CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer
Mayor pro Tem Christine Boles
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Mayra Espinosa
Councilmember Greg Wright
City Council Regular Meeting 1 April 28, 2025
April 28, 2025 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on April 28, 2025 at 7:05 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor Present
Christine Boles Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa Councilmember Present
Greg Wright Councilmember Present
Dep. City Clerk La took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Louis Sun, PW Interim Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Brianne Harkousha, Community Development Dep. Director; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director (Field Services/Engineering); Tara Schiff, Economic Development Manager; Bill Glasgo, Police Captain; Bryan Bautista, Asst. Civil Engineer; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk; Katelyn Snodgrass, Assoc. Planner.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Espinosa
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation: Sergeant Duane Wachtelborn
Mayor pro Tem Boles read the proclamation in honor of retiring Sergeant Duane Wachtelborn.
Police Chief Sarasua stated it was her privilege and honor to celebrate his retirement. She City Council Regular Meeting 2 April 28, 2025
highlighted his accomplishments and thanked him for his 29 years of exemplary service.
Councilmember Wright appreciated everything he did to keep Pacifica a safe, good community.
Councilmember Bier stated they did a lot of work together over the years, and she felt the energy he brought to coalition meetings, school meetings, etc., to create relationships.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought our Police Department was a light for our community with the trust and relationships they have established together. She added that it is a lifetime of service and she thanked him and his family for that.
Councilmember Espinosa congratulated him and hoped he enjoys his retirement.
Mayor Beckmeyer thanked him for all his years of service. She echoed Mayor pro Tem Boles comments about the commitment and service of his family all those years as well, and thanked him and his family. Mayor Beckmeyer thanked him for continuing to create and add to the family nature of our police force.
Sergeant Wachtelborn thanked them and emphasized community and family, which were the reasons he stayed in Pacifica. He has seen the new police offers do so much, and he is comfortable leaving the community in good hands.
There were no public comments.
B. Proclamation: Small Business Month - May 2025 / Small Business Week May 4 - 10, 2025
Councilmember Espinosa read the proclamation in honor of Small Business Month/Small Business Week, May 4-10, 2025.
Economic Development Manager Schiff reported that more than 50 years ago, the Small Business Administration (SBA) designated the month of May as Small Business of Month and the first week of May as Small Business Week. She stated that Pacifica shows support of all businesses during May as they are an integral part of our community that helps create economic vitality and encouraged all residents to support local businesses during this month and all year long. The City has so many legacy businesses here that were founded before the City was incorporated in 1957 and some have been operating for almost 100 years and they contribute to what makes Pacifica special. She invited Robby Bancroft from Breakers and other business owners to accept the proclamation.
Mr. Bancroft thanked them and spoke on behalf of all local businesses in Pacifica. He looked forward to working more with the SBDC, EDC, Chamber of Commerce, Seaside Merchants, hotels, shops, bars, restaurants, and everyone that makes Pacifica special. He invited everyone to eat, shop, stay, and play in the City of Pacifica. He again thanked Council and was excited to work with the city and the wonderful community.
Ms. Wiston stated she owned a small business and was grateful for Director Schiff helping out the small businesses. She asked about details regarding the Chamber of Commerce, the Visitor’s Center, the information center in Rockaway Beach, and the appropriate signage to direct residents and visitors to small businesses in town.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 April 28, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer thanked her for her suggestions.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thanked them all, as some small businesses are visible and others are consulting in their homes. She felt Pacifica has a variety of businesses, and one of the huge jobs for tourism is to get people to come here and spend money. She states it has been a hard time recovering from COVID-19 and she asked that the community support small businesses.
Councilmember Bier felt small businesses were the most important thing in our community and that keeps us here and happy. She stated that there have been so many new things, like the Seaside Merchant Association, Second Saturdays, etc., and she hopes that we can really connect that Economic Development Committee to our small businesses for cohesiveness.
Councilmember Wright appreciates the small businesses and so many of them are supporting families and that is part of what builds community and makes Pacifica special.
Councilmember Espinosa stated she is part of the Economic Development Committee and she knows they are working to expand small businesses and help them. She stated that the Economic Development Committee is working on signage now and they will be directing traffic to find Rockaway Beach businesses.
Mayor Beckmeyer appreciated the effort of all small businesses in town, our legacy businesses and the new ones. She thanked everyone’s patronage in supporting our businesses.
There were no public comments.
C. Proclamation: Wildfire Preparedness Month - May 2025 Councilmember Wright read the proclamation in honor of Wildfire Preparedness Month.
NCFA Safety Inspector Claire Shum shared information about Genasys Protects (previously ZoneHaven), Wildfire Awareness Day on May 7, and resources listed on the North County Fire Authority website as well as Pacifica’s wildfire preparedness page. The State has released their responsibility area maps and expanded on moderate and high zones in Pacifica, which can be discussed at the Wildfire Awareness Day event.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thanked Inspector Shum for being here and providing all the education the NCFA does in our community to help us be prepared. She was pleased that there is a new map in the Housing Element that shows wildland urban interstate zones in Pacifica. She shared information about vegetation clearances, i.e. using non-combustible building materials, as well as the upcoming Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission meeting on May 21.
Councilmember Wright thanked NCFA for what they have done, for being there and being willing to rush in and take care of us and being proactive in their approach.
Councilmember Bier thanked NCFA for coming out again.
Councilmember Espinosa shared concerns from a community member regarding fire insurance and the frightening situation for many people about wildfire preparedness.
Mayor Beckmeyer recommended sending those concerns to the California Department of Insurance because they are tracking the companies and areas with raised rates. She thanked City Council Regular Meeting 4 April 28, 2025
NCFA for being here. She stated that there are large things that this Council has been working on in terms of fire and fuel reduction project with the county, but there are things that people can do individually and she hoped for a great turnout at their event on May 7.
There were no public comments.
D. Proclamation: Mental Health Month - May 2025
Councilmember Bier read the proclamation in honor of Mental Health Month.
StarVista Community Engagement Supervisor Walter Ng shared that their crisis center operates 24/7 for crisis intervention and what they do to help all San Mateo County residents, providing immediate support for suicide, etc., pre- and post-crisis intervention, including school districts, non-profit organizations, government agencies, and community-based organizations. He also explained that 988 is not only for emergencies but everything that precedes that, so calling 988 guides people to individuals who can talk about difficulties anytime. He thanked Pacifica for proclaiming May 2025 as Mental Health Month and shared why it is important in people’s lives.
Councilmember Bier loved the idea of connecting mental and physical health, and she is grateful for all the services that are offered to anyone looking for support. She is proud to be part of the Mayor’s Mental Health Initiative and they will be looking at trainings for electeds across the county so they can also concentrate on their mental health.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thanked him for being here and sharing the amazing work that his organization does. She stated it was shocking to hear the proclamation with 12% of residents in a year are seeking those services and thought there were likely more not actively seeking.
