Speaker 4: They are sub tended to West Coast Novelties. They use the the warehouse portion of the building, not the office portion. And what they have in that building are parts for ships. So if a ship needs to go into drydock and they need a new widget, all the widgets are stored in that facility. And so the storage, the ship storage units are supporting the ships that come in and out of the port. They are not transporting these parts back and forth. There's no none of that is happening there. With that said, I know many of you have been out to building 23. And as we as the questions have arisen in the last week, I drove past Building 23 and I called my Martin contacts and said, What are you guys doing? There's a trillion containers out there right now. And and so I was told that the containers are there. There are more than usual in preparation for their move. There are two things happening there. They move things into the containers in preparation from there for their move from building 23 to 167. In addition, Madsen recently acquired another ship company, and all of the parts that support those ships arrived on site for storage at one time. So they're storing those parts in those containers when the move occurs. 167 And they're going to take all those parts and they will be stored inside of Building 167. And the mountain folks do not envision that there will be more than a dozen or so containers on site also different than their location in Building 23. Building 167 comes with an ample yard space which would be screened from the public. And if you've seen Power Engineering's Yard, they also have lots of things in their yards. And so this is the industrial portion of the property, so that having a dozen or so containers in their yard would be consistent with the adjacent users. Mattson has made a commitment based on some of the comments that we received over the weeks, that they would not be stacking their containers. So you will not be able to see stories of containers from that yard. And with that said, I would ask that you would approve this list that's before you tonight.
Speaker 1: Vice mayor.
Speaker 3: I think this is consistent with the city's policies. Consistent with the vision of the original base reuse plant to bolster the maritime industry. So I'm for this opportunity with the restriction that there are no containers stacked and no containers stored outside of the fenced area or adjacent to the fenced area. And I'd like to make that emotional.
Speaker 9: I'll second that.
Speaker 1: Okay. So they they've agreed to have no more than 12 containers. Is that what you said?
Speaker 4: Well, not 12. They said they have at their time no more than a couple of maybe a couple of dozen they'll have. But they have ample yard space for that. They will not be containing putting any containers outside of their area.
Speaker 1: So none of them will be visible to the public. They will be beneath.
Speaker 4: They will be in their fenced area and they're screened fenced area. So I don't know if you can see a container of the tops of them from the fence, but they will be within their leased premises that are screened.
Speaker 3: And I think the the point is that there won't be using this for logistics.
Speaker 4: They will not be using this for logistics.
Speaker 1: So that's.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 1: And wear and tear on our road. So when these containers are brought in, they come across Park Street Bridge. Do you know how they get here?
Speaker 4: They have to use the truck route, which is Park. Right. Park, Buena Vista.
Speaker 1: And so we had an issue before our Friday. So what they call Friday. Okay, right after Thanksgiving, there's a lot of trucks going across our town. And do we anticipate or is that somehow in here so that we won't have that happen?
Speaker 6: So can I just interject that that was and of course, you're talking about the storage out behind the Del Monte warehouse and when it is, too, that was last about a year ago this time when there was port strikes, labor stoppages up and down the West Coast. And so that is not a regular occurrence. But yes.
Speaker 1: I do have a concern in regards to this. So is there anything in here in this lease that that would make sure that we do not have that happen?
Speaker 4: I am well, there's nothing that speaks to this specifically in the lease. However, because of the nature of their operations, they are not a large truck transit organization. I mean, everything that they have is in the warehouse. In addition, they will be using three. They'll be using Pier three for three days a month to bring large ship parts that could not come on a in a container. So they'll have a barge to bring things over. But they're not a large truck traffic truck trip generator.
Speaker 1: So if for whatever reason, and they ended up needing trucks to go back and forth with the city, be able to come back and and limit it to this, you know, less truck traffic.
Speaker 4: I'm well, I think that I'm not I think that the. There since the lease allows them to. I think it would have to be an extreme change in the use of the facility that would generate that number of truck trips. And so we could bring this lease back end for review if they significantly change their use. But and we would feel that immediately. So I think that the consistency in the use would change and we could definitely bring them in for review.
