Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Americas Cup Host City topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors advance Northern Waterfront host-city agreement with fundraising safeguards
Summary
After a week of follow-up work, the Budget & Finance Committee voted to forward a revised America's Cup host-city and venue agreement focusing on the Northern Waterfront to the full Board, adding enforceable fundraising targets, termination rights tied to the year‑one ACOC fundraising goal, CEQA review steps, and strengthened port oversight.
The Budget & Finance Committee advanced a revised host‑city agreement for the 34th America—s Cup on Tuesday, endorsing a Northern Waterfront alternative that removes Pier 50 from the proposed venues and adds enforceable fundraising and oversight provisions.
The committee voted without objection to accept the modifications and forward the item to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration. The changes include a new Section 9.4 that says the America's Cup Organizing Committee (ACOC) will "endeavor to raise up to $32,000,000 over a 3 year period" with a year‑one target of $12,000,000 and a city termination right if that target is not met; Section 2.2(h) gives the city specific termination rights tied to the fundraising timetable. Office of Economic and Workforce Development project manager Jennifer Matz told the committee that "Pier 50 is not" part of the Northern Waterfront alternative.
Why it matters: city staff and independent analysts told supervisors the revised approach reduces near‑term fiscal exposure for the city while preserving a path to long‑term redevelopment. The budget analyst reported that, under the Northern Waterfront alternative, the event authority would invest an estimated $55 million in required infrastructure and could invest up to $80 million if optional work on Piers 26 and 28 is pursued. The analyst—s comparative analysis showed an estimated net gain to the city of about $12.3 million on a net present value basis compared with a previously estimated net loss of $43.6 million under earlier proposals.
Port Special Projects Manager Brad Benson said most tenants on the affected piers are warehouse or storage operations and that the port intends to try to relocate tenants either to other port property or help them find comparable space in San Francisco. Benson said the Northern Waterfront alternative reduces the risk of exporting maritime jobs compared with prior proposals that included Pier 50.
Controller Ted Egan—s analysis emphasized timing and cash‑flow risks: his office projected roughly $20 million in general‑fund tax revenue associated directly with event activity but also noted up‑front general‑fund and port costs in the early years; Egan said the long‑term redevelopment value of Piers 30/32 and Seawall Lot 330 could more than offset near‑term costs on a net present‑value basis and create permanent jobs.
What changed in the agreement: staff told the committee they added (1) explicit termination rights tied to fundraising and the CEQA schedule, (2) language to make the workforce, youth and environmental plans enforceable and subject to the same timelines as the event security/people plan, (3) clarifying language to ensure rent‑credit calculations back out any tax‑increment financing, and (4) a proposed mechanism to return certain term sheets and disposition and development agreements to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Committee action and next steps: the committee approved language changes and asked staff to draft contract language for items the budget analyst recommended (specifically recommendations #2 and #4) before the host city agreement is considered by the full Board. The item was filed as a committee report and placed on the Board—s agenda for the next day. If the Board approves the host city agreement, the city still must complete CEQA review and then would proceed to lease and development approvals on a project‑by‑project basis, each with its own CEQA analysis.
Quotes capturing the debate: "It is not" part of the Northern Waterfront alternative (Jennifer Matz, OEWD, on Pier 50). "We have a termination right at the end of CEQA if that hasn't happened" (Jennifer Matz, describing Section 9.4 fundraising timetable and termination right).
The committee also voted to adopt specific budget analyst recommendations regarding Board oversight of term sheets and ensuring commercially reasonable (interpreted as fair‑market) rent to the port. The full Board is scheduled to review the host city agreement on the following day; further approvals would be needed for any long‑term leases or development agreements tied to the event.