She mentioned that she sought help last year and thought it was important for those in leadership to show that it is something we all need.
Councilmember Wright thanked him for all that he does and thanked Councilmember Bier for her work. That is what makes us whole and who we are and having that support for those who need it is important.
Councilmember Espinosa emphasized mental health and wellness, as some community members may have a different perspective on mental health. She hoped the community can seek more health through the resources advertised.
Mayor Beckmeyer described the difficulties of gathering mental health resources in schools for students and families up to, throughout, and following the pandemic and it has been a refreshing and encouraging sign that our school budgets are allowing for this. She is happy to share the resources and opportunities for people in need.
There were no public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Woodhouse explained that Item #5, the elevator modernization project at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant, is being moved off the agenda to be brought back at a future agenda because there are contract details that came up from a company at the last minute that need to be ironed out.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 April 28, 2025
There were no public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR (EXCLUDING ITEM #5)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the March 24, 2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
2. Quarterly Financial Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2025 PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2025.
3. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2025 PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2025.
4. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Pacifica and Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD) for Joint Use of Facilities owned by JUHSD (Jean E. Brink Pool, Terra Nova Pool, and Terra Nova Tennis Courts)
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Pacifica and the Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD) for the joint use of facilities owned by JUHSD (Jean E. Brink Pool, Terra Nova Pool, and Terra Nova Tennis Courts) and authorize the City Manager to execute the MOU.
5. Resolution to Approve Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Admin Building Elevator Modernization Project P0039
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution: (A) Approving the Construction Contract with KONE, INC. in an amount of $203,200 (B) Authorizing a budget authority in the amount of $219,000, which includes contingencies in an amount of $15,800, not to exceed seven percent (7%) of the Construction Contract amount (C) Authorizing staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount; and (D) Authorizing the City Manager and Designated Personnel to Sign Contract Documents related to the CCWRP Admin Building Elevator Modernization Project P0039.
6. Resolution Authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the Consultant Services Agreement with Kermani Consulting Group, for Disaster Cost Recovery and Grant Management services related to the Winter 2023 Storms
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution Authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the Consultant Services Agreement between Kermani Consulting Group, for Disaster Cost Recovery and Grant Management services related to the Winter 2023 Storms in an amount of $50,000, increasing the budget authority to $95,000, and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the amendment”
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
City Council Regular Meeting 6 April 28, 2025
Steve Johnson, Pacifica, stated he is president of the Pacifica Historical Society and explained the difficulties of their visitors regarding accessing the facility due to the oversized vehicles. He proposed limiting the parking from 8:00 am to 8:00 p.m. for a certain number of hours. He also stated that they started a Saturday afternoon historic walk in the Sharp Park district that shows the historic nature of that area as part of their effort to bring people to the businesses of Pacifica. He also invited everyone to their afternoon tea on May 18 with special guests who will tell them how to make a proper cup of tea and the history of tea in the United States.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, thanked everyone involved in improving the IT service for remote connections into meetings as it has become a vital connection for constituents to stay involved.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bier attended the CalCities Leadership Summit and sat on a panel with the City Manager to discuss civility, kindness, and collaboration in government. She stated it felt good to be candid and honest on how important it is to have partnership between Council, City staff, the community, and she spoke with new councilmembers afterwards.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated the Emergency Services Council got a report from the Executive Director regarding federal cuts, cancelled programs, and the uncertainty of grants. She shared that most cities’ fees for the Emergency Services Council will go up 25%, and part of that is to save for a new HAZMAT vehicle. She added the work on the last local hazard mitigation plan was also delayed as they are trying to get new requests for proposals. She met with Chair Debbie Ruddock from OneShoreline about what they looked for in projects and potential ways to get them involved here. Peninsula Clean Energy approved going to an average billing for the years, and along with PG&E, they are providing a payment plan that will even that out. She also mentioned the Off-Shore Reef presentation to take place at Council Chambers the following day.
Councilmember Espinosa thanked PB&R Director Leslie for the egg hunt events, as the community enjoyed themselves. It was a great event and she looks forward to more of them.
Mayor Beckmeyer shared information from the City Leadership Summit regarding Assembly Bill 650, which puts additional support in place for cities and local jurisdictions with housing and community development in relationship to their RHNA process. She thanked Public Works and PB&R for all the support and help Saturday at Pelican Fest. It was a great afternoon with a lot of accolades for Lynn Adams.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated the City recently lost one of its employees, Wayland Lee, to a long battle with cancer. With Council’s blessing, they will adjourn tonight’s meeting in memory of Wayland Lee and he will say more at that time.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. Consideration of an appeal of the City’s Notice of Expiration of Cannabis Public Safety License/Termination of Cannabis Activity Permit and Cessation of Operations dated March 19, 2025, issued to Seaweed Holistics, LLC., located at 450 Dondee Street, Unit #2, Pacifica, CA 94044 (APN 022-021-640) (as continued from April 14, 2025) City Council Regular Meeting 7 April 28, 2025
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached Resolution to DENY the appeal submitted by Ana Leaňo-Williams (Appellant) and UPHOLD the City’s Notice of Expiration of Cannabis Public Safety License/Termination of Cannabis Activity Permit and Cessation of Operations dated March 19, 2025, issued to Seaweed Holistics, LLC., located at 450 Dondee Street, Unit #2, Pacifica, CA 94044 (APN 022-021-640) Mayor Beckmeyer stated that this item was continued to this meeting from the previous Council meeting on April 14, 2025. She asked if any councilmembers had any ex-parte communications with the appellant.
Mayor Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem Boles, Councilmember Bier, and Councilmember Espinosa did not have any ex-parte communications.
Councilmember Wright stated not since the appeal.
Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Boles wanted to confirm the outstanding amount due to the City.
Deputy Director Harkousha stated the Conditions of Approval require the retail operation to obtain and maintain a Cannabis Public Safety License (CPSL) and Cannabis Activity Permit (CAP) and that would require the payment of $25,375.
Mayor pro Tem Boles wanted to understand the total of the other past due amounts and the total outstanding amount due at this point.
Deputy Director Harkousha stated that the total amount due is $25,375 for the CPSL, in addition to an outstanding amount as part of the annual audit findings and their under-reported taxes, which will be pursued separately.
Mayor pro Tem Boles understood. She stated that we have offered payment plans in the past for tax payments, but the issue is that the CPSL does not allow a tax payment plan per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC).
Deputy Director Harkousha answered affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles assumed that, if Council wanted to consider that at all, they would have to change the PMC through an ordinance amendment.
Deputy Director Harkousha answered affirmatively.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed that the PMC does not allow for any waivers or payment plans and the CPSL is a requirement of the application, which has to be submitted prior to the expiration date; once the application is submitted with the fee, there is a process for the renewal. In this case, it did not happen.