Speaker 1: All right. Any other questions or comments? We don't have any speakers on this item. All those in favor. Well, I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Sorry.
Speaker 1: Member Desai.
Speaker 7: I just want to offer my comments. I've had a. Long standing, many might call paranoid concern about stack cargo containers, particularly in what was previously called the Inner Harbor area, which is now the Enterprise District. Having grown up several blocks away from this project, I have done what I can since the 1990s to pursue the kind of economic development the likes of which we had voted on in the this past decision. I see the long arms of the port of Oakland. Octopus looking everywhere for places to stack cargo containers. And I just don't want them in the Inner Harbor area. Whether they fit within the one acre foot footprint that's just being discussed tonight. I'd prefer that they be further away. By tonight, I can't support this measure.
Speaker 1: So I'd like to give you an opportunity to staff or whomever. We have any representatives from this business to address that issue. I don't think, you know, and I appreciate staff apparently doesn't know if the height exceeds the fencing. So they will or not, but it will not be visible. However, I if anyone can illuminate that issue.
Speaker 4: Sure, I will have Mr. Robert Hawk come in. Come up from Madison.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 5: At a mayor council members. Thank you very much for. Listening to our case for moving into the building there very point. Appreciate it very much like to address the council's concern or warehouse or ship spare part warehouse is not going to be part of the massive logistics business. There'll be no stacking of cargo. There'll be no stacking of parts. The only parts that really are ever kept in containers outside of our warehouse are parts that are just too big. We stacked in shelving inside the building. Not safe turbines dapps things of that nature. But getting back to the point, we can assure you we can even amend the lease to say quite specifically that we won't be stacking cargo and that we will not be utilizing the facility as a logistics facility for for mass navigation, strictly warehousing or ship repair parts in America.
Speaker 1: Yes, sir.
Speaker 3: Sir, would you be willing to put a restricted number of containers and in in this, along with the provisions you just mentioned. They can be revisited if if the need arises.
Speaker 5: We're willing to discuss. Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 6: I was just going to ask my colleague. So help me understand the reasoning behind that.
Speaker 3: Make sure that we're not we don't have a if you'll look at that, if that complete inside the blue is covered with containers, which I don't see would happen. No, but I'm just looking for a way to to quantify which. Right now, is is verbal.
Speaker 6: Okay with you or are we.
Speaker 3: Talking. I'd like to hear what.
Speaker 6: Okay. And just for your clarification, are you are you more concerned with percentage of coverage or a specific set number?
Speaker 1: Member Ashcroft Can we give this let's address one councilmember at a time.
Speaker 3: I'm concerned with truck traffic, but I'd like to hear what our guest has to say about.
Speaker 5: Thank you, sir. Well, most of the containers that we use nowadays are about 40 feet in length or.
Speaker 3: Eight feet.
Speaker 5: Wide highway use.
Speaker 1: So do you know the height?
Speaker 5: Typically 8 to 10 feet? Very slightly. So a single container then would cover about 240 square feet of. And that might have to help me with the square footage outside of the building, but I'm sure it approaches, well, better than 80,000 square feet. So a single container, only 200 and 240 square feet. So if we had 30 in total there. You could see right away that we're we're hardly going to cover a small, small fraction of the outside area there with with use for any containers, because I can't imagine ever having so many parts that we'd have. 24 to 30 containers outside at the very most.
Speaker 1: What is the height of the screening?
Speaker 6: The.
Speaker 4: I don't know if the fencing is six foot or eight foot around the area. I believe it's a six foot fence. So there would be if it's an eight foot tall, there would be to the tops of the of the cargo containers would be visible that. But that would be it.
Speaker 1: And how many containers do you currently have at your site?
Speaker 2: Look how many containers. We're at a.
Speaker 5: Really high number and we're at 30 right.
Speaker 1: Now. What's your average then? What do you think your average is?
Speaker 6: Yeah. You'll have to repeat that for the record.
Speaker 1: So even though you're saying you're you have 30 now because you're moving, you're anticipating to have 30 at the new site. That's what I heard, if that's correct.
Speaker 4: That's correct.
