and does not include short-term vacation rentals that are not permitted or licensed to operate as a shortterm vacation rental; 2) Short-term vacation rentals may cease operation with little or no notice, and may no longer be operating as a short-term vacation rental; and 3) the short-term vacation rental list was compiled based on the dates shown in Appendix 2, and may not include short-term vacation rentals that began operation after the dates listed.

8.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025
7 8.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 8
IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES
A. Annual Service Plan
Assessment funds will be spent to provide specific benefits conferred or privileges granted directly to the payors that are not provided to those not charged, and which do not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of conferring the benefits or granting the privileges. The privileges and services provided with the PTMD funds are sales and marketing programs available only to assessed businesses.

A service plan assessment budget has been developed to deliver services that benefit the assessed businesses. A detailed annual assessment budget will be developed and approved by the Owners’ Association. The chart below illustrates the initial annual assessment budget allocations. These activities and allocations will also apply in subsequent years. The total initial assessment budget is $143,000.

Although actual revenues will fluctuate due to market conditions, the proportional allocations of the budget shall remain the same. However, the City and the Owners’ Association shall have the authority to adjust budget allocations between the categories by no more than twenty percent (20%) of the total budget per year. A description of the proposed improvements and activities for the initial year of operation is below. The same activities are proposed for subsequent years. In the event of a legal challenge against the PTMD, any and all assessment funds may be used for the costs of defending the PTMD. Throughout the district term, the costs of creating the PTMD may be repaid by deducting repayment funds proportionally from budget categories.

Each budget category includes all costs related to providing that service. For example, the sales and marketing budget includes the cost of staff time dedicated to overseeing and implementing the sales and marketing program. Staff time dedicated purely to administrative tasks is allocated to the administrative portion of the budget. The costs of an individual staff member may be allocated to multiple budget categories. The staffing levels necessary to provide the services below will be determined by the Owners’ Association on an as- needed basis.

Sales, Marketing,
& Destination
Development,
$128,700 , 90%
Administration,
$7,150 , 5%
Contingency/Reserve,
$7,150 , 5%
Initial Annual Assessment Budget -
$143,000

8.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 9
Sales, Marketing, and Destination Development
A sales, marketing, and destination development program will promote assessed businesses as tourist, meeting, and event destinations. The sales, marketing, and destination development program will have a central theme of promoting the City of Pacifica as a desirable place for overnight visits. The program will have the goal of increasing demand for overnight visitation and room night sales at assessed businesses, and may include, but is not limited to the following activities:
• Development and maintenance of a website designed to promote assessed lodging businesses and other internet marketing efforts to increase awareness and optimize internet presence to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Print ads in magazines and newspapers, television and radio ads targeted at potential visitors to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Attendance of trade shows to promote assessed businesses; • Sales blitzes and familiarization tours for assessed businesses; • Preparation and production of collateral promotional materials such as brochures, visitor guides, flyers and maps featuring assessed businesses;
• Attendance of professional industry conferences and affiliation events to promote assessed businesses;
• Partnership with both local and state tourism organizations to target key international markets to increase overnight visitation at assessed businesses; • Development and implementation of a public relations and communications strategy, inclusive of social media outlets and press release distribution designed to drive overnight visitation at assessed businesses;
• Director of Sales, Marketing and/or General Manager meetings to plan and coordinate tourism promotion efforts for assessed businesses;
• Education of lodging business management and the owners’ association on marketing strategies best suited to meet assessed businesses’ needs; • Communications and advocacy activities to inform and educate key stakeholders and the public;
• Acquisition/utilization of new technologies for novel marketing initiatives; • Development of Return on Investment (ROI) analysis on effectiveness of district funds to improve effectiveness and increase demand for overnight visitation at assessed businesses; • Development of a marketing plan to ensure district funds are strategically spent to market assessed lodging businesses;
• Lead generation activities designed to attract tourists and group events to assessed businesses; • Director of Sales, Marketing and/or General Manager meetings to plan and coordinate tourism promotion efforts for assessed businesses;
• Maintaining an experienced sales staff of the Owner’s Association to target the meeting and conference market to generate overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Maximizing alliances with professional organizations that target group business, or database services that track group opportunities to develop new leads for assessed businesses; • Incentivizing conferences and meetings to book at the destination to increase overnight visitation at assessed businesses;
• Producing and implementing events that drive overnight visitation at assessed businesses; and • Services designed to improve the visitors experience such as, but not limited to, wayfinding signage, beautification projects or other improvements that enhance the City of Pacifica’s competitive position to attract special events year-round and overnight visitors.

8.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 10
Administration
The administration portion of the budget shall be utilized for administrative staffing costs, office costs, advocacy, and other general administrative costs such as insurance, legal, and accounting fees.

Contingency / Reserve
The budget includes a contingency line item to account for lower than anticipated assessments. If there are contingency funds collected, they may be held in a reserve fund or utilized for other program, administration or renewal costs at the discretion of the Owners’ Association. Policies relating to contributions to the reserve fund, the target amount of the reserve fund, and expenditure of monies from the reserve fund shall be set by the Owners’ Association. Contingency/reserve funds may be spent on PTMD programs or administrative and renewal costs in such proportions as determined by the Owners’ Association. The reserve fund may be used for the costs of renewing the PTMD.

B. Annual Budget
The total five (5) year assessment budget is projected at approximately $143,000 annually, or approximately $1,072,500 through 2030 if maximum assessment rates are adopted pursuant to this Plan. A similar assessment budget is expected to apply to subsequent years, but this assessment budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales do and as assessed businesses open and close, and if the assessment rate is increased or decreased pursuant to this Plan.

The annual assessment rate is one half of one percent (0.5%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue. Annually, the Owner’s Association may increase or decrease the assessment rate by a maximum of one-quarter of one percent (0.25%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue.

The table below demonstrates the estimated maximum budget with the assumption that the assessment rate will be increased at the earliest opportunity. This estimated maximum budget is a required disclosure and is not necessarily intended to depict the anticipated course of action. Alternate courses of action may be taken in regard to implementing the assessment rate increase other than what is demonstrated in the chart below, within the parameters of this Management District Plan and the 94 Law.

Year Sales,
Marketing, &
Destination
Development
Administration
& Operations
Contingency/
Reserve
Total
2025-2026 $128,700 $7,150 $7,150 $143,000
2026-2027 $160,875 $8,938 $8,938 $178,750
2027-2028 $193,050 $10,725 $10,725 $214,500
2028-2029 $225,225 $12,513 $12,513 $250,250
2029-2030 $257,400 $14,300 $14,300 $286,000
Total $965,250 $53,625 $53,625 $1,072,500

8.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 11
C. California Constitutional Compliance
The PTMD assessment is not a property-based assessment subject to the requirements of Proposition 218. Courts have found Proposition 218 limited the term ‘assessments’ to levies on real property.1 Rather, the PTMD assessment is a business-based assessment, and is subject to Proposition 26.

Pursuant to Proposition 26 all levies are a tax unless they fit one of seven exceptions. Two of these exceptions apply to the PTMD, a “specific benefit” and a “specific government service.” Both require that the costs of benefits or services do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of conferring the benefits or providing the services.

1. Specific Benefit
Proposition 26 requires that assessment funds be expended on, “a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.”2 The services in this Plan are designed to provide targeted benefits directly to assessed businesses, and are intended only to provide benefits and services directly to those businesses paying the assessment. These services are tailored not to serve the general public, businesses in general, or parcels of land, but rather to serve the specific businesses within the PTMD. The activities described in this Plan are specifically targeted to increase demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses within the boundaries of the PTMD, and are narrowly tailored. PTMD funds will be used exclusively to provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales directly to the assessees. Assessment funds shall not be used to feature non-assessed lodging businesses in PTMD programs, or to directly generate sales for non-assessed businesses. The activities paid for from assessment revenues are business services constituting and providing specific benefits to the assessed businesses. Nothing in this Plan limits the ability of the Owners’ Association to enter into private contracts with non-assessed lodging businesses for the provision of services to those businesses.

The assessment imposed by this PTMD is for a specific benefit conferred directly to the payors that is not provided to those not charged. The specific benefit conferred directly to the payors is an increase in demand for room night sales. The specific benefit of an increase in demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses will be provided only to lodging businesses paying the district assessment, with marketing and sales programs promoting lodging businesses paying the PTMD assessment. The marketing and sales programs will be designed to increase room night sales at each assessed lodging businesses. Because they are necessary to provide the marketing and sales programs that specifically benefit the assessed lodging businesses, the administration and contingency services also provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales to the assessed lodging businesses.

Although the PTMD, in providing specific benefits to payors, may produce incidental benefits to nonpaying businesses, the incidental benefit does not preclude the services from being considered a specific benefit. The legislature has found that, “A specific benefit is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific benefit’ merely because an indirect benefit to a nonpayor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific benefit to the payor.”3 1 Jarvis v. the City of San Diego 72 Cal App. 4th 230 2 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(1) 3 Government Code § 53758(a)

8.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 12

2. Specific Government Service
The assessment may also be utilized to provide, “a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.”4 The legislature has recognized that marketing and promotions services like those to be provided by the PTMD are government services within the meaning of Proposition 265. Further, the legislature has determined that “a specific government service is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific government service’ merely because an indirect benefit to a nonpayor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific government service to the payor.”6

3. Reasonable Cost
PTMD services will be implemented carefully to ensure they do not exceed the reasonable cost of such services. The full amount assessed will be used to provide the services described herein. Funds will be managed by the Owners’ Association, and reports submitted on an annual basis to the City.