Mayor Beckmeyer then invited the appellant to speak for up to 10 minutes Ana Williams, appellant, stated that when legalization first passed, there was hope that small businesses could thrive and communities could benefit from new jobs, tax revenue, and safer access. However, there are layers of regulations and an overwhelming tax burden in a City Council Regular Meeting 8 April 28, 2025
marketplace that feels unsustainable for operators and customers. On top of state and local taxes, there is an additional 4% increase in the excise tax this July. She stated constant compliance is making it nearly impossible to survive except for big businesses that can absorb the cost in tiny margins. Their small business dispensary is a direct reflection of the struggle.
They have worked hard to comply with every regulation, pay every fee, and operate with integrity. They have built relationships with the community and helped customers find products that improved their quality of life. She stated that the financial wave has been crushing. She stated that the $25,375 CPSL renewal fee that went unpaid was more than they could come up with in a single payment. She appealed this decision for non-renewal to ask for the City’s compassion and opportunity to keep serving the community until they can restructure the business or close their doors permanently, responsibly and respectfully, if it comes to that. Like many small operators, they are doing their best to navigate an incredibly expensive, complex system with limited resources. Being compelled to close so abruptly felt like she was letting her staff and customers down. If allowed the opportunity to remain open, even if only temporarily, it would give her staff a chance to close with dignity. They have inventory that cannot easily be returned to the distributors. If their license is revoked immediately, she will have no legal pathway to sell that stock and will not be able to recover those costs or be able to pay off any of their debt and outstanding obligations. She stated, if given the opportunity to remain open, even temporarily, they will employ a plan to bring in significant investment, operations, and marketing expertise to continue the mission they started. They urged Council to provide them with the same opportunity as Phog Center, which appeared to have been acquired by Coastside. She fully acknowledged they will accept a denial with grace, as there will be a sense of relief after the financial and emotional toll these past few years. She asked to be allowed the opportunity to stay open long enough to sell their inventory and explore new ownership and give a proper goodbye. She stated that running the dispensary has been one of the hardest and most fulfilling experiences of her life.
Tony Williams, appellant, stated he is Ana Williams’ husband and business partner. He stated that they seven years after the pass of Prop. 64, the cannabis industry has not gone the way California had predicted. Over the last three years, since 2021, the cannabis industry and the State has declined 20%. They have been business owners at Rockaway Beach for over a decade and they would like to continue to operate and run their business in Rockaway. He stated that the CPSL has not only become an issue for them but also the rest of the cannabis industry in Pacifica. He knows that at least three of the other dispensaries have also expressed the hardship in paying this fee every year. He knows that California, over the last 7 years since the pass of Prop. 64, municipalities have had to change and adjust certain ordinances because they did not fit a particular community. He asked the City to reconsider the CPSL application process, as $25,000 for a small cannabis business at one time is a lot of money and they would love the opportunity to pay it in via payment plans that will allow them to regularly take care of it.
He stated that they have shown in the past that they are responsible enough and they will take care of their debts with the City.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked about process.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated next is questions for the appellant and then public comment.
Councilmember Wright asked if this is Council’s only opportunity to ask the appellant questions.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated this is the opportunity for Councilmembers to ask questions of the appellant while the public hearing portion of the item is open. She stated that he could ask questions after the public hearing portion of the item is closed, but the mayor would need to City Council Regular Meeting 9 April 28, 2025
reopen the public hearing to ask the appellant to answer those questions.
Councilmember Bier asked the appellants to explain their request to stay open for a while longer for staff could close out and sell the rest of their products.
Ms. Williams stated that they have remaining stock which needs to follow a specific procedure for chain of custody and transfers. Their business has been struggling, down 80% in the last two years, and they are waiting for an upturn again. She thinks there are a lot of variables.
Councilmember Bier asked how long do they think they would need.
Ms. Williams thought maybe a month.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked the rough approximate value of what they have.
Ms. Williams stated at least $20,000.
Mayor pro Tem Boles mentioned police closed down the business for not having the safety permit in March 2025, but technically the permit expired in October 2024.
Ms. Williams stated that police were aware of this. Capt. Glasgo had the annual inspection in December and part of it was to make sure their licenses are current and they passed them.
She stated she has been in communication with the Finance Department to request a payment plan. There was no other communication until March regarding the cessation of operations.
Mayor pro Tem Boles concluded Ms. Williams was trying to work things out with the Finance and Police Departments. She asked if official notices were sent about their expired permit.
Ms. Williams stated between October and December she communicated with Capt. Glasgo, who said part of the renewal is the payment and an application. She submitted an application after he advised her to do so.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if Ms. Williams had no other communication with the City between December and March, aside from the letter stating cessation of operations.
Ms. Williams answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Wright asked if she had the ability to pay anything now and how many payments they have made since December toward any amount owed to the City.
Ms. Williams stated none.
Councilmember Wright asked if they owe back rent.
Ms. Williams stated yes, for April.
Councilmember Wright asked if there are negotiations with a potential partner or buyer.
Ms. Williams stated they were entertaining a potential partner or buyer, but her husband’s illness has taken the forefront.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 April 28, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Cheryl Ammeter, Pacifica, spoke in support of helping Seaweed Holistics and shared how a dear friend was touched by this business regarding her mental health.
Pamela Wiston, Pacifica, spoke in support of Seaweed Holistics and making payments possible for the outstanding amounts. She also shared community concerns regarding the possibility of closing this business.
Nicole Gomez, Pacifica, stated she is the buyer and inventory manager at Seaweed Holistics, and asked if it would be possible to make payments, as the decline in business has affected their ability to pay licensing fees. She also asked for the possibility to sell the remaining stock and exit with grace within the community.
Charles Himes, Pacifica, asked if this business has been a net-positive revenue source for the City and stated this determination would be significant in the future of the storefront.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, asked, if the operators were able to pay the $25,000, would they be able to continue operating or has the door closed.
Janeen Marquardt, Pacifica, shared her concerns as a small business owner experiencing difficult times and hoped the City can make it better for them and all other small businesses.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments. She stated that appellant has three minutes to rebut any comments or make any statement.
Mr. Williams hoped they could come to a solution and remain open. They opened Seaweed Holistics as a dispensary that primarily catered to those over the age of 50. He hoped to be allowed the opportunity to make payments. They see a bright future for Seaweed Holistics and they hope they get the opportunity to allow them to make payments.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Bier asked, if the operators pay the $25,000, can they continue operating.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, the way the code is currently written, the application for renewal and renewal fee must be filed at least 30 days but not more than 60 days prior to the expiration of the CPSL. She stated that the CPSL has expired and there is no mechanism in the code to revive the CPSL once it’s expired.
Councilmember Bier asked about retaining 51% ownership of a business when it is sold.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the way the code currently reads is that it defines ownership and ownership can mean different things depending on whether it is a publicly traded corporation or not. For any business, transfer of the CPSL is prohibited, and any attempt to transfer ownership or control of a cannabis operation to a different individual or any transfer of at least 51% ownership or title in the original entity that was issued the CPSL shall be grounds for revocation of the CPSL. She stated that there can be changes in ownership of less than 50%, but ownership of the business cannot be transferred.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked what the CPSL covers and is it prepaid for the year ahead.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 April 28, 2025
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the code provides that the CPSL fee is an amount calculated to recover the City’s full cost of reviewing, issuing, and administering said license.