Speaker 3: The matter of my my question, my. Given the size of this and. I'm looking for ways to to quantify what the concerns are. And I'm satisfied that this use is compatible with this this zone. In fact, Thailand has maritime use for other public recreation use. We're not going to get recreation here. So I think that fits. I think the question of stacking. I'd like to see the at least amended to put stacking prohibition of stacking any containers and in the lease. I'd also like a commitment that this not a logistics area. So those 30 may enter and may sit. And I'd also like, you know, Ms.. Mercado said that we could bring this back for review. I'd like this to come back for review after a year of operation with fracking truck truck trips to see what the actual movement back and forth is and get a census of the containers
Speaker 1: . And would you limit the number of containers to 30? Would you put any cap in at any cap? I would like to add the cap of 30.
Speaker 9: And the screening, I think is also should be part of the emotion.
Speaker 1: Can you speak about the screening? The screening?
Speaker 3: How do you mean.
Speaker 1: That it would be included?
Speaker 9: Well, that be included.
Speaker 1: In the screening.
Speaker 9: Of the.
Speaker 5: That's the. Okay.
Speaker 1: Oh, great. All right.
Speaker 5: It's already in the capital plan.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Wonderful.
Speaker 9: So on the number and that's.
Speaker 4: To the recommendation. Just so is that we would come back to you and in a year with with information on the number of truck trips. We will screen the facility. We will amend the list to say no stacking of the cargo containers. That's where we are so far.
Speaker 1: And not using for logistics.
Speaker 3: And a commitment not to this not to be a logistics center.
Speaker 1: And I'd like to cap what anyone else would be interested in capping the number of containers that they can have there.
Speaker 6: I'd actually like to. Jonathan and Mr. Hawk.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've already.
Speaker 6: Commented.
Speaker 9: I think you want to see if the tenant was open to that. Yeah, because we heard.
Speaker 1: Could you comment?
Speaker 9: Those are.
Speaker 1: Two number.
Speaker 9: From the net and then we heard 30. So I mean, is that something you can live with or.
Speaker 1: Can you limit it to 30 containers that you would have at the site? Can we include that?
Speaker 3: We can limit the number of.
Speaker 5: Containers.
Speaker 1: To 30.
Speaker 6: We need a machine.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Sorry to interrupt.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Before we continue, we need a motion to consider remaining items six G, which is the Enterprise District, and six H, which is our move. Our second point, leasing i. All those in favor. I oppose the motion passes. 41. Thank you. And so then those were the additional conditions. So could we vote to approve the lease for those additional.
Speaker 6: If.
Speaker 4: You put them in your motion, we can we can amend the lease and circulate it for.
Speaker 6: And member Ashcroft. Mr. Odie asked the question of Mr. Hart, and I didn't hear the answer. So 30. If we limited you to 30 containers at a time, is that workable?
Speaker 9: You're 36. I mean.
Speaker 6: 36.
Speaker 9: It's a number that you feel comfortable with.
Speaker 5: I appreciate that. We're trying our very best. We really want to leave this property. We really want to be tenants here in Alameda, as we have been for years. So I'm trying to be as flexible as I possibly can. If I if I commit to 30, I will admit to you that it's going to put it's going to keep me tight. 36. Feels very, very comfortable. I don't know if the council's comfortable with that, but I would be very happy with 36.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 1: So. So this requires four votes to pass. So I appreciate that there's three of you that appear to be enthusiastic. I'd like to know. And there's obviously one that's not and I'm in between and between the two in regards to how much space is the 30 going to take, because it's going to be above our screening screenings at six feet, approximately, is my understanding. These can be up to ten feet. I am also concerned as a member of De SOG in regards to when we drive around here, we're going to be seeing containers. And many of us actually do this drive. And so I appreciate that. So this is at this point, I would prefer if you could. Go as low as you can on the number of containers, because we really don't want them to become storage for containers.
Speaker 9: Madam Chair, would you mean I mean, is it possible to increase the height of the screening?