Only assessed lodging businesses will be featured in marketing materials, receive sales leads generated from PTMD-funded activities, be featured in advertising campaigns, and benefit from other PTMDfunded services. Non-assessed lodging businesses will not receive these, nor any other, PTMD-funded services and benefits.

The PTMD-funded programs are targeted directly to benefit assessed businesses. It is, however, possible that there will be a spill over benefit to non-assessed businesses. If non-assessed lodging businesses receive incremental room nights, that portion of the promotion or program generating those room nights shall be paid with non-PTMD funds. PTMD funds shall only be spent to benefit the assessed businesses, and shall not be spent on that portion of any program which directly generates incidental room nights for non-assessed businesses.

D. Assessment
The annual assessment rate is one half of one percent (0.5%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue. Annually, the Owner’s Association may increase or decrease the assessment rate by a maximum of one-quarter of one percent (0.25%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue.

Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; any officer or employee of a foreign government, which officer or employee is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty, and stays pursuant to contracts executed prior to July 1, 2024.

The assessment was calculated based on the total cost of the activities to be provided for the benefit of the businesses within the PTMD, with costs allocated based on the proportional benefit conferred to each business. Activities funded by the PTMD are specifically targeted to increase room nights at assessed businesses. All room night sales do not represent the same benefit to the payors. For example, a higher priced room night is of greater benefit than a lower priced room night because the assessee derives greater revenue. To account for this benefit differential and to make sure the benefits are proportional, an assessment formula based on a percentage of revenue has been selected. The proposed formula accurately reflects greater benefit to assessed businesses with higher priced room nights.
4 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(2)
5 Government Code § 53758(b)
6 Government Code § 53758(b)

8.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 13
The term “gross short term sleeping room rental revenue” as used herein means: the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a lodging business valued in money, including all receipts, cash, credits, property, and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom whatsoever.

The assessment is levied upon and a direct obligation of the assessed lodging business. However, the assessed lodging business may, at its discretion, pass the assessment on to transients. The amount of assessment, if passed on to each transient, shall be disclosed in advance and separately stated from the amount of rent charged and any other applicable taxes, and each transient shall receive a receipt for payment from the business. If the PTMD assessment is identified separately it shall be disclosed as the “PTMD Assessment.” As an alternative, the disclosure may include the amount of the PTMD assessment and the amount of the assessment imposed pursuant to the California Tourism Marketing Act, Government Code §13995 et seq. and shall be disclosed as the “Tourism Assessment.” The assessment is imposed solely upon, and is the sole obligation of the assessed lodging business even if it is passed on to transients. The assessment shall not be considered revenue for calculation of transient occupancy taxes.

Bonds shall not be issued.

E. Interest and Overdue Charges
The City of Pacifica shall retain the funds necessary to cover costs associated with collecting unpaid assessments. If sums in excess of the delinquent PTMD assessment are sought to be recovered in the same collection action by the City, the PTMD shall bear its pro rata share of such collection costs.

Assessed businesses which are delinquent in paying the assessment shall be responsible for paying:

1. Original delinquency. Any owner who shall fail to remit any assessment imposed by the provisions of this Plan within the time required shall pay an overdue charge in the amount of ten (10%) percent of the assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment.

2. Continued delinquency. Any owner who shall fail to remit any delinquent remittance on or before a period of thirty (30) days following the date on which the remittance first became delinquent shall pay a second delinquency overdue charge in the amount of ten (10%) percent of the assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment and the ten (10%) percent overdue charge first imposed.

3. Fraud. If the City shall determine that the nonpayment of any remittance due pursuant to the provisions of this Plan is due to fraud, an overdue charge in the amount of twenty-five (25%) percent of the amount of the assessment shall be added thereto in addition to the overdue charges set forth in subsections 1 and 2 of this section.

4. Interest. In addition to the overdue charges imposed, any owner who shall fail to remit any assessment imposed by the provisions of this Plan shall pay interest at the rate of one percent (1%) per month, or fraction thereof, on the amount of the assessment, exclusive of overdue charges, from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid.

5. Overdue charges and interest merged with assessment. Every overdue charge imposed, and such interest as accrues, pursuant to the provisions of this section shall become a part of the assessment required to be paid by the provisions of this chapter.

F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments
The PTMD assessment will be implemented beginning July 1, 2025, or as soon as possible thereafter, and will continue for five (5) years. The City will be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies, interest and overdue charges) from each lodging business.

The City shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business. The

8.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 14
City shall forward the assessments collected to the Owners’ Association, less any estimated costs associated with administering the assessment. If actual costs exceed the estimated amount withheld, then the PTMD shall reimburse the City.

8.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 15
V. GOVERNANCE
A. Owners’ Association
The City Council, through adoption of this Management District Plan, has the right, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36651, to identify the body that shall implement the proposed program, which shall be the Owners’ Association of the PTMD as defined in Streets and Highways Code §36612. The City of Pacifica may enter into a contract with a non-profit organization to serve as the Owners’ Association for the PTMD.

B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance An Owners’ Association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. The Owners’ Association is, however, subject to government regulations relating to transparency, namely the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. These regulations are designed to promote public accountability. The Owners’ Association acts as a legislative body under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §54950 et seq.). Thus, meetings of the Board and certain committees must be held in compliance with the public notice and other requirements of the Brown Act. Accordingly, the Owners’ Association shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action. The Owners’ Association is also subject to the record keeping and disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act.

C. Annual Report
The Owners’ Association shall present an annual report at the end of each year of operation to the City Council pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36650 (see Appendix 1). The annual report shall include:
• Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of businesses within the district.
• The improvements and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. • An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for that fiscal year. • The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for that fiscal year.
• The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
• The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part.

8.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 16
APPENDIX 1 – LAW
*** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2023 EXTRA SESSION CH 1, 2023 REGULAR SESSION CH. 890***
(ALL 2023 LEGISLATION)

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
DIVISION 18. PARKING
PART 7. PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW OF 1994 CHAPTER 1. General Provisions
ARTICLE 1. Declarations
36600. Citation of part
This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.” 36601. Legislative findings and declarations; Legislative guidance The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Businesses located and operating within business districts in some of this state’s communities are economically disadvantaged, are underutilized, and are unable to attract customers due to inadequate facilities, services, and activities in the business districts. (b) It is in the public interest to promote the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of business districts in order to create jobs, attract new businesses, and prevent the erosion of the business districts. (c) It is of particular local benefit to allow business districts to fund business related improvements, maintenance, and activities through the levy of assessments upon the businesses or real property that receive benefits from those improvements.
(d) Assessments levied for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon the real property or a specific benefit upon the businesses in a business district are not taxes for the general benefit of a city, even if property, businesses, or persons not assessed receive incidental or collateral effects that benefit them. (e) Property and business improvement districts formed throughout this state have conferred special benefits upon properties and businesses within their districts and have made those properties and businesses more useful by providing the following benefits:
(1) Crime reduction. A study by the Rand Corporation has confirmed a 12-percent reduction in the incidence of robbery and an 8-percent reduction in the total incidence of violent crimes within the 30 districts studied.
(2) Job creation.
(3) Business attraction.
(4) Business retention.
(5) Economic growth.
(6) New investments.
(f) With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies throughout the state, property and business improvement districts have become even more important tools with which communities can combat blight, promote economic opportunities, and create a clean and safe environment. (g) Since the enactment of this act, the people of California have adopted Proposition 218, which added Article XIII D to the Constitution in order to place certain requirements and restrictions on the formation of, and activities, expenditures, and assessments by property-based districts. Article XIII D of the Constitution provides that property-based districts may only levy assessments for special benefits. (h) The act amending this section is intended to provide the Legislature’s guidance with regard to this act, its interaction with the provisions of Article XIII D of the Constitution, and the determination of special benefits in property-based districts.
(1) The lack of legislative guidance has resulted in uncertainty and inconsistent application of this act, which discourages the use of assessments to fund needed improvements, maintenance, and activities in property-based districts, contributing to blight and other underutilization of property.

8.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 17
(2) Activities undertaken for the purpose of conferring special benefits upon property to be assessed inherently produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed. Therefore, for special benefits to exist as a separate and distinct category from general benefits, the incidental or collateral effects of those special benefits are inherently part of those special benefits. The mere fact that special benefits produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed does not convert any portion of those special benefits or their incidental or collateral effects into general benefits. (3) It is of the utmost importance that property-based districts created under this act have clarity regarding restrictions on assessments they may levy and the proper determination of special benefits. Legislative clarity with regard to this act will provide districts with clear instructions and courts with legislative intent regarding restrictions on property-based assessments, and the manner in which special benefits should be determined.
36602. Purpose of part
The purpose of this part is to supplement previously enacted provisions of law that authorize cities to levy assessments within property and business improvement districts, to ensure that those assessments conform to all constitutional requirements and are determined and assessed in accordance with the guidance set forth in this act.

This part does not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes. 36603. Preemption of authority or charter city to adopt ordinances levying assessments Nothing in this part is intended to preempt the authority of a charter city to adopt ordinances providing for a different method of levying assessments for similar or additional purposes from those set forth in this part. A property and business improvement district created pursuant to this part is expressly exempt from the provisions of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 (Division 4 (commencing with Section 2800)).
36603.5 Part prevails over conflicting provisions
Any provision of this part that conflicts with any other provision of law shall prevail over the other provision of law, as to districts created under this part.
36604. Severability
This part is intended to be construed liberally and, if any provision is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Assessments levied under this part are not special taxes.