The license involves a number of steps taken by Police Department to confirm ownership, status of the business itself, how they are operating, and making sure that all of it is done in compliance with our code requirements.
Mayor pro Tem Boles said it is about renewal, not about operations or patrolling during the year.
Captain Glasgo stated, in addition to the fees mentioned by Asst. City Attorney Bazzano, the fees are associated with the audits that take place, i.e. financial audits and physical inspections conducted by HdL who ensures each of the cannabis businesses are operating in compliance with our Municipal Code and the State. He stated that, incorporated in the fees, are staff time with City Attorney fees, and staff time for Planning and the Police Department and there are various line items that are covered within this $25,000.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if most of that happens at the beginning or at renewal.
Captain Glasgo stated that it is ongoing, i.e., HDL costs the City about $13,000 a year per licensee to have the regular audit and inspection.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked about the inspection that happened in December 2024.
Captain Glasgo stated that, each December, he goes with the vendor HdL to all of the cannabis business licensees. The licensee is informed that we will be coming out, the vendor gives them a checklist of things that they are going to be looking at and how to prepare for the inspection.
Before the inspection, he spoke with Ms. Williams about filling out the application for the CPSL renewal and Ms. Williams indicated that she is having financial hardship. In December they met for the physical inspection and Ms. Williams had indicated that the CPSL would be an issue. He stated that there is the Pacifica CPSL and the HdL compliance checklist in which they go over inventory audits. All cannabis licensees must go through that process.
Councilmember Bier asked for a reminder about what happened the last time that we worked with Seaweed Holistics when we created payment plans for them.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha explained that there was a Planning Commission process and recommended revocations and that was appealed to Council. As part of Council’s consideration of the appeal, they upheld the Planning Commission’s decision, but imposed six criteria that needed to be met by the appellant in order to forestall the revocation. If the appellant could meet those six criteria within the time frame specified, then the revocation would not take effect. There was a payment plan for a number of fees for revising the ordinance because the municipal code needed to be revised as a result of Council’s determination; the appellant had to pay for the cost associated with revising the code and there were attorney’s fees that were involved in revising the deferral or preparing the deferral agreement, and Council determined those fees should be paid by the appellant.
She stated that the appellant satisfied the six criteria.
Mayor Beckmeyer reopened the public hearing so the appellant can answer the questions by Councilmember Espinosa.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if they have made any profit since they got the permit.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 April 28, 2025
Ms. Williams stated that they have not made any profits.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, if they are not making profit, it is hard for them to continue and then the City would always have to pay for the cost of business going forward. The Council wants to see how we can help them, but if they are not making money, it is hard to keep the business open if they cannot afford to pay the fee. She asked if they are paying for renting the space now.
Ms. Williams stated they have managed so far.
Councilmember Espinosa concluded they are paying the rent as they need the space.
Ms. Williams stated it is tough to prioritize as they are focused on surviving.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if they have asked for assistance for small businesses.
Ms. Williams stated most of those do not apply to cannabis businesses. She stated banks will not loan to them and they would need to depend on an individual or another business owner.
Councilmember Espinosa referred to the previous conversation about a search for a business partner and knew they can only do 49%, as it has to be in her name. She stated we would like to try to figure out how to help them, but this was difficult if they are not making money.
Mr. Williams added that they have formed a Rockaway Beach Neighborhood Coalition, a group of businesses that came together to help promote the business in Rockaway as Rockaway Beach is changing and growing. Their business before has been limited because of funds, as they are the sole owners, but they have downsized staff, cut hours, etc. They also made some significant relationships with other businesses owners in the plaza.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Wright thought these are good people with good hearts who have built community. He stated that there are also some financial realities that are very difficult. He asked how much staff time has gone into this appeal, in managing these payment plans, and are we coming close, even if they paid all their fees, to breaking even.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, while he did not have a specific amount of staff time over the five years of operation in working with Seaweed Holistics, the various appeal fees and application fees do not cover the costs of the appeals and enforcement. He does not have a total number of what that cost is compared to what the taxes or permit fees that have been paid added up to. He stated that the permit fee is based on all the other external costs; therefore, the question is if the City’s expenses have broken even with the excise tax, taxes that have been paid, he cannot answer that now. Staff looked further into the amount owed, so the $64,000 estimate in what is owed does not include the taxes that have not been reported from the business since January 2024; therefore, there could be upwards of $90,000 that are owed.
Looking at the financial condition of the business, the Council is faced with the question of if they are going to be able to pay that money.
Councilmember Wright asked if there are any other cannabis stores that are in arrears.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 April 28, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse stated not that we are aware of. The four other operating store fronts are all in good standing with their permit fees and taxes.
Councilmember Wright asked regarding the 51% ownership, could they do a staggered sale, such as selling 33% this year.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated they cannot, as the original owners have to remain at 51% for all time.
Councilmember Wright thought it brought up an issue of fairness to the other businesses and disincentivizing them to be compliant.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, from the staff perspective, all businesses have a complex regulatory structure, including cannabis businesses, short-term rentals, and liquor stores.
Changing the system based on one business’s request undermines that entire regulatory structure. Pacifica is small-business friendly and has worked with Seaweed Holistics for several years to try to be successful, but if we change that structure, he questions what will happen when a non-compliant STR that has violated the code and the City has closed them and it comes to Council. He questioned what precedent is being set in the enforcement for those businesses, i.e. enforcement of a liquor store that has lost their license for selling to minors and they come and want to be renewed. He stated that is the difficult question before Council in this case, such as how we maintain as a City a regulatory structure for businesses that is fair to all businesses operating.
Councilmember Wright asked if there is any veracity to the claim that Coastside Cannabis has more than one location.
City Manager Woodhouse stated there was an allegation that Phog Center changed ownership and the City is not aware of that at all. Their permit is in good standing with the State as far as they know, but we will look into that allegation to make sure. In terms of Coastside Cannabis acquiring other businesses, we are not aware of that either, and we will look into that. The City has no information about those allegations of those other businesses.
Councilmember Wright asked if the City can verify how much, if any, payments have been made since December 2024.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked about payment of cannabis taxes since January 2024.
Asst. City Manager Carter confirmed that no taxes were remitted to Pacifica since October 2023. All cannabis businesses report gross receipts and the payments due as typical practice and then remittance happens after that. No reporting happened since January 2024.
Therefore, we do not exactly know what above the $64,000 is owed by the business as they have not been reporting their gross receipts as well. She stated that they conducted the audit last year and there were some underreported taxes from the fiscal year 2024 (about $20,000) and this is based on $865,725 gross receipts that were reportable by the business; the remaining amount due was $20,696. For that amount, the business was offered a payment plan and they remitted two installments and the last installment is still outstanding, which is about $6,000 (included in the $64,000).