Speaker 1: So it goes to I really prefer the view of the island. I mean, many of us actually enjoy looking at the water and the boats, the ships and whatnot. So obviously screening this whole thing, it's a big area, but it sounds to me. So you guys came up with 30 what you currently have.
Speaker 9: I think they'd be comfortable with six.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I am.
Speaker 6: I don't want I don't want to become.
Speaker 9: Yeah. I mean.
Speaker 1: We need more.
Speaker 6: Votes. This is this is a maritime use. It's a working waterfront. We we don't want to unduly tie the hands of our tenants in this tidelands area. So the difference between 30 and 36 and I think council member Odie threw out a suggestion that you could maybe raise the height of the screening, although it doesn't sound like they're going to get any taller you because you're not going to stack them anyway. And the water, if I'm looking at the map correctly, would be behind you, right? I mean, you don't come out to sea containers. You remember the.
Speaker 1: Water, you're supportive. Currently, I he needs four votes. Do you mind if I ask questions? Because.
Speaker 6: No, I think we should all.
Speaker 1: Okay, so go ahead.
Speaker 9: Well, I think what we're trying to do is find find some.
Speaker 1: So I'd.
Speaker 9: Like that. But something if you.
Speaker 1: If you want me to support it, I'd like to ask the questions to see where I can negotiate. I don't try to.
Speaker 9: Build some.
Speaker 0: Consensus short.
Speaker 1: Which want me to ask questions I'd be happy to ask them. If otherwise, you can go ahead and call the question.
Speaker 6: Ask if no one's telling you not to ask questions matters.
Speaker 1: So I'd like to continue them.
Speaker 6: Would you like me to ask you to please ask a question?
Speaker 1: So. In regards to the 30, that was the number you originally said that you currently have 30. Can you do this with 30? If the answer is no, just say no. And then tell me how much more square footage you need. And I'd like to know than in this visual, how much of this is going to be covered with these containers. So when we drive by, what we're going to be looking at.
Speaker 5: Okay. Give me just a moment for a quick calculation.
Speaker 4: ANNETTE Excuse me.
Speaker 0: Sir.
Speaker 4: Was that 36?
Speaker 2: Jennifer 36.
Speaker 4: Yet 36 containers will take 8600 square feet of the outside area, which is about 15% of the building space. So you can see that visually it won't take a lot of the area 38. It'll be a small area in that yard.
Speaker 1: Okay. Would they all be together or would they be scattered across?
Speaker 5: No. Thank you. Actually the containers would be set very neatly side by side, all with their their doors facing in a single direction for access. They could also be very neatly lined up along the outside of the building, perpendicular to the building. And unlike the the old area photo there, where there were broken boats scattered all over the place. It'll never look anything like that. And will be shipshape in all of our containers in good order over there. And as I said, about 15% of that area outside of the building would have containers. So a lot of free space.
Speaker 1: So it'll be around the entire building. Where do you think these containers would be?
Speaker 2: Just a moment, Michael.
Speaker 5: And you tell me.
Speaker 6: And you know what? Why don't you have the gentleman come up? Because it's. It'll be a little quicker.
Speaker 5: I was just going to ask for an outside dimension of the building because of the containers eight feet wide. And we have 36 of them. We can calculate pretty quickly how much lineal feet that'll take.
Speaker 8: So I was just going to just what we've done is taken a calculation of the land area minus the building coverage, which leaves you about 145,000 square feet of outdoor space. If you had 36 containers, which it sounds like what you said would make me very comfortable for them, as about 8600 square feet, 8600 square feet of the 140,000 square feet of land area is about 6% of the land area. That would be on a the maximum day, which it sounds like does not happen all the time, would be covered by containers. So 6% of the outdoor land area.
Speaker 1: Where do you anticipate the containers will be? We're. We're within here. But they sounded like they'd be adjacent to your building. Yes, ma'am. So is it. Surrounding your entire building. Do you think they're behind in the back of the building as opposed to the front, or where do you think they're going to be? So my preference would be that they kind of be together in one area.
Speaker 5: And answer your question. I just need a little help.
Speaker 2: Right there. That's the doors. The first. Okay.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 5: So on the exhibit. That's where the storage area would be, container side by.