ARTICLE 2. Definitions
36606. “Activities”
“Activities” means, but is not limited to, all of the following that benefit businesses or real property in the district:
(a) Promotion of public events.
(b) Furnishing of music in any public place.
(c) Promotion of tourism within the district.
(d) Marketing and economic development, including retail retention and recruitment. (e) Providing security, sanitation, graffiti removal, street and sidewalk cleaning, and other municipal services supplemental to those normally provided by the municipality. (f) Other services provided for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon assessed real property or specific benefits upon assessed businesses located in the district. 36606.5. “Assessment”

8.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 18
“Assessment” means a levy for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, installing, or maintaining improvements and providing activities that will provide certain benefits to properties or businesses located within a property and business improvement district.
36607. “Business”
“Business” means all types of businesses and includes financial institutions and professions. 36608. “City”
“City” means a city, county, city and county, or an agency or entity created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the public member agencies of which includes only cities, counties, or a city and county, or the State of California. 36609. “City council”
“City council” means the city council of a city or the board of supervisors of a county, or the agency, commission, or board created pursuant to a joint powers agreement and which is a city within the meaning of this part. 36609.4. “Clerk”
“Clerk” means the clerk of the legislative body.
36609.5. “General benefit”
“General benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, any benefit that is not a “special benefit” as defined in Section 36615.5.
36610. “Improvement”
“Improvement” means the acquisition, construction, installation, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Parking facilities.
(b) Benches, booths, kiosks, display cases, pedestrian shelters and signs. (c) Trash receptacles and public restrooms.
(d) Lighting and heating facilities.
(e) Decorations.
(f) Parks.
(g) Fountains.
(h) Planting areas.
(i) Closing, opening, widening, or narrowing of existing streets. (j) Facilities or equipment, or both, to enhance security of persons and property within the district. (k) Ramps, sidewalks, plazas, and pedestrian malls.
(l) Rehabilitation or removal of existing structures.
36611. “Management district plan”; “Plan”
“Management district plan” or “plan” means a proposal as defined in Section 36622. 36612. “Owners’ association”
“Owners’ association” means a private nonprofit entity that is under contract with a city to administer or implement improvements, maintenance, and activities specified in the management district plan. An owners’ association may be an existing nonprofit entity or a newly formed nonprofit entity. An owners’ association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. Notwithstanding this section, an owners’ association shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), at all times when matters within the subject matter of the district are heard, discussed, or deliberated, and

8.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 19
with the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code), for all records relating to activities of the district. 36614. “Property”
“Property” means real property situated within a district. 36614.5. “Property and business improvement district”; “District” “Property and business improvement district,” or “district,” means a property and business improvement district established pursuant to this part.
36614.6. “Property-based assessment”
“Property-based assessment” means any assessment made pursuant to this part upon real property. 36614.7. “Property-based district”
“Property-based district” means any district in which a city levies a property-based assessment. 36615. “Property owner”; “Business owner”; “Owner”
“Property owner” means any person shown as the owner of land on the last equalized assessment roll or otherwise known to be the owner of land by the city council. “Business owner” means any person recognized by the city as the owner of the business. “Owner” means either a business owner or a property owner. The city council has no obligation to obtain other information as to the ownership of land or businesses, and its determination of ownership shall be final and conclusive for the purposes of this part. Wherever this part requires the signature of the property owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the property owner shall be sufficient. Wherever this part requires the signature of the business owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the business owner shall be sufficient. 36615.5. “Special benefit” [Effective January 1, 2023]
(a) “Special benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in a district or to the public at large. Special benefit includes incidental or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of propertybased districts even if those incidental or collateral effects benefit property or persons not assessed. Special benefit excludes general enhancement of property value.
(b) “Special benefit” also includes, for purposes of a property-based district, a particular and distinct benefit provided directly to each assessed parcel within the district. Merely because parcels throughout an assessment district share the same special benefits does not make the benefits general. 36616. “Tenant”
“Tenant” means an occupant pursuant to a lease of commercial space or a dwelling unit, other than an owner.

ARTICLE 3 Prior Law
36617. Alternate method of financing certain improvements and activities; Effect on other provisions This part provides an alternative method of financing certain improvements and activities. The provisions of this part shall not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes. Every improvement area established pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500) of this division) is valid and effective and is unaffected by this part.

CHAPTER 2. Establishment

8.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 20
36620. Establishment of property and business improvement district A property and business improvement district may be established as provided in this chapter. 36620.5. Requirement of consent of city council
A county may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of a city without the consent of the city council of that city. A city may not form a district within the unincorporated territory of a county without the consent of the board of supervisors of that county. A city may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of another city without the consent of the city council of the other city. 36621. Initiation of proceedings; Petition of property or business owners in proposed district (a) Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the property or business owners in the proposed district who will pay more than 50 percent of the assessments proposed to be levied, the city council may initiate proceedings to form a district by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to form a district. The amount of assessment attributable to property or a business owned by the same property or business owner that is in excess of 40 percent of the amount of all assessments proposed to be levied, shall not be included in determining whether the petition is signed by property or business owners who will pay more than 50 percent of the total amount of assessments proposed to be levied. (b) The petition of property or business owners required under subdivision (a) shall include a summary of the management district plan. That summary shall include all of the following:
(1) A map showing the boundaries of the district.
(2) Information specifying where the complete management district plan can be obtained. (3) Information specifying that the complete management district plan shall be furnished upon request.
(c) The resolution of intention described in subdivision (a) shall contain all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property or businesses within the district, a statement as to whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements do not need to be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities, and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) A time and place for a public hearing on the establishment of the property and business improvement district and the levy of assessments, which shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 36623.
36622. Contents of management district plan
The management district plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) If the assessment will be levied on property, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and, if businesses are to be assessed, each business within the district. If the assessment will be levied on businesses, a map that identifies the district boundaries in sufficient detail to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries. If the assessment will be levied on property and businesses, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries.
(b) The name of the proposed district.
(c) A description of the boundaries of the district, including the boundaries of benefit zones, proposed for establishment or extension in a manner sufficient to identify the affected property and businesses included, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The boundaries of a proposed property assessment district shall not overlap with the boundaries of another existing property assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a district created pursuant to this part to overlap with other assessment districts established pursuant to other provisions of law, including, but not limited to, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500)). This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business

8.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 21
assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with another business assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with a property assessment district created pursuant to this part. (d) The improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation of the district and the estimated cost thereof. If the improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation are the same, a description of the first year’s proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities and a statement that the same improvements, maintenance, and activities are proposed for subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(e) The total annual amount proposed to be expended for improvements, maintenance, or activities, and debt service in each year of operation of the district. If the assessment is levied on businesses, this amount may be estimated based upon the assessment rate. If the total annual amount proposed to be expended in each year of operation of the district is not significantly different, the amount proposed to be expended in the initial year and a statement that a similar amount applies to subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(f) The proposed source or sources of financing, including the proposed method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each property or business owner to calculate the amount of the assessment to be levied against their property or business. The plan also shall state whether bonds will be issued to finance improvements.
(g) The time and manner of collecting the assessments.
(h) The specific number of years in which assessments will be levied. In a new district, the maximum number of years shall be five. Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years.

Notwithstanding these limitations, a district created pursuant to this part to finance capital improvements with bonds may levy assessments until the maximum maturity of the bonds. The management district plan may set forth specific increases in assessments for each year of operation of the district. (i) The proposed time for implementation and completion of the management district plan. (j) Any proposed rules and regulations to be applicable to the district. (k)
(1) A list of the properties or businesses to be assessed, including the assessor’s parcel numbers for properties to be assessed, and a statement of the method or methods by which the expenses of a district will be imposed upon benefited real property or businesses, in proportion to the benefit received by the property or business, to defray the cost thereof. (2) In a property-based district, the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined exclusively in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the activities. An assessment shall not be imposed on any parcel that exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and a property-based district shall separate the general benefits, if any, from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a property-based district that are owned or used by any city, public agency, the State of California, or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the governmental entity can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. The value of any incidental, secondary, or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of a propertybased district and that benefit property or persons not assessed shall not be deducted from the entirety of the cost of any special benefit or affect the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel.
(3) In a property-based district, properties throughout the district may share the same special benefits. In a district with boundaries that define which parcels are to receive improvements, maintenance, or activities over and above those services provided by the city, the improvements, maintenance, or activities themselves may constitute a special benefit. The city may impose assessments that are less than the proportional special benefit conferred, but shall not impose assessments that exceed the reasonable costs of the proportional special benefit conferred. Because one or more parcels pay less than the special benefit conferred does not necessarily mean that other parcels are assessed more than the reasonable cost of their special benefit. (l) In a property-based district, a detailed engineer’s report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California supporting all assessments contemplated by the management district plan.
(m) Any other item or matter required to be incorporated therein by the city council.

8.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 22
36623. Procedure to levy assessment
(a) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased property assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 53753 of the Government Code. (b) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 54954.6 of the Government Code, except that notice shall be mailed to the owners of the businesses proposed to be assessed. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Every written protest shall be filed with the clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The city council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the city as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business or the authorized representative. A written protest that does not comply with this section shall not be counted in determining a majority protest.

If written protests are received from the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the proposed district that will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses, as contained in the resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the city council. (c) If a city council proposes to conduct a single proceeding to levy both a new or increased property assessment and a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the property assessment shall comply with subdivision (a), and the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the business assessment shall comply with subdivision (b). If a majority protest is received from either the property or business owners, that respective portion of the assessment shall not be levied. The remaining portion of the assessment may be levied unless the improvement or other special benefit was proposed to be funded by assessing both property and business owners. 36624. Changes to proposed assessments
At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the district, the city council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements, maintenance, and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them. At the public hearing, the city council may only make changes in, to, or from the boundaries of the proposed property and business improvement district that will exclude territory that will not benefit from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities. Any modifications, revisions, reductions, or changes to the proposed assessment district shall be reflected in the notice and map recorded pursuant to Section 36627. 36625. Resolution of formation
(a) If the city council, following the public hearing, decides to establish a proposed property and business improvement district, the city council shall adopt a resolution of formation that shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property, businesses, or both within the district, a statement on whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements need not be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) The number, date of adoption, and title of the resolution of intention. (3) The time and place where the public hearing was held concerning the establishment of the district.
(4) A determination regarding any protests received. The city shall not establish the district or levy assessments if a majority protest was received.
(5) A statement that the properties, businesses, or properties and businesses in the district established by the resolution shall be subject to any amendments to this part.

8.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 23
(6) A statement that the improvements, maintenance, and activities to be conferred on businesses and properties in the district will be funded by the levy of the assessments. The revenue from the levy of assessments within a district shall not be used to provide improvements, maintenance, or activities outside the district or for any purpose other than the purposes specified in the resolution of intention, as modified by the city council at the hearing concerning establishment of the district.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements and activities that must be provided outside the district boundaries to create a special or specific benefit to the assessed parcels or businesses may be provided, but shall be limited to marketing or signage pointing to the district. (7) A finding that the property or businesses within the area of the property and business improvement district will be benefited by the improvements, maintenance, and activities funded by the proposed assessments, and, for a property-based district, that property within the district will receive a special benefit.
(8) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred on the properties within the property-based district.
(b) The adoption of the resolution of formation and, if required, recordation of the notice and map pursuant to Section 36627 shall constitute the levy of an assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the management district plan.
36627. Notice and assessment diagram
Following adoption of the resolution establishing district assessments on properties pursuant to Section 36625, the clerk shall record a notice and an assessment diagram pursuant to Section 3114. No other provision of Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100) applies to an assessment district created pursuant to this part. 36628. Establishment of separate benefit zones within district; Categories of businesses The city council may establish one or more separate benefit zones within the district based upon the degree of benefit derived from the improvements or activities to be provided within the benefit zone and may impose a different assessment within each benefit zone. If the assessment is to be levied on businesses, the city council may also define categories of businesses based upon the degree of benefit that each will derive from the improvements or activities to be provided within the district and may impose a different assessment or rate of assessment on each category of business, or on each category of business within each zone. 36628.5. Assessments on businesses or property owners
The city council may levy assessments on businesses or on property owners, or a combination of the two, pursuant to this part. The city council shall structure the assessments in whatever manner it determines corresponds with the distribution of benefits from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, provided that any propertybased assessment conforms with the requirements set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (k) of Section 36622. 36629. Provisions and procedures applicable to benefit zones and business categories All provisions of this part applicable to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of a property and business improvement district apply to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of benefit zones or categories of business. The city council shall, to establish, modify, or disestablish a benefit zone or category of business, follow the procedure to establish, modify, or disestablish a property and business improvement district. 36630. Expiration of district; Creation of new district If a property and business improvement district expires due to the time limit set pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 36622, a new management district plan may be created and the district may be renewed pursuant to this part.

CHAPTER 3: Assessments
36631. Time and manner of collection of assessments; Delinquent payments

8.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 24
The collection of the assessments levied pursuant to this part shall be made at the time and in the manner set forth by the city council in the resolution levying the assessment. Assessments levied on real property may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as for the ad valorem property tax, and may provide for the same lien priority and penalties for delinquent payment. All delinquent payments for assessments levied pursuant to this part may be charged interest and penalties.
36632. Assessments to be based on estimated benefit; Classification of real property and businesses; Exclusion of residential and agricultural property
(a) The assessments levied on real property pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the real property within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify properties for purposes of determining the benefit to property of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
(b) Assessments levied on businesses pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the businesses within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify businesses for purposes of determining the benefit to the businesses of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
(c) Properties zoned solely for residential use, or that are zoned for agricultural use, are conclusively presumed not to benefit from the improvements and service funded through these assessments, and shall not be subject to any assessment pursuant to this part. 36633. Time for contesting validity of assessment
The validity of an assessment levied under this part shall not be contested in an action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 30 days after the resolution levying the assessment is adopted pursuant to Section 36625. An appeal from a final judgment in an action or proceeding shall be perfected within 30 days after the entry of judgment.
36634. Service contracts authorized to establish levels of city services The city council may execute baseline service contracts that would establish levels of city services that would continue after a property and business improvement district has been formed. 36635. Request to modify management district plan
The owners’ association may, at any time, request that the city council modify the management district plan. Any modification of the management district plan shall be made pursuant to this chapter. 36636. Modification of plan by resolution after public hearing; Adoption of the resolution of intention (a) Upon the written request of the owners’ association, the city council may modify the management district plan after conducting one public hearing on the proposed modifications. The city council may modify the improvements and activities to be funded with the revenue derived from the levy of the assessments by adopting a resolution determining to make the modifications after holding a public hearing on the proposed modifications. If the modification includes the levy of a new or increased assessment, the city council shall comply with Section 36623. Notice of all other public hearings pursuant to this section shall comply with both of the following:
(1) The resolution of intention shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once at least seven days before the public hearing.
(2) A complete copy of the resolution of intention shall be mailed by first class mail, at least 10 days before the public hearing, to each business owner or property owner affected by the proposed modification.
(b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification prior to the public hearing required by this section. The public hearing shall be held not more than 90 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention.
36637. Reflection of modification in notices recorded and maps

8.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 25
Any subsequent modification of the resolution shall be reflected in subsequent notices and maps recorded pursuant to Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100), in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 36627. 36638. Assessment as government improvised fee on Civ C § 1770 transaction [Operative July 1, 2024] (a) A business assessment pursuant to this part is a fee imposed by a government on the transaction for purposes of paragraph (29) of subdivision (a) of Section 1770 of the Civil Code. (b) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2024.

CHAPTER 3.5 Financing
36640. Bonds authorized; Procedure; Restriction on reduction or termination of assessments (a) The city council may, by resolution, determine and declare that bonds shall be issued to finance the estimated cost of some or all of the proposed improvements described in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, if the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to that section provides for the issuance of bonds, under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500)) or in conjunction with Marks–Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 (Article 4 (commencing with Section 6584) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). Either act, as the case may be, shall govern the proceedings relating to the issuance of bonds, although proceedings under the Bond Act of 1915 may be modified by the city council as necessary to accommodate assessments levied upon business pursuant to this part. (b) The resolution adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall generally describe the proposed improvements specified in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, set forth the estimated cost of those improvements, specify the number of annual installments and the fiscal years during which they are to be collected. The amount of debt service to retire the bonds shall not exceed the amount of revenue estimated to be raised from assessments over 30 years.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, assessments levied to pay the principal and interest on any bond issued pursuant to this section shall not be reduced or terminated if doing so would interfere with the timely retirement of the debt.

CHAPTER 4. Governance
36650. Report by owners’ association; Approval or modification by city council (a) The owners’ association shall cause to be prepared a report for each fiscal year, except the first year, for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the report. The owners’ association’s first report shall be due after the first year of operation of the district. The report may propose changes, including, but not limited to, the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or any benefit zones within the district, the basis and method of levying the assessments, and any changes in the classification of property, including any categories of business, if a classification is used.
(b) The report shall be filed with the clerk and shall refer to the property and business improvement district by name, specify the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that fiscal year, shall contain all of the following information:
(1) Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of property or businesses within the district. (2) The improvements, maintenance, and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. (3) An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements, maintenance, and activities for that fiscal year.
(4) The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each real property or business owner, as appropriate, to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business for that fiscal year.
(5) The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.

8.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 26
(6) The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part.
(c) The city council may approve the report as filed by the owners’ association or may modify any particular contained in the report and approve it as modified. Any modification shall be made pursuant to Sections 36635 and 36636.

The city council shall not approve a change in the basis and method of levying assessments that would impair an authorized or executed contract to be paid from the revenues derived from the levy of assessments, including any commitment to pay principal and interest on any bonds issued on behalf of the district.
36651. Designation of owners’ association to provide improvements, maintenance, and activities The management district plan may, but is not required to, state that an owners’ association will provide the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the management district plan. If the management district plan designates an owners’ association, the city shall contract with the designated nonprofit corporation to provide services.

CHAPTER 5. Renewal
36660. Renewal of district; Transfer or refund of remaining revenues; District term limit (a) Any district previously established whose term has expired, or will expire, may be renewed by following the procedures for establishment as provided in this chapter. (b) Upon renewal, any remaining revenues derived from the levy of assessments, or any revenues derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, shall be transferred to the renewed district. If the renewed district includes additional parcels or businesses not included in the prior district, the remaining revenues shall be spent to benefit only the parcels or businesses in the prior district. If the renewed district does not include parcels or businesses included in the prior district, the remaining revenues attributable to these parcels shall be refunded to the owners of these parcels or businesses. (c) Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years, or, if the district is authorized to issue bonds, until the maximum maturity of those bonds. There is no requirement that the boundaries, assessments, improvements, or activities of a renewed district be the same as the original or prior district.