Councilmember Bier reiterated that they were offered a payment plan.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 April 28, 2025
Asst. City Manager Carter answered affirmatively, for the back taxes of the fiscal year 2023-24 that were a result of the audit. Every cannabis business has been audited every year, but Seaweed Holistics was audited for the first time in the fiscal year 2023-24 and the audit showed remaining taxes due were over $20,000.
Mayor Beckmeyer concluded there were taxes due 2023-24 of over $20,000, broken down into payments, and there is an outstanding payment remaining of that amount of around $6,000.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we usually offer payment plans for the back taxes that businesses do not know is a result of the audit, typically three installments. Two were paid and the last remaining installment is still outstanding (due in December).
Councilmember Wright asked if it was possible or legal for another licensed holder from another organization to liquidate their inventory in a legal way.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated not pursuant to the City’s code as currently written.
Councilmember Wright asked if it was possible for them to come up with a 49% partner who will pay off all monies owed to the City as a hypothetical buy-in to their business. For example, could they state that the operator has 30 days from the date of the meeting to come up with a partner who will pay all of what is owed to the City to make the city whole and then they would get 49%.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there are a lot of pieces to that potential solution. Her concern is that there is a vetting process for owners that needs to take place before an owner can be identified; we would want to make sure that the owner is appropriate and that takes time.
There would need to be code changes to revise the code to allow for some type of extension on the CPSL or some type of delay in the automatic renewal requirements in the code now.
Captain Glasgo agreed with her assessment. He added that, in addition to the fees and back taxes, we are six months away from the expiration of the 2025 CPSL. He stated, to go further with regard to potentially another licensee coming in to assist Ms. Williams in her business, there are certain phases in which Planning and the Police Department has to go through a background process which include additional fees. He believes the licensee is responsible for all those recurring costs as well.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that Ms. Williams mentioned speaking with Finance about the options of a payment plan, and she asked if we have a response from staff with a clear answer provided at some point that it was not possible for the CPSL.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he is not aware of that conversation.
Captain Glasgo stated that there was a conversation between Ms. Williams and him in December 2024 when she had mentioned that there was going to be some hardships and she had alluded to the fact of a possible payment plan and he explained to her at that time that the City does not offer payment plans. He stated, if he recalls correctly, those were similar conversations they had in years past because every year every cannabis licensee does mention that there are some hardships, but all the other licensees end up coming up with the CPSLs.
There have been numerous conversations over the years that the CPSL specifically does not have a payment plan.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 April 28, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked about those businesses’ feedback.
Captain Glasgo stated that, while the format of the fee is an inconvenience to business owners, everyone else seems to come up with the CPSL fee.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated, legally, their permit has been expired and cancelled and they had to cease operations. If Council wants to allow them to open for another month, is there a legal path to that and what would be involved.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated there is no legal path currently in the code as written. If Council is inclined to make changes to the code to allow for late payments or some type of payment waiver or payment plan, there would need to be changes to the code and the way the fee is adopted. The fee currently adopted via resolution would also need to be amended. She stated that there was discussion about possibly having a CPSL for a small period of time to allow the business to sell its inventory; to consider that, we would need to determine how much of that fee should be paid, given that it is supposed to be for a full year of operations. We would need to make all of those adjustments for a very small period of time for operations.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated, going into six months into the license, $5,000 is already past due for services.
City Manager Woodhouse added revising the ordinance and work that needs to go into that can be brought back to Council does not happen overnight and it will push other priorities from the work plan off to the side. He does not know what those would be or how long this would take to accomplish but there is an impact as well. He stated that it would need to be an agendized discussion to know what changes Council wanted to direct to the code and we would need to draft those changes.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, if only amending the CPSL provisions in Chapter 3-18, they do not need to go to the Planning Commission; however, if we need to make corresponding changes to the provisions in the zoning code for the CAP, then those would need to go to the Planning Commission.
City Manager Woodhouse stated then it comes back to Council and either gets introduced or sent back for further changes.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, in addition to the time it would take to draft the ordinances, circulate it, get it to the various bodies that are going to consider it, etc. there is also a 30-day effective period after the ordinance is adopted so they are looking at several months before anything goes into effect, assuming there is staff time to work on it.
Mayor pro Tem Boles added there would be fees to the applicant assuming the way we changed the Planning ordinance before.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated previously that was paid for by the appellant.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated, if the permit expired now, what are the fees and what is the timeline for them to reapply for a new permit, assuming they can find the money and reapply.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the code does not have any waiting period or pause period after the permit expires, so they could reapply and try to get a new CPSL.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 April 28, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we can find out about the fees but administratively, since they just had their space inspected, if they came up with the money, is that something that could happen within a month.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she would defer to Captain Glasgo who does the inspections. She stated to keep in mind that they would need to get a new CAP so they would have to go through the Planning process to get that as well; she thought that takes more time than getting a CPSL because the Planning Commission is involved and there has to be Planning Commission approval.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if a new CAP hearing is something Council could waive, i.e. because they have done all the inspections of the facilities recently that it may not have to go through Planning and waive the Planning Commission hearing.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated no, as there is no way to do that without a code amendment.
The code provides a process for obtaining a CAP and CPSL, and there is no deviating from one or the other, as you need both to operate and you would have to go through the process if you wanted to reapply for a new permit.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if the activity of bringing on a partner up to 49% of the value of the business would generate the need for a new CAP.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they cannot do that if the CPSL and CAP are both expired as that would be an operation of the business.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if both the CPSL and CAP are presently expired.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano answered affirmatively.
Mayor Beckmeyer concluded that, to revive operations, whether or not bringing on a partner, it will require reapplying to obtain both of those documents.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, adding or a code amendment.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked which takes longer.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano does not have any idea how long it would take to process both permits so she would defer to staff. She stated we have not processed a new CAP or CPSL in a while.
Councilmember Wright asked if this would set a precedent that we would need to do that for all the other businesses, i.e. not paying a license fee and behind on back taxes and the City needing to work with them.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, if they did that, they would be changing the code to allow that. Making changes to a regulatory program could weaken the regulatory program as a whole as they deviated from what Council originally intended the program to be.
Mayor Beckmeyer clarified, if Council decided at this time to deny the appeal, and a new business formed potentially in a partnership with the existing owners, it would be a brand new City Council Regular Meeting 17 April 28, 2025
business and would need to start from square one.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano answered affirmatively.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if the inspection would still need to be done again.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated all those steps are in the code and the procedure is laid out in the ordinance.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, assuming that they found somebody and they have the money, can they reinstate the license and move forward.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated no.
Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha clarified that the length of time it would take if it was a new CAP. Typically, if Planning does receive new permits, it is generally about a few months to review and process, assuming that all materials are received and there are no corrections. She cannot speak to the specifics about the inspection portion or the background checks that are required. There are different phases as part of the initial application process.