Speaker 3: Side, perpendicular to the building.
Speaker 5: From left to right or from west to east. Here.
Speaker 1: Okay. So would you be comfortable putting the 36 and that area as part of the lease? That's where they're going to be.
Speaker 5: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 1: I do have a motion with that.
Speaker 0: But we have a speaker.
Speaker 1: We have one more speaker. Aaron May.
Speaker 5: Good evening again. So it looks like it's going to go forward and I wasn't going to speak, but I really don't like this at all. I work in a site where a bunch of containers and it's just not a pretty sight. I love driving through this area. I drive through it every weekend because it's there's something about the large ships and the Hornet that just brings me the sense of calm and peace. And I just knew that you guys were going to we were going to wait until we developed Building nine and 91. And this property was is kind of explode in value. And we were going to go after some kind of a, you know, a ship, a cruise terminal or, you know, maybe expand Commodore Cruises or something. And I just. I just don't think that this is the highest and best use for this beautiful location. And I'm and I'm again, I worked with and on a site surrounded by containers and they kept growing. They took us over a year to get rid of them. And and now we're developing something beautiful. And I just I just think I just hope that we're not jumping too quickly to, you know, develop or to lease this beautiful site. It's it's just an incredible piece of property. And I feel strongly about it. And I wasn't going to say anything, but I, I, I, I'm a taxpayer. I love my community and I love Alan made a point, and I just think that this piece of property that we should wait and, and do something, you know, something wonderful with it. That's just my opinion. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I'm gonna go back. You currently you've been using this your current site that is smaller. My belief is the building is smaller and and originally this conversation started with you have 34 moving. Now we're at 36 to do this business. So I think there may be a problem there um other members member.
Speaker 6: ASHCROFT So I always appreciate hearing from our community members. Um, there's a couple things that I'm keeping in mind about this proposal. One of them is it's a ten year lease. We've said this council has said all along we are going to be in a 20 to 30 year process to build out the base. And we are looking next at the development strategies for the Enterprise District and we're going to talk about some of those things. I don't I don't disagree that there's, you know, some lovely vistas out there, but it's also a tidelands area and it's also our heritage as a working waterfront. And Mattson Mattson is a venerable old firm, currently based, I think, in Oakland and a little personal connection. During World War Two, my mother worked for mountain lions, but it was in San Francisco, and I think they were one of the shipping lines that transported troops during World War Two. But with there there's the other piece of this that I don't think is in the staff report, but I would imagine other council members got the same phone call I got from Google. Google doesn't call me every day, but in the in the building that Mattson would be vacating because they've outgrown Google is looking to expand its operation at Alameda Point. So it's, you know, one hinges on the other. I mean, obviously, we look at the appropriateness of the use. But again, it is the working waterfront. We're creating jobs. Gosh, looking at container containers, shipping containers, there are worse things. And, you know, it's it doesn't give you a sense of of what this this area is. Anyway, I we're talking about a ten year lease that would bring in some decent revenue during this time while we move forward with the development of this, you know, of Alameda Point. And we also allow Google the opportunity that they would like to avail themselves of to expand in Alameda. And I for 1 a.m. interested in that thank you.
Speaker 1: Member coverage. The point about creating jobs, can you tell me how many jobs are going to be created by moving forward with this the Mattson site?
Speaker 4: That there are no jobs created. The existing jobs will move from this Building 23 location. There are currently about six employees there that work in the facility. Alameda Resident. Generational. Alameda Resident And I think this is Madsen's effort to run kind of a me clean, mean, lean organization and not create a lot of, you know, not add to not have a lot of people coming in and out of their facility.
Speaker 1: All right, member.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So just to clarify, I think Google wants to expand their space. And the tenant that's in the space that they want to expand to would move to Building 23, where Mattson is now. And then Mattson would move over here to this space. So, I mean, theoretically, you know, we would be saving the six jobs, keeping them in Alameda. But if Google can expand, you know, we don't know that number today. I mean, it would be good to know. But I mean, we would have an increase theoretically in the jobs.