CHAPTER 6. Disestablishment
36670. Circumstances permitting disestablishment of district; Procedure (a) Any district established or extended pursuant to the provisions of this part, where there is no indebtedness, outstanding and unpaid, incurred to accomplish any of the purposes of the district, may be disestablished by resolution by the city council in either of the following circumstances:
(1) If the city council finds there has been misappropriation of funds, malfeasance, or a violation of law in connection with the management of the district, it shall notice a hearing on disestablishment.
(2) During the operation of the district, there shall be a 30-day period each year in which assessees may request disestablishment of the district. The first such period shall begin one year after the date of establishment of the district and shall continue for 30 days. The next such 30-day period shall begin two years after the date of the establishment of the district. Each successive year of operation of the district shall have such a 30-day period. Upon the written petition of the owners or authorized representatives of real property or the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the district who pay 50 percent or more of the assessments levied, the city council shall pass a resolution of intention to disestablish the district. The city council shall notice a hearing on disestablishment.
(b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention to disestablish the district prior to the public hearing required by this section. The resolution shall state the reason for the disestablishment, shall state the time and place of the public hearing, and shall contain a proposal to dispose of any assets acquired with the revenues of the assessments levied within the property and business improvement district. The notice of the hearing on disestablishment required by this section shall be given by mail to the property owner of

8.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 27
each parcel or to the owner of each business subject to assessment in the district, as appropriate. The city shall conduct the public hearing not less than 30 days after mailing the notice to the property or business owners. The public hearing shall be held not more than 60 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention.
36671. Refund of remaining revenues upon disestablishment or expiration without renewal of district; Calculation of refund; Use of outstanding revenue collected after disestablishment of district (a) Upon the disestablishment or expiration without renewal of a district, any remaining revenues, after all outstanding debts are paid, derived from the levy of assessments, or derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, or from bond reserve or construction funds, shall be refunded to the owners of the property or businesses then located and operating within the district in which assessments were levied by applying the same method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the fiscal year in which the district is disestablished or expires. All outstanding assessment revenue collected after disestablishment shall be spent on improvements and activities specified in the management district plan. (b) If the disestablishment occurs before an assessment is levied for the fiscal year, the method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the immediate prior fiscal year shall be used to calculate the amount of any refund.

8.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 28
APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES
Business Name Site Address
America's Best Value Inn 2160 Francisco Blvd
Anchor Inn 500 San Pedro Ave
Fairfield Inn & Suites By Marriott San Francisco 500 Old County Rd Inn At Rockaway 200 Rockaway Beach Ave
Lighthouse Hotel 105 Rockaway Beach Ave
Pacifica Beach Hotel 525 Crespi Dr
San Francisco RV Park 700 Palmetto Ave
Sea Breeze Motel 100 Rockaway Beach Ave
1 Carmel Ave 1 1 Carmel Ave 1
1 Carmel Ave 2 1 Carmel Ave 2
1 Santa Rosa Ave 1 Santa Rosa Ave
1001 Everglades Dr 1001 Everglades Dr
1018 Yosemite Dr 1018 Yosemite Dr
1022 Grand Teton Dr 1022 Grand Teton Dr
103 Mckinney Ave 103 Mckinney Ave
103 Salada Ave 103 Salada Ave
1031 Zamora Dr 1031 Zamora Dr
1034 Yosemite Dr 1034 Yosemite Dr
1049 Rainier Ave 1049 Rainier Ave
1050 Yosemite Dr 1050 Yosemite Dr
106 W Avalon Dr 106 W Avalon Dr
1080 Barcelona Dr 1080 Barcelona Dr
1080 Crespi Dr 1080 Crespi Dr
1128 Oddstad Blvd 1128 Oddstad Blvd
1138 Grand Teton Dr 1138 Grand Teton Dr
1149 Banyan Way 1149 Banyan Way
1159 Barcelona Dr 1159 Barcelona Dr
1159 De Solo Dr 1159 De Solo Dr
1168 Crespi Dr 1168 Crespi Dr
1215 Lerida Way 1215 Lerida Way
1227 Redwood Way 1227 Redwood Way
124 Salada Ave 124 Salada Ave
126 Salada Ave 126 Salada Ave
128 Salada Ave 128 Salada Ave
129 Paloma Ave 129 Paloma Ave
130 Salada Ave 130 Salada Ave
131 Pacific Ave 131 Pacific Ave
1331 Aspen Dr 1331 Aspen Dr

8.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 29
1331 Livingston Ave 1331 Livingston Ave
1343 Grand Ave 1343 Grand Ave
1375 Crespi Dr 1375 Crespi Dr
1383 Livingston Ave 1383 Livingston Ave
1439 Crespi Dr 1439 Crespi Dr
149 Hilton Way 149 Hilton Way
1560 Grand Ave 1560 Grand Ave
1581 Beach Blvd Apt 1 1581 Beach Blvd Apt 1
1585 Adobe Dr 1585 Adobe Dr
159 Clarendon Rd 159 Clarendon Rd
1620 Linda Mar Blvd 1620 Linda Mar Blvd
1639 Toledo Ct 1639 Toledo Ct
17 Montecito Ave 17 Montecito Ave
172 Shoreview Ave 172 Shoreview Ave
174 Pacific Ave 174 Pacific Ave
175 Olympian Way 175 Olympian Way
184 Shoreview Ave 184 Shoreview Ave
1977 Beach Blvd 1977 Beach Blvd
1987 Beach Blvd 1987 Beach Blvd
2 Paloma Ave 2 Paloma Ave
200 Lakeview Ave Apt 1 200 Lakeview Ave Apt 1
200 Lakeview Ave Apt 2 200 Lakeview Ave Apt 2
200 Lakeview Ave Apt 3 200 Lakeview Ave Apt 3
200 Lakeview Ave Apt 4 200 Lakeview Ave Apt 4
200 Lakeview Ave Apt 5 200 Lakeview Ave Apt 5
204 Shoreview Ave 204 Shoreview Ave
206 Palmetto Ave 206 Palmetto Ave
2061 Beach Blvd Apt 1 2061 Beach Blvd Apt 1
2061 Beach Blvd Apt 2 2061 Beach Blvd Apt 2
2061 Beach Blvd Apt 3 2061 Beach Blvd Apt 3
2121 Beach Blvd Apt 1 2121 Beach Blvd Apt 1
2121 Beach Blvd Apt 2 2121 Beach Blvd Apt 2
2121 Beach Blvd Apt 3 2121 Beach Blvd Apt 3
2121 Beach Blvd Apt 4 2121 Beach Blvd Apt 4
215 Stanley Ave 215 Stanley Ave
223 Kent Rd 223 Kent Rd
223 Olympian Way 223 Olympian Way
2260 Palmetto Ave 2260 Palmetto Ave
227 Stanley Ave 227 Stanley Ave
2308 Palmetto Ave 2308 Palmetto Ave

8.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 30
2309 Palmetto Ave C2 2309 Palmetto Ave C2
2310 Palmetto Ave 2310 Palmetto Ave
243 Sterling Ave 243 Sterling Ave
250 Moana Pl 250 Moana Pl
26 Kings Canyon Way 26 Kings Canyon Way
265 Kent Rd 265 Kent Rd
268 Milagra Dr 268 Milagra Dr
301 Channing Way 301 Channing Way
31 Santa Rosa Ave 31 Santa Rosa Ave
312 Magellan Dr 312 Magellan Dr
315 Esplanade Ave Unit 1 315 Esplanade Ave 1
315 Esplanade Ave Unit 2 315 Esplanade Ave Unit 2
315 Esplanade Ave Unit 3 315 Esplanade Ave Unit 3
315 Esplanade Ave Unit 4 315 Esplanade Ave Unit 4
325 Esplanade Ave 325 Esplanade Ave
339 Heathcliff Dr 339 Heathcliff Dr
339 Nelson Ave 339 Nelson Ave
347 Manor Dr 347 Manor Dr
350 Buckingham Rd 350 Buckingham Rd
38 Carmel Ave 38 Carmel Ave
404 Milagra Dr 404 Milagra Dr
410 Farallon Ave 410 Farallon Ave
423 Belfast Ave 423 Belfast Ave
423 Norfolk Dr 423 Norfolk Dr
425 Farallon Ave 425 Farallon Ave
425 Norfolk Dr 425 Norfolk Dr
430 Fullerton St 430 Fullerton St
437 Norfolk Dr 437 Norfolk Dr
441 Belfast Ave 441 Belfast Ave
444 Manor Dr 444 Manor Dr
45 Clarendon Rd 45 Clarendon Rd
451 Harvey Way 451 Harvey Way
451 Talbot Ave 451 Talbot Ave
468 Manor Dr C2 468 Manor Dr C2
468 Manor Dr Unit A3 468 Manor Dr Unit A3
472 Lewis Ln 472 Lewis Ln
474 Lewis Ln 474 Lewis Ln
488 Monterey Rd 488 Monterey Rd
498 Copeland St 498 Copeland St
5 Santa Rosa Ave 5 Santa Rosa Ave

8.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 31
519 Farallon Ave 519 Farallon Ave
520 San Pablo Ter 520 San Pablo Ter
524 Inverness Dr 524 Inverness Dr
527 Brighton Rd 1 527 Brighton Rd 1
527 Brighton Rd 2 527 Brighton Rd 2
535 Farallon Ave 535 Farallon Ave
543 Esplanade Ave 543 Esplanade Ave
549 San Pablo Ter 549 San Pablo Ter
567 Esplanade Ave 567 Esplanade Ave
577 Paloma Ave 577 Paloma Ave
628 Lockhaven Dr 628 Lockhaven Dr
63 Kathleen Ct 63 Kathleen Ct
630 Reina Del Mar Ave 630 Reina Del Mar Ave
653 Parkview Cir 653 Parkview Cir
670 Talbot Ave 670 Talbot Ave
672 Claridge Dr 672 Claridge Dr
722 Talbot Ave 722 Talbot Ave
728 Noriega Way 728 Noriega Way
736 Cordova Ct 736 Cordova Ct
743 Claridge Dr 743 Claridge Dr
744 Cordova Ct 744 Cordova Ct
756 Alta Vista Dr 756 Alta Vista Dr
758 Rockaway Beach Ave 758 Rockaway Beach Ave
759 Rockaway Beach Ave 759 Rockaway Beach Ave
795 Montezuma Dr 795 Montezuma Dr
857 Big Bend Dr 857 Big Bend Dr
9 Cranham Ct 9 Cranham Ct

8.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District) PTMD Management District Plan
March 25, 2025 32
APPENDIX 3 – DEFINITIONS
“Hotel” means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied, or intended or designed for occupancy, by transients for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, and shall include but not be limited to, any hotel, motel, and inn, existing or in the future, in the City of Pacifica. “Transient” means any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Any such person so occupying space in a hotel or short-term vacation rental shall be deemed to be a transient until the period of thirty (30) days has expired, unless there is an agreement in writing between the operator and the occupant providing for a longer period of occupancy.
“Short-term vacation rental” means the use of a dwelling unit, or portion of it, for a rental of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less.
“Gross short term sleeping room rental revenue” means the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a lodging business valued in money, including all receipts, cash, credits, property, and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom whatsoever.

8.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment 1: Management District Plan (5903 : Resolution- Public Hearing Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/28/2025
1 SUBJECT:

A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, Declaring Certain Portions of City-Owned Property Located at Montecito Avenue and Beach Boulevard also Known as San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 016-204-020 and 016-294-620 in the City of Pacifica (The Properties) as Surplus Land Pursuant to the Surplus Land Act (Government Code Sections 54220 Et Seq.); Directing the City Manager to Follow the Procedures Set Forth in the Surplus Land Act; and Finding The Action Exempt From The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15312 (Class 12).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the attached resolution to declare certain portions of the City-owned properties located at Montecito Ave and Beach Boulevard (APN 016-204-020 and 016-294-620) as surplus land and direct the City Manager to follow the procedures set forth in the Surplus Land Act, California Government Code Section 54220 et seq; and finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15312 (Class12).

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 501-6004
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City of Pacifica (“City”) owns real property located at Montecito Ave and Beach Blvd in the City of Pacifica (APN’s:016-204-020 and 016-294-620) (“Properties”). Relevant Characteristics of the subject property include two contiguous non-residential parcels identified as 016-204-020 and 016-294-620. The subject parcels occupy a prominent oceanfront site at the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Montecito Avenue with street address at 2212 Beach Boulevard in the City of Pacifica, San Mateo County. The sites have a total land area of approximately

3.00+/- gross acres or 130,680+/- gross square feet (which includes the vacated portion of Pacific Avenue), to be zoned mixed use commercial, allowing for high-density mixed-use development, including residential, retail, hotel, and community uses.

Currently, a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 016-204-020 is being used as the City Council Chambers, and Public Works storage facility, both uses could be relocated if needed to accommodate future development. However, as a condition of sale, the City may retain a portion of this property for its continued use as City Council Chambers. Additionally, a portion of APN 016-294-620 of approximately 17,000 square feet, must be retained for its current and ongoing use as a sewer pump station. A portion of the Properties must allow public parking for access to the Pacifica Pier and surrounding areas.

The Properties are zoned Public Facilities and Coastal Zone, and the land use designations in the 2040 General Plan1 as Mixed Use Neighborhood and Public and Semi-Public. The City 1 The 2040 General Plan will be in effect in Coastal Zones upon certification of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) by the California Coastal Commission. The land use designations under the 1980 9 Packet Pg. 257
Pacifica City Council 2
April 28, 2025
wishes to pursue the potential sale of the Properties; therefore, it must now comply with the Surplus Land Act and has hired Kosmont Companies to assist in that process.

These Properties were previously identified in the City’s Economic Opportunity Study (available on the City’s website) as a key opportunity site for economic development and revenue generation. Additionally, the future development of this site was incorporated into the City Council’s Strategic Plan as a priority to support the organizational and fiscal stability strategic goal.

On October 9, 2019, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1486. AB 1486, which amended the Surplus Land Act (“SLA”), effective January 1, 2020, changed the existing, longstanding definition of “surplus land”; providing that land no longer necessary for a local agency’s use shall be declared either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land” before taking any action to sell or lease land. To that end, AB 1486 also added a new limitation providing that an “agency’s use” “shall not include commercial or industrial uses or activities, including nongovernmental retail, entertainment, or office development,” or “property disposed of for the sole purpose of investment or generation or revenue.” AB 1486 further prohibits the City from negotiation of any disposition of the Property prior to compliance with the procedural requirements of the SLA.

On October 11, 2023, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 480 (“AB 480”) and Senate Bill 747 (“SB 747”) into law, which further clarify provisions of the Surplus Land Act. AB 480 and SB 747, which became effective on January 1, 2024, generally provide some increased flexibility as it pertains to the lease of public agency land, expands the definition of exempt surplus land, and the methodology for assessment of penalties for non-compliance (e.g. fair market value or sales price, whichever is greater).

California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) has also published Guidelines relating to the implementation of the SLA, which were most recently updated in 20242.

DISCUSSION
The Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections 54220 et seq., requires all local agencies to prioritize affordable housing, as well as parks and open space, when disposing of surplus land.

Upon the City’s determination that the Property is surplus land, the procedures set forth in California Government Code section 54220, et seq. must be followed. Those procedures require the City to send a written notice of availability (“NOA”) offering the sale of the Properties to HCD, housing agencies, and housing sponsors (entities that have notified HCD of their interest in receiving NOAs). In addition, entities not on HCD’s list of housing sponsors may respond to an NOA. Entities interested in developing the Properties for affordable housing have 60 days to respond to the NOA. If the City receives a letter of interest from any entity to develop affordable housing, then the City would enter into good faith negotiations concerning the price and terms of the sale with the interested party for a period of 90 days. An essential factor in the required good faith negotiations will be that the responding entity has proposed a feasible project and can demonstrate the experience and ability to carry out the project. If the price or terms cannot be agreed upon after 90 days (or if no entity gives notice of interest), the City may sell the Properties to another party.

If there are no responses to the NOA, the land may be disposed of without further regard to the General Plan are Public Facilities (north parcel) and Medium Density Residential and Commercial (south parcel).
2 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/final-updated-surplus-land-actguidelines-2024.pdf 9 Packet Pg. 258
Pacifica City Council 3
April 28, 2025
Surplus Land Act subsequent to a compliance letter from HCD.

The requested action to declare certain portions of the Properties as surplus land is a necessary first step to a potential sale and is required to comply with the SLA. It does not, however, obligate the City to sell the land if agreement cannot be reached on terms or price for the sale or any interested entities do not respond to the NOA.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status
Sale or lease of surplus government property is exempt from the California Environmental Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15312 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3).

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council could determine not to declare the Property as surplus land.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The recommended action would be consistent with the following City Council goal:
• Organizational and Fiscal Stability” includes investing in economic development to increase revenues and enhance long-term sustainability.

This surplus designation aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan, which identifies this site for future development as a revenue-generating asset and community benefit.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Direct costs for undergoing the sale of the Properties involve an appraisal(s) and traditional real estate broker services, which will be offset by any proceeds received from the sale of the Properties. The exact final costs for these services, as well as revenue proceeds from the sale of the properties are not known at this time given the complexity and unknown factors when negotiating under the SLA process.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

EXHIBIT A (PDF)
9 Packet Pg. 259
Pacifica City Council 4
April 28, 2025
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA,

DECLARING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT

MONTECITO AVENUE AND BEACH BOULEVARD ALSO KNOW AS SAN MATEO COUNTY ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 016-204-020 AND 016-294-620 IN THE

CITY OF PACIFICA (THE PROPERTIES) AS SURPLUS LAND PURSUANT TO THE SURPLUS LAND ACT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 54220 ET SEQ.); DIRECTING

THE CITY MANAGER TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE SURPLUS LAND ACT; AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15312 (CLASS 12)
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica (“City”) owns certain real property consisting of approximately 3.0 acres located at Montecito Ave and Beach Blvd, Pacifica, California (APN’s:016-204-020 and 016-294-620) (“Properties”);
WHEREAS, a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 016-204-020 may be retained by the City for its current and possible continued public use as City Council Chambers, and a portion of APN 016-294-620 shall be retained for its current and continued public use as a sewer pump station and for public parking;
WHEREAS, the Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections 54220 et seq., applies when a local agency disposes of “surplus land,” as that term is defined in Government Code section 54221;
WHEREAS, certain portions of the Properties that do not currently contain City facilities or do not directly support any City services would fall within the definition of “surplus land” pursuant to Government Code section 54221; WHEREAS, in order to pursue new uses for the Properties, including the possible disposition through a sale or lease of the property, the City must now comply with the Surplus Land Act.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS,
SECTION 1: The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated and adopted as the findings of the City Council; and
SECTION 2: Pursuant to Section 15312 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines (i.e., California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387), approval of this Resolution is exempt from CEQA because it involves the sale of surplus government property and none of the exceptions in section 15300.2 apply.
9 Packet Pg. 260
Pacifica City Council 5
April 28, 2025
SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find and declare that certain portions of the Properties, more particularly shown in Exhibit A to this Resolution, are no longer necessary for the City’s use and is therefore surplus land as defined in California Government Code section 54221.

