Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Management Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee approves management agreements for Noe Valley, Castro and Fisherman's Wharf Landside CBDs
Summary
The committee considered three management agreements renewing or expanding the Noe Valley, Castro and Fisherman's Wharf Landside Community Benefit Districts, corrected a title typo for the Fisherman's Wharf item, discussed contract policy incorporation, and forwarded the agreements to the full Board with positive recommendation.
Get email alerts on the Management Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The committee reviewed three management agreements (agenda items 3–5) that would authorize the city to transfer assessment funds to nonprofit owners associations managing Noe Valley CBD, the renewed/expanded Castro CBD, and the Fisherman's Wharf Landside CBD.
Chris Korgas and Planning staff explained these management agreements authorize assessments to be transferred after Board approval, referencing the template contract designed by Deputy City Attorney Manu Pradhan. Korgas noted a typographical error in the long title of item 5 that listed the Union Square Business Improvement District instead of the Fisherman's Wharf Landside CBD; the clerk agreed to correct the title.
The committee reviewed general-benefit percentages and annual amounts for the three districts (Noe Valley general benefit 3.24% or $8,250; Castro general benefit 5.41% or $46,871; Fisherman's Wharf Landside general benefit 9.08% or $121,729). Deputy City Attorney Anne Pearson confirmed contracts typically include a catchall clause (section 16.19) requiring compliance with municipal charters, codes and regulations and that an amendment to Chapter 19B could be structured to require contract incorporation where necessary.
Vice Chair Peskin moved to amend item 5's title to correctly identify the Fisherman's Wharf Landside Community Benefit District; the committee approved the amendment and subsequently voted to recommend items 3–5 (with the amendment) to the full Board with positive recommendation (3 ayes).