For them to do ordinance amendments, as those have been before Council various times, and depending on what the changes are in the code and how much analysis that would need to be done to support the changes, that could take upwards of six months to sometimes a year.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that we do not need to do a code amendment if the business closes and there is a new application as we are not changing the code in that instance.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified, when a new permit slot opens, it is open to anyone to apply.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that, at one point, they had a waiting list.
Councilmember Bier thinks the time for those ran out.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if the waiting list we had does not exist anymore as it expired.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if we have an opening right now that we have not filled for a while.
Councilmember Bier stated that was only for a two-year period after the beginning.
Councilmember Espinosa stated there is no solution. Staff is saying that it expired already and they need to reapply so she does not know what Council is discussing.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that is what she is hearing and it sounds like they cannot reopen for a month to let them sell their supply either. She asked if there is no way, without going through a whole ordinance amendment, to allow them to open for a month.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano answered affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles felt for the appellant but she is worried that this is a hole that Ms. Williams will not be able to dig herself out of at this point with the outstanding amount owed.
Councilmember Bier wanted to set the stage for what is happening in cannabis for the last City Council Regular Meeting 18 April 28, 2025
couple of years. When our ordinance went in, Council said they would give six licenses for Pacifica and HdL said that is not going to work and they should only do three. She stated that HdL is right as we have put strains on our cannabis retailers, plus retailers opening in San Bruno and Daly City. She has never felt so backed into a corner in any decision that she has made on Council. Every time she hears the numbers, she does not know how to get out of that.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed that this is not an easy position for them. Council has established that they cannot practically amend the ordinance without adding cost to the applicant on top of costs that are already outstanding, including back tax payments that was already broken into the payment plan going back to 2023-24. She stated that, even though it is not an option, to think about extending adds more cost and time. Her opinion, which would be the appellants’ choice to make as a business, would be to regroup as this business is not succeeding. She stated that the people are succeeding in establishing relationships and building community in the Rockaway Beach area, but what they do not have is a successfully operating business. She heard her say at the outset of the public hearing that in some way it would be a relief. She feels that way and she feels that there is an opportunity for a rebirth and a new business to be conceived of. The timeline that it would take to rehabilitate in any way the situation that they are talking about, which she does not think is rehabilitative, is equal to the time it would take to establish a new business entity, business plan, and a fresh start with a new step forward. From that point of view, she will be voting to deny the appeal.
Councilmember Wright asked if it would be possible, since they have an existing lease in that location, to open a different business in that same location that does not involve cannabis.
City Manager Woodhouse thought that is entirely possible.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, if it does not involve cannabis, they are not required to have a CPSL.
Councilmember Wright agreed, as they have an existing lease structure and space and that might be a viable option for them.
Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha stated that it would depend on the type of business and they would be required to submit a business license for review by the Planning division and we can verify that the business is consistent with zoning and any permitted uses for the zoning. She stated visitor-serving commercial is consistent with the coastal zone business.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated they did have a prior business before changing to cannabis in this location, which is her understanding, and they also owned a different retail business that also just recently closed in Rockaway that was for other things. It has been a hard time for them.
Councilmember Bier stated it was her hope coming in that we were going to be able to give them some time to sell the rest of their inventory and have a graceful ending. She thought not having that option is disappointing. She keeps going back to the idea that there is a strain on cannabis now.
Mayor pro Tem Boles agrees that they are backed into a corner with no other option and apologized for that. She thought Council has to deny the appeal because it does not help in any case to change the ordinance as Ms. Williams will still lose months being in a store that she has to pay rent for and cannot operate, at least with cannabis.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 April 28, 2025
Councilmember Bier asked if there was any legal way for Council to alleviate any of the back money that is owed. She asked, if they deny the appeal, how they can show some grace.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, in terms of the tax monies owed, City staff will continue to pursue that, and that is not something before Council to resolve now. The $25,375 CPSL fee would still be outstanding.
Mayor pro Tem Boles understands that would normally have to be paid for the whole year in October but, if they are ceasing cannabis operations, could we grant them a waiver of half of those fees since they only used half of the year as a possibility and put that on a payment plan, knowing that it is not for ongoing services but for past due expenses.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked without a code amendment.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated without a code amendment as the business is closing so there are no more public safety costs associated with the business and put half of that $25,000 on a payment plan.
City Manager Woodhouse stated Council could provide direction however they want regarding the CPSL fee, i.e. pro-rating it, waiving it on a pro-rated basis, etc. Staff will figure out the mechanics of doing that, but he will seek Council’s direction on that.
There was Council consensus for the pro-rated relief of the CPSL fee.
Mayor Beckmeyer moved to adopt the attached Resolution to deny the appeal submitted by Ana Leano-Williams (appellant) and uphold the city’s notice of expiration of Cannabis Public Safety License/Termination of Cannabis Activity Permit and Cessation of Operations dated March 19, 2025 issued to Seaweed Holistics, LLC, located at 450 Dondee Street, Unit #2, Pacifica, CA 94044 (APN 022-021-640 and further moved waiver of half of the pro-rated share of the public safety license fee that is presently in arrears and establishing a payment plan for the payment of the portion that is owed. The motion failed as there was no second.
Councilmember Bier was hoping to waive all of the CPSL fee.
Councilmember Bier moved to adopt the attached Resolution to deny the appeal submitted by Ana Leano-Williams (appellant) and uphold the city’s notice of expiration of Cannabis Public Safety License/Termination of Cannabis Activity Permit and Cessation of Operations dated March 19, 2025 issued to Seaweed Holistics, LLC, located at 450 Dondee Street, Unit #2, Pacifica, CA 94044 (APN 022-021-640 and further moved waiver of Cannabis Public Safety License fee and establishing a payment plan for the payment of the remainder of taxes owed; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Boles.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor Beckmeyer called a break then reconvened the meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 April 28, 2025
8. Resolution Declaring Results of Majority Protest Proceedings and Establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District
PROPOSED ACTION: Hold a final hearing and adopt the resolution establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD).
Asst. City Manager Carter and Consultant Emily Brown presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if the non-profit needed to be included in the resolution.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the non-profit has not been selected yet, as we have to go through the RFP process.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if we do not need to say in the resolution that there will be a nonprofit that will be controlling and managing these funds.
Consultant Brown did not believe it was a requirement to have that in the resolution, but it is in the management district plan.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it is not required to be in the resolution, but Council could also change the resolution to add that if desired.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if the list of assessed businesses on packet pages 252-255 comprises all of the potential businesses presently licensed to do business in Pacifica, including hotels and short-term rentals, and if this reflects the businesses who were mailed notices.
Asst. City Manager Carter answered affirmatively.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked what feedback or questions did we receive upon doing that mailing.
Consultant Brown stated that we received some feedback at the virtual informational webinar from two short-term rental owners, mostly clarifying questions on how a district works and how the assessment would be collected, but it sounded like they were supportive of the PTMD.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that these are the current businesses that were mailed notices, and she asked if there would be a point in time, such as after October of this year, where there would be a new list generated that specifically stated which businesses are under this district.