SECTION 4: The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to send written notices of availability of the Property, to negotiate the terms of proposed sale of the Property and otherwise follow the procedures of the Surplus Land Act, California Government Code section 54220, et seq., as amended on January 1, 2020.

SECTION 5: Any proposed agreement for the disposition of the Property shall be subject to the approval of the City Council.

SECTION 6: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 28th day of April, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

EXHIBIT A

9.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: EXHIBIT A (5921 : Resolution - Surplus Lands Act - City-owned Property at Montecito Ave & Beach Blvd)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/28/2025
1 SUBJECT:

Proposed Ordinance Amending Sections 3-15.02, 3-15.03 and 3-15.08 and adding a new section 3-15.11, “Adjustment of dollar amounts to conform to Public Contract Code” within Chapter 15, “Bidding Procedures for Public Projects” of Title 3, “Finance” of the Pacifica Municipal Code relating to public bidding procedures and award of contracts for public projects.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Sections 3-15.02, 3-15.03, and 3-15.08 and Adding a New Section 3-15.11, ‘Adjustment Of Dollar Amounts To Conform To Public Contract Code’ Within Chapter 15, ‘Bidding Procedures For Public Projects’ Of Title 3, ‘Finance’ Relating To Public Bidding Procedures And Award Of Contracts For Public Projects”; and finding introduction of Ordinance not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et. seq.), including without limitation, Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of Regulations 15378.

STAFF CONTACT:

Roland Yip, P.E.

Deputy Director/City Engineer
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Louis Sun, P.E.

Interim Public Works Director
(650) 738-4660
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Under Assembly Bill 2192, which went into effect as of January 1, 2025, cities that have elected to become subject to the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (CUPCCAA) may increase their bidding thresholds for public projects. AB 2192 authorizes public projects of $75,000 or less to be performed by the employees of a public agency by force account, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order; authorizes public projects of $220,000 or less to be let to contract by informal procedures; and requires public projects of more than $220,000 to be let to contract by formal bidding procedures.

The City elected to become subject to CUPCCAA and follow the provisions of Public Contracts Code Section 22000 et seq., with the adoption of Ordinance No. 680, which became effective on October 11, 2000. The CUPCCAA public project bidding limits and procedures set forth in Public Contracts Code section 2032 are also set forth in the Pacifica Municipal Code, Chapter 15 “Bidding Procedures for Public Projects” within Title 3, “Finance”. Specifically, Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.02 (Award of contract) reads as follows:
10 Packet Pg. 263
Pacifica City Council 2
April 28, 2025
Sec. 3-15.02. - Award of contract.

A. Public projects up to Sixty Thousand and no/100ths ($60,000.00) Dollars may be performed by City employee force account, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order.

B. Public projects up to Two Hundred Thousand and no/100ths ($200,000.00) Dollars may be let to contract by informal procedures as set forth in this chapter.

CUPCCAA previously authorized public projects of $60,000 or less to be performed by the employees of a public agency; authorized public projects of $200,000 or less to be let to contract by informal bidding procedures; and required public projects of more than $200,000 to be let to contract by formal bidding procedures.

With the enactment of AB 2192, the CUPCCAA limits in Public Contract Code 22032 have been amended to increase the thresholds for public projects of $75,000 or less to be performed by the employees of a public agency; authorizes public projects of $220,000 or less to be let to contract by informal bidding procedures; and requires public projects of more than $220,000 to be let to contract by formal bidding procedures. In the event that all bids received for the performance of a public project are in excess of $220,000, the governing body of a public agency may award the contract at $235,000 or less to the lowest responsible bidder if it determines the cost estimate of the public agency was reasonable. Nothing in the recommended amendment to the Purchasing Policy would preclude the City Council from choosing to engage in a full formal bid process for any project.

Given the changes effected by AB 2192, staff is recommending that the bidding limits in Chapter 15 be updated. The proposed amendments to Sections 3-15.02 will help streamline the Public Works bidding process for the City while maintaining an appropriate level of transparency and accountability. Further, language has been added to allow all purchasing levels to automatically follow the limits allowed under state law for all thresholds should the thresholds in Public Contract Code section 22032 be revised in the future.

Staff is also recommending that section 3-15.03 (Award of contracts by City Manager) also be amended to conform to the revisions to section 3-15.02 so that the City Manager can award contracts up to the informal bidding limit ($220,000). An amendment is also necessary to update section 3-15.08 (Acceptance of informal bids in excess of $175,000.00) to conform to the new informal bid limits of $220,000 and the new limits in Public Contract Code section 2034(f).

A new section 3-15.11 is included in the proposed ordinance to specify that if the legislature amends the dollar thresholds in Public Contract Code section 22032, then the bidding limits in Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.02 will automatically adjust.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This item is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal.

Code Regs. §§ 15000 et. seq.), including without limitation, Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of Regulations 15378 as this is an ordinance that will make administrative changes and does not authorize any construction and is therefore not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. 10 Packet Pg. 264
Pacifica City Council 3
April 28, 2025
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may choose not to amend sections 3-15.02 and 3-15.03 of Chapter 15 Bidding Procedures for Public Projects, Title 3 Finance of the Pacifica Municipal Code; however, that would leave the lower bidding limits in place and the City would not gain the benefit of operational efficiency in the City's procurement process.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Adoption of Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica amendments Sections 3-15.02 and 3-15.03 of Chapter 15 Bidding Procedures for Public Projects, Title 3 Finance of the Pacifica Municipal Code:
• Improve and Steward City Infrastructure, Streets and Facilities: This Adoption of the Ordinance of Chapter 15 Bidding Procedures for Public Projects is necessary to ensure City achieve better operational efficiency under current economic conditions while still maintaining a high level of accountability and transparency in the City's procurement process.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with these amendments to the City’s Ordinance Sections 3-

15.02 and 3-15.03 of Chapter 15 Bidding Procedures for Public Projects, Title 3 Finance of the Pacifica Municipal Code. Adoption of the proposed amendments will ensure the City is consistent with State law and Public Contracts Code. In addition, it will help the City achieve better operational efficiency under current economic conditions while still maintaining a high level of accountability and transparency in the City's procurement process.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1-RedlineCHAPTER_15.___BIDDING_PROCEDURES_FOR_PUBLIC_PROJECTS (DOCX) 10 Packet Pg. 265
Pacifica City Council 4
April 28, 2025
ORDINANCE NO. (ID # 5893)
ORDINANCE NO. XXX-C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTIONS 3-15.02, 3-15.03, AND 3-15.08 AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 3-

15.11, “ADJUSTMENT OF DOLLAR AMOUNTS TO CONFORM TO PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE” WITHIN CHAPTER 15, “BIDDING PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS” OF TITLE 3, “FINANCE” RELATING TO PUBLIC BIDDING PROCEDURES AND AWARD OF

CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City elected to become subject to the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (CUPCCAA) and follow the provisions of Public Contracts Code Section 22000 et seq., with the adoption of Ordinance No. 680, which became effective on October 11, 2000; and
WHEREAS, since that time, staff has periodically brought to City Council recommended updates as necessary; and
WHEREAS, the public project bidding limits and procedures are set forth in the Pacifica Municipal Code, Chapter 15 “Bidding Procedures for Public Projects” within Title 3, “Finance”; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 2192 went into effect as of January 1, 2025 and provides that cities that have elected to become subject to CUPCCAA may increase their bidding thresholds for public projects to $75,000 or less to be performed by the employees of a public agency by force account, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order; $220,000 or less to be let to contract by informal procedures; $220,000 or more to be let by formal bidding procedures.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Amendment. Sections 3-15.03, “Award of contract”, 3-15.04, “Award of contracts by City Manager,” and 3-15.08, “Acceptance of informal bids in excess of $175,000” within Chapter 15, “Bidding Procedures for Public Projects” of Title 3, “Finance” shall be repealed and replaced in their entirety to read as follows:
“Sec. 3-15.02. - Award of contract.

Public projects, as defined by California Public Contract Code Section 22000 et seq., may be let to contract by informal procedures as set forth in Public Contract Code Section 22032 et seq., with dollar amounts as may be automatically adjusted pursuant to section 3-15.11.

A. Public projects of amounts equaling the limit for informal bidding as set forth California Public Contract Code Section 22032(a), as may be amended from time to time, or less may be performed by the employees of a public agency by force account, by negotiated 10 Packet Pg. 266
Pacifica City Council 5
April 28, 2025
contract, or by purchase order.

B. Public projects of amounts equaling the limit for informal bidding as set forth California Public Contract Code Section 22032(b), as may be amended from time to time, or less may be let to contract by informal procedures as set forth in Public Contract Code Section 22032 et seq.

C. Public projects of amounts greater than the limit for informal bidding as set forth California Public Contract Code Section 22032(c), as may be amended from time to time, shall, except as otherwise provided in Public Contract Code Section 22032 et seq., be let to contract by formal bidding procedure.

Sec. 3-15.03. - Award of contracts by City Manager.

A. The City Council does hereby delegate to the City Manager, or their designated representative, the authority to award or reject contracts under section 3-15.02 (A) of this chapter.

B. The City Council does hereby delegate to the City Manager, or their designated representative, the authority to award or reject contracts under section 3-15.02(B) of this chapter.

C. The City Council may delegate to the City Manager, or their designated representative, the authority to award or reject contracts under section 3-15.02(C) of this chapter. Delegation of authority pursuant to this subsection (C) shall be through a resolution of the Council.”
…
Sec. 3-15.08. Acceptance of informal bids in excess of $220,000.