Speaker 4: We do know that that the the company that's moving into building 23 anticipates creating over 100 new jobs.
Speaker 9: So if we kept. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So if we kept.
Speaker 1: Can't talk about the.
Speaker 9: Okay. So if we kept them in 23 where they are, then we potentially lose the possibility of those 200 odd jobs. So my question is to the mayor then. Are your conditions satisfied with with the extra, you know, the limit on 36 with the goal that it should probably stay closer to 30 and that it's stored in that particular space that that you identified. And then with the vice mayor be willing to do that, in effect, and the vice mayor be willing to amend his motion to include those conditions, because I'd be willing to to respond.
Speaker 1: So I appreciate that, actually. I really appreciated Karen Bass comments. I too have issues with having containers stored out there. The tops of them will be visible. I don't really understand. And my understanding is there's 30 containers being used now because of the move. And yet now it appears that we're going to have to have 36 to do this business. So there's there seems to be a disconnect in the number of containers.
Speaker 8: You know, a lot of times businesses, you know, we can have them come up and answer your questions specifically with regard to their business. But sometimes when you're creating something in a legal document with a lease, it you know, it doesn't give any wiggle room. And sometimes businesses like to have a little flexibility to be able, if there are special circumstances that might exceed their average or their normal to allow that. I mean, that's typically when you're putting it in a lease document as opposed to something.
Speaker 1: But so I appreciate that in the last five years, what's your average number of containers been at this business?
Speaker 4: He said third about 30.
Speaker 1: So then there hasn't been an increase because of the move. This has been the average. If that's been the average, then there has not been a recent increase because of the moves and that was actually not accurate.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 3: Maybe maybe it wasn't accurate, but I think I think the point is, if we have 36 there as a provision of the lease, I think that's a reasonable restriction. And if I cataloged the the additions to the lease that I thought I saw in order to hit on it was that in the lease, it's going to be explicit that the party agrees that this is not a logistics center and there will be no logistics operations. There will be no stacking of containers. There will be a maximum of 36 containers stored on the side of the building, as indicated on the visual of the site map. There will be screening enhancement so that the visual effect of those containers will be mitigated and there will be a one year revisit of the lease, which will include a report on the number of truck trips that have been generated. And I'm willing to put those in the motion of my second year, willing to accept that.
Speaker 9: I have perfectly willing to.
Speaker 3: And I think the importance of this are three fold. One is it's fitting for the zoning and it meets the policy that the city had set. Number two, it keeps jobs in Alameda. Number three, it provides the potential for additional jobs because it's taking in an inactive empty a deteriorating building and occupying it, freeing up a building for another tenant to move into its interest and then freeing up another tenant that is interested in expanding. So I think it's a complicated piece, but this is another case where. For the foreseeable future, which is ten years in a 30 year horizon. We're going to commit to this this user.
Speaker 9: And just to follow up on that point, not that we have no problem. I don't have any problem with you being there. But, you know, it's good to get this industrial use out of Spirit's Alley and where our food incubator is going to be and stick it down there by the ships and the piers where, you know , tidelands and industrial use is more appropriate.
Speaker 7: My comment, if I can, just to two points. As I indicated, this has been I think all of you know, when we went through the whole the general plan process, but even prior to that way, every time we did some kind of planning, I've always indicated a concern about stack containers. So this is nothing new going back even to the 1990s. My feeling is that, you know, we're at a point now where we're moving fast with society and its quality development. That's fitting the vision that we have and. I just, you know, zoning notwithstanding, I just don't see this as fitting the vision along the waterfront of having these containers stacked or not. And I think the message that it sends about moving forward with the Enterprise District is that, you know. With all due apologies. Lowest common denominator land users are welcome and. I can only speak as one council member.
Speaker 8: Maybe I just want to make one comment because I think there were some questions about council member matters, you know, why staff is bringing this to and why we think this is a good use. It isn't necessarily a major job producer. I think some of that I just want to add some additional thoughts to this discussion, which is one of the things that's very compelling to us, is that it's in a tidelands area where we honestly don't have a lot of use potential. So it actually and what they're willing to do is pay market rent for a building that honestