Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Benefit District topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors send Civic Center CBD petition forward without recommendation amid questions about city costs and civic-building participation
Summary
Committee allowed the mayor to sign petitions on behalf of city parcels for a proposed Civic Center Community Benefit District but forwarded the matter to the full board without recommending approval, after questions about the share of civic (city) properties, the cost to city departments and whether CBD services would supplement — not replace — city services.
The Budget and Finance Committee agreed to forward a petition-authority resolution for the proposed Civic Center Community Benefit District (CBD) to the full Board of Supervisors without the committee taking a recommendation, following extended discussion about city participation and budget implications.
Lisa Pagan of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development reported the steering committee had collected petitions representing 21.24% of the entire weighted assessment budget and 30% among privately and state-held parcels — the approximate threshold for the steering committee to request the Board introduce a resolution of intent. Pagan listed property owners and institutions that have signed in support, and said petitions in opposition total 3.55% to date.
Supervisors pressed staff on the legal mechanics and fiscal exposure for city departments. Pagan said, under state law, CBD services are supplemental and "are not to replace existing city services," and noted the city cannot reduce existing services specifically because a CBD is formed; she said the proposal includes cleaning, graffiti removal of private buildings and ambassador services aimed at activation and coordination among property owners.
Supervisors expressed concern that a large share of civic buildings and city-owned parcels are part of the proposed district, which differs from many other CBDs that are predominantly private-property districts. Supervisor Aaron Peskin and others cautioned they would be reluctant to approve a CBD if a majority of private property owners do not support it.
Public commenters, including a San Francisco Library employee and a union representative, urged slowing the process and asked for more data on citywide cumulative costs for CBDs and the training and oversight of ambassador programs.
The committee took the item "to the full board without recommendation," leaving the final decision and any conditions to the Board of Supervisors.