If all informal bids received are in excess of two hundred twenty thousand dollars ($220,000), the governing body of the public agency may, by adoption of a resolution by a four-fifths vote, award the contract, at two hundred thirty-five thousand dollars ($235,000) or less, to the lowest responsible bidder, if it determines the cost estimate of the public agency was reasonable.”
Section 3. Amendment. A new section 3-15.11, “Adjustment of dollar amounts to conform to Public Contracts Code” is hereby added to Chapter 15, “Bidding Procedures for Public Projects” of Title 3, “Finance” to read as follows:
“3-15.11 - Adjustment of dollar amounts to conform to Public Contract Code.

If the legislature amends the dollar amounts in Section 22032 of the Public Contract Code, or any successor statute, regarding projects eligible to use informal bid procedures and projects that may be performed by the employees of a public agency by force account, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order, the thresholds referenced in Section 3-15.02 shall be automatically adjusted to conform to the revisions to state law.” Section 4. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.), including without limitation under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.
10 Packet Pg. 267
Pacifica City Council 6
April 28, 2025
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentence, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 28th day of April, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 10 Packet Pg. 268
Pacifica City Council 7
April 28, 2025
* * * * *
(ID # 5893) at 4/28/2025 7:00 PM City Council Regular Meeting 10 Packet Pg. 269
TITLE 3. - FINANCE
CHAPTER 15. BIDDING PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS
4912-9018-5008 v1
Pacifica, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2025-03-19 10:32:54 [EST] (Supp. No. 57)

Page 1 of 4 ends

CHAPTER 15. BIDDING PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS
Sec. 3-15.01. California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Procedure.

The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby elect to become subject to the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Procedure referred to in the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (California Public Contract Code Sections 22000 et. seq., as may be amended). The terms referred to herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act. (§ 1, Ord. 680-C.S., eff. October 11, 2000)
Sec. 3-15.02. Award of contract.

A. Public projects up to Sixty Thousand and no/100ths ($60,000.00) Dollars may be performed by City employee force account, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order.

B. Public projects up to Two Hundred Thousand and no/100ths ($200,000.00) Dollars may be let to contract by informal procedures as set forth in this chapter.

C. Public projects of more than Two Hundred Thousand and no/100ths ($200,000.00) Dollars shall, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, be let to contract by formal bidding procedure, including without limitation, those procedures contained within Public Contract Code Section 22037. (§ 1, Ord. 680-C.S., eff. October 11, 2000, § 3(Exh. A), Ord. 804-C.S., § 3(Exh. A), eff. February 10, 2016; § 2, Ord. 868-C.S., eff. October 27, 2021)

10.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment 1-Redline- CHAPTER_15.___BIDDING_PROCEDURES_FOR_PUBLIC_PROJECTS (5893 : Ordinance - Chapter 15 4912-9018-5008 v1
Created: 2025-03-19 10:32:54 [EST]
(Supp. No. 57)

Page 2 of 4 ends

Sec. 3-15.03. Award of contracts by City Manager.

A. The City Council does hereby delegate to the City Manager, or their designated representative, the authority to award or reject contracts under Section 3-15.02(A) of this chapter.

B. The City Council does hereby delegate to the City Manager, or their designated representative, the authority to award or reject contracts under Section 3-15.02(B) of this chapter.

C. The City Council may delegate to the City Manager, or their designated representative, the authority to award or reject contracts under Section 3-15.02(C) of this chapter. Delegation of authority pursuant to this subsection (C) shall be through a resolution of the Council.

A. The City Council does hereby delegate to the City Manager, or their designated representative, the authority to award or reject contracts under Section 3-15.02(A) of this chapter, up to Sixty Thousand and no/100ths ($60,000.00) Dollars.

B. The City Council does hereby delegate to the City Manager, or their designated representative, the authority to award or reject contracts under Section 3-15.02(B) of this chapter, up to the value of Seventy-five Thousand and no/100ths ($75,000.00) Dollars.

C. The City Council may delegate to the City Manager, or their designated representative, the authority to award or reject contracts under Section 3-15.02(B) and (C) of this chapter, over Seventy-five Thousand and no/100ths ($75,000) Dollars. Delegation of authority pursuant to this subsection (C) shall be through a resolution of the Council.
(§ 1, Ord. 680-C.S., eff. October 11, 2000, § 3(Exh. A), Ord. 804-C.S., § 3(Exh. A), eff. February 10, 2016; § 3, Ord. 868-C.S., eff. October 27, 2021)
Sec. 3-15.04. Development, maintenance and use of list of qualified contractors for informal contracts.

The City Manager or his or her designated representative shall develop and maintain a list of qualified contractors eligible to submit bids on informal contracts awarded by the City. Said list shall meet with the requirements of the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission ("CUCCAC"). Such contractors shall be identified according to categories of work.
(§ 1, Ord. 680-C.S., eff. October 11, 2000)
Sec. 3-15.05. Bidding procedures for informal contracts.

A. All contractors on the list for the category of work being bid and/or all construction trade journals specified by the CUCCAC shall be sent a notice inviting informal bids unless the product or service is proprietary.

Additional contractors and/or construction trade journals may be notified at the discretion of the City Manager.

B. All notices to contractors and construction trade journals inviting informal bids shall be sent via e-mail, fax or mail not less than ten (10) days before bids are due.

10.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment 1-Redline- CHAPTER_15.___BIDDING_PROCEDURES_FOR_PUBLIC_PROJECTS (5893 : Ordinance - Chapter 15 4912-9018-5008 v1
Created: 2025-03-19 10:32:54 [EST]
(Supp. No. 57)

Page 3 of 4 ends

C. The notice inviting informal bids shall describe the project in general terms, explain how prospective bidders may obtain more detailed information about the project, and state the time and place for the submission of bids.
(§ 1, Ord. 680-C.S., eff. October 11, 2000)
Sec. 3-15.06. Bidding procedures for formal contracts.

A. At least twenty-one (21) days before bids are opened, notice inviting formal bids shall be sent to the list of contractors and/or trade journals specified in Section 3-15.05A of this chapter.

B. Notice inviting formal bids shall be published at least fourteen (14) calendar days before the date of bid opening in a newspaper of general circulation serving the City of Pacifica.

C. The notice inviting formal bids shall state the time and place for the receiving and opening of sealed bids and distinctly describe the "project."
(§ 1, Ord. 680-C.S., eff. October 11, 2000; § 4, Ord. 868-C.S., eff. October 27, 2021) Sec. 3-15.07. Opening of informal bids and awarding of contract.

At the time provided in the notice inviting informal bids, all bids timely received shall be opened by the City Clerk, or their designee, evaluated and, unless all bids are rejected, the contract may be awarded by the City Manager to the lowest responsive responsible bidder. If two (2) or more bids are lowest, the contract shall be awarded by drawing lots. If no bids are received, at the discretion of the City Manager the project may be performed by employees of the City by force account or negotiated contract. The City Manager may, in their discretion, reject all bids presented, in which event he shall state the reasons for the rejection and follow one of the options specified in Public Contract Code Section 22038(a). (§ 1, Ord. 680-C.S., eff. October 11, 2000, § 3(Exh. A), Ord. 804-C.S., § 3(Exh. A), eff. February 10, 2016; § 5, Ord. 868-C.S., eff. October 27, 2021)
Sec. 3-15.08. Acceptance of informal bids in excess of $175,000.00$220,000.

If all informal bids received are in excess of One Hundred Seventy-five Thousand and no/100ths ($175,000.00) Dollars, the City Council may, by passage of a resolution by a four-fifths vote, award the contract at One Hundred Eighty-seven Thousand Five Hundred and no/100ths ($187,500.00) Dollars or less to the lowest responsive responsible bidder if it determines the cost estimate prepared by the City Engineer was reasonable. (§ 1, Ord. 680-C.S., eff. October 11, 2000, § 3, Ord. 804-C.S., § 3(Exh. A), eff. February 10, 2016) Sec. 3-15.09. Emergencies.

A. In cases of emergency when repair or replacements are necessary, the City, under direction of the City Manager, may proceed at once to replace or repair any public facility without adopting plans, specifications, strain sheets, or working details, or giving notice for bids to let contracts. The work may be done by day labor

10.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment 1-Redline- CHAPTER_15.___BIDDING_PROCEDURES_FOR_PUBLIC_PROJECTS (5893 : Ordinance - Chapter 15 4912-9018-5008 v1
Created: 2025-03-19 10:32:54 [EST]
(Supp. No. 57)

Page 4 of 4 ends

under the direction of the City Manager or his or her representative, by contractor, or by a combination of the two.

B. In case of emergency, if notice for bids to let contracts will not be given, the City shall comply with the provisions of Public Contract Code Section 22050.
(§ 1, Ord. 680-C.S., eff. October 11, 2000)
3-15.10. Federal procurement.

Any public project made pursuant to a federal award or subject to reimbursement, in whole or in part, with federal funds shall comply with the federal procurement policies set forth in Article 12, "Federal Procurement" of City Administrative Policy No. 76, as may be amended by the City Council from time to time. (§ 4, Ord. 850-C.S., eff. November 27, 2019)
3-15.11 - Adjustment of dollar amounts to conform to Public Contract Code.

10.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment 1-Redline- CHAPTER_15.___BIDDING_PROCEDURES_FOR_PUBLIC_PROJECTS (5893 : Ordinance - Chapter 15

Pacifica City CouncilApril 28, 2025

Pacifica City Council
April 28, 2025