She stated that, if one of these businesses dropped out, they would not be on the list anymore, but this list is a snapshot in time. She asked if there is a continual process to update the list.
Consultant Brown stated that the list in the Plan would not continue to be updated, but the Plan does say that any future lodging businesses would automatically be subject to the assessment, but she thinks it would just be a logistical solution with new permits.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that educational materials will be provided to everyone, and with short-term rentals, we will work with the lodging platforms to make sure this is correct as well.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened the public hearing and asked if there were any written protests for Council to receive.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that there were no written protests.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 April 28, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, asked if any food trucks might be a part of tourism marketing district, even on a possible interim basis, as they would be a positive addition to the City.
Janeen Marquardt, Pacifica, stated she attended the informational webinar, and mentioned that while she acknowledged the benefits with the PTMD, the primary complaint was the amount of taxes, and she shared her concerns on more fees as a small business owner.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, stated she was in favor of tourism activities, but raised a concern about the Plan promoting short-term rentals as meeting and event destinations as those events have caused issues for neighborhoods.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed no written protests were submitted.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed the public hearing.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated, in response to Ms. Finale’s question, this is only about lodging, not food. She referred to Ms. Quinn’s question regarding the language on packet page 227.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, when marketing a city for tourism, we are talking about the City and events that occur in the City as being events that would attract tourists, and he believes that is what that paragraph is referring to.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed, stating that this is marketing Pacifica as a destination and the reference to events in the city promotes Pacifica as a destination to visitors outside the area.
Councilmember Wright moved to adopt the resolution establishing the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD); seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor pro Tem Boles moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m. The motion failed as there was no second.
Councilmember Wright moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
City Council Regular Meeting 22 April 28, 2025
CONSIDERATION
9. 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).
PROPOSED 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).
Asst. City Manager Carter and Consultant Ken Hira presented the staff report. They stated the following amendment to paragraph 2 of the resolution: “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 public parking, a portion of APN 016-204-020 shall be retained for its current and continued public use as a sewer pump station, as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and a portion of APN 016-294-620 may be retained for other current and continued public uses; and”.
Councilmember Wright asked Consultant Hira if there was any new legislation on the horizon that might affect this process.
Consultant Hira stated that it seems like HCD has been visiting and revisiting the Surplus Land Act (SLA), including extending the lease period. He thought some of the stipulations about how to get more affordable housing is their goal and objective. He does not know the current state of new legislation in the works that might further alter the SLA, but he does not know the real outcome of what this process has been with respect to the building of affordable housing.
Councilmember Wright assumed, once we pass this, we still maintain absolute control over the property and what happens on it.
Consultant Hira agreed, adding that the only restriction if we get through the 180-day period would be the 15% covenant for affordable units of ten or more.
Mayor pro Tem Boles knows this land has been vacant for a long time. She asked, in thinking of this going to a non-profit developer, how much detail is in the NOA, not just the uses, but also explaining the hazards and some of the other constraints on this item.
Consultant Hira stated, from their experience, it felt like they were putting more information in the NOA early in the SLA process. It seems that HCD has either preferred or dictated that the opportunity for the NOA to reach the affordable housing market is as broad as possible.
Therefore, we cannot put in there the results of Phase 1 or Phase 2 environmental report. After non-profits reach out in response to the NOA, that is when the 90-day period takes place, as that is part of good faith negotiation, including more detail. He thought, because of the way the resolution is written, the pump station is being identified as not being declared surplus insomuch City Council Regular Meeting 23 April 28, 2025
as it is not being transferred. We are not selling it to anybody, and it needs to remain on the site for all intents and purposes; the belief is it is an extreme cost to relocate and may not even be viable based on the operations and the flow.
Mayor pro Tem Boles was thinking more about sea level rise hazards and utilities. There appears to be a main sewer line that runs right through the site, and she asked when conversations about working that out would take place.
Consultant Hira thought, in the 90-day period, if there is an expression of interest, those all need to be discussed but he did not think our obligation necessarily was to be longer than that. If the party says they are interested and want to move this and do a study, Council has to make a decision on how long that period is to last.
Mayor pro Tem Boles was in the impression that, in 60 days, a non-profit developer had to come up with some kind of reasonable proposal and it seems like they would need to know some of this information.
Consultant Hira agreed. He stated, from that the proposals they have seen, they are going to make offers or letters of interest that are not binding and tend to be subject to due diligence, but their economics, the way the affordable housing developers typically pursue real estate, has been relatively consistent. There was not a lot of ability for the affordable housing developers to pay an amount or fair market value for land. Usually affordable housing projects are subsidized.
He stated that, in their efforts to say they would like to build there, they are going to say to the City that they do not expect to have to move a sewer pump station and include that in their economics; otherwise, that further creates the subsidy effect and impact. He thought they will make a more generalized offer and, during that 90-day period, we have those conversations. If there are cost estimates that are needed or high level cost estimates they are desiring to talk about, it would be their decision whether they want to move forward or not and Council’s decision whether those economics make sense.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought it seems like more work for them if they do not have all the information upfront. She asked at what point will we have a final appraisal of the site.
Consultant Hira thought the establishment of fair market value will become an important due diligence point, and that should be at or during the 90-day good faith negotiation period.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated not the 60 but the 90, if they have an interest.
Consultant Hira thought it was a fair time frame to establish that value.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if there were any health concerns about the sewer pump.
Consultant Hira did not think that the resolution contemplates moving it, but the real question would be if a commercial use or residential use can coexist next to it. He does not know the answer to that as it has been operating for a long time and what are the implications of its use relative to a use next door.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated this is the first step of the SLA process and, as part of this resolution, we need to specify which portions of the property are not going to be needed by the City anymore. The City still uses the pump station so we have indicated in the resolution that it is not something we are designating as surplus, but the rest of the property are likely things the City Council Regular Meeting 24 April 28, 2025
City will not need. As part of the process and during the good faith negotiation period, there may be some analysis or review of the pump station with whatever other use is being considered. At this part of the phase, we are asking Council to decide whether or not to go forward and take that first step to designate portions of the property as surplus.
Councilmember Espinosa asked how much money will we spend trying to sell this property.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, typically, the City’s goal and intent would be that we are not spending any money to sell the property and whomever we are negotiating with would be paying the cost of studies, but that would be negotiated.
Councilmember Espinosa asked how the bid would take place and if responsible bids would be considered.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, in the initial step to the SLA process, the property gets pushed out to affordable housing developers. It goes out to a list that HCD maintains and anyone else can express interest. If she is talking about the process that ensues following SLA, if we get a letter of compliance, and it is not being developed as affordable housing, that process is an entirely different process where the Council will discuss and dictate what the request for qualifications and request for proposals is going to include for the use of this site that Council envisions. Once the RFP goes out, that will then get marketed as widely as possible to both targeted potential proposers and competitive proposals on the property.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, asked if there was anything in law that prevents us from putting the non-profits at a disadvantage and that we ultimately sell the property to a pro-profit for a different deal.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated her understanding is that we are putting this out for a non-profit first, and if we get any interest, we will be negotiating with them, looking at an appraisal, and seeing what they offer us; that would come to Council to decide if they want to take it or not before they could offer it for profit to others.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it is not specific to non-profits but to HCD’s list of affordable housing developers. She stated that it is generally correct. We are taking the first step in the process; we will send out the notice of availability, and, if there is a response, the City is obligated to enter into good faith negotiations with whomever responds.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked at what point would this come back to Council if there is interest.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, if there are offers we negotiate and believe are appropriate to bring back to Council for further consideration, it would come to Council; any type of proposal for a sale of the property would come back to Council.
Councilmember Bier moved to adopt the attached resolution to declare certain portions of the City-owned properties located at Montecito Avenue 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 City Council Regular Meeting 25 April 28, 2025
action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15312 (Class 12) as amended; seconded by Councilmember Wright.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor pro Tem Boles made the motion to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Wright.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
10. 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.
PROPOSED 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.
PW Interim Director Sun presented the staff report.
Councilmember Wright asked if the $220,000 includes contingencies and change orders.
PW Interim Director Sun responded it would include all of that and the amount would not be able to be exceeded.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that the increases, per State law, to bring the numbers in line are 10-20% (from $60,000 to $75,000 and $200,000 to $220,000). Approving this means that contracts up to $220,000 would not come to Council on the agenda.
PW Interim Director Sun answered affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles understood, adding that we are not meeting the City Manager’s percentage either.
PW Interim Director Sun answered affirmatively.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 April 28, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked what other cities’ percentages or amounts for staff and City Manager contracts are for comparison.
PW Interim Director Sun stated that he has not researched other cities’ limits, but, by memory, he stated that the City of San Mateo has a large threshold for their directors and he recalled that that City of San Mateo’s Public Works Director can approve contracts of over $100,000.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked to clarify contracts on public projects, such as any work on any publicly owned building or land. She thought resurfacing a street less than one inch would apply to us as well for a pavement resurfacing type of project.
PW Interim Director Sun agreed that those would qualify as public projects.
City Manager Woodhouse thought, generally, public projects as defined refer to any kind of construction or improvements; what is not included are things like design contracts, professional service contracts, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought most contracts would be falling in.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that is the reason why Director Sun made the statement that, we do not have many projects that are public projects that fall less than $220,000; some fall under emergency provisions, such as time, materials, and repair to the sea wall, but those are addressed under a different code. To a larger point in what other cities do, we are halfway following State provisions here, and the State is establishing in this code best practices in public contracting and authorities for cities to be efficient in implementing their Public Works projects and making those threshold suggestions. The history in Pacifica has been to authorize lower thresholds and that generates much more staff work in bringing contracts to Council for those lower thresholds, which is a decision Council can make.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we raised those in the last year.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed that we raised from $50,000 to $75,000 for the City Manager threshold. He stated that $75,000 threshold still exists for all those other types of contracts, but for PW contracts, the State code recommendation is this, hence why we are following that recommendation per Council’s efficiency goal and stewarding public infrastructure.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if landscaping maintenance, which includes trimming, pruning of trees, etc. also falls under the public contracts.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that general maintenance does not fall under Public Project; it could still be subject to prevailing wage requirements but not subject to the bidding requirements.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated work on the sewage treatment plant would fall under those same requirements.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated yes to construction work. She stated a Public Project is governed by the informal/formal bidding process set by California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (CUPCCAA). It is regimented in what the City can do to publish a bid, accept a bid, and award the contractor. Even if the bid were to come to Council to be awarded, City Council Regular Meeting 27 April 28, 2025
there is not much flexibility that Council has, like making changes to the bid or giving a different award to the contractor. She stated we have to award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder and that is the appropriate approach for Public Project contracts that are subject to the public bidding process.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he hears conflicting statements about the usage of the increased authority and expressed concerns about transparency.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that she is okay with upping the amounts and she has some concerns about raising staff limits from $75,000 to $220,000. She talked to four councilmembers today about staff limits and shared that Half Moon Bay has a limit of $30,000; Millbrae has a limit of $50,000; San Bruno has a limit of $75,000; and Hillsborough has a limit of $75,000 per staff for any staff approval project. She stated that, given our budgets are so tight, she was concerned about the transparency of the contracts. She stated that, in the years she has been on Council, she has found some errors in some of the contracts but they were able to be fixed at the meeting. She is okay upping the amount to a percentage like the others (10-20% above the existing $75,000 limit), but $220,000 is too huge of a jump for her to feel comfortable.
Councilmember Wright stated that there are savings in terms of staff time for what we are going to have to do for a lot of these comparatively smaller projects that will be more administratively approved, and we will realize savings over time by not having to go through such an elongated process to get the bid, review the bids, compare the bids, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Boles agreed, adding that we have changed that and she is not changing any of that. She was concerned about the City Manager and staff authorization without public review.
Asst. City Manager Carter clarified that it was important not to mix the Purchasing Policy, our administrative policy, with a policy defined by CUPPCCA. She worked for Half Moon Bay a few years ago managing finances, and at least as of 2017, they did follow the State guidelines for Public Projects only. She stated that the $30,000 threshold would apply to all other contracts, important professional services, design, maintenance and everything that does not fall into this small niche that is covered by CUPPCCA. She stated that we have not done the research of how many municipalities limit and restrict more than the State; however, based on her experience of managing finances for five municipalities in California, all of them followed State guidelines. It is the first time she ever has personally seen that the City has been more restrictive and following the guidelines halfway. She stated all the contracts fall under the City Manager’s authority to $75,000 and the small niche for construction projects or public projects as defined will be in this subcategory governed by the State.
Mayor pro Tem Boles wished we had more information about other cities and their policies. She thought it is better to have more eyes on things and she caught some things that ended up changing in the contract they signed in the last year. She stated that we do not have the data to understand any unusual points about the request.
Councilmember Wright moved 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 City Council Regular Meeting 28 April 28, 2025
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; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
NAYS: Boles
ADJOURN
City Manager Woodhouse made some comments about Wayland Lee’s life. He stated that Wayland came in 2020 as a part-time IT staff and then became full-time. He shared some of IT Manager Harun Kiziltug’s remarks from Wayland’s service, stating Wayland was truly one of the gentlest souls he ever had the privilege of knowing, having a quiet calming presence that made people feel at ease with a heart full of kindness and the kind of person you could count on at work or in life, all without seeking recognition. Wayland was also known for his incredible generosity and how he lived with an open heart and looked for ways to give back to his community and make the world better. He stated he will be severely missed and more so by his family and friends.
Mayor Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m., in honor of Wayland Lee.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 5/27/2025
__________________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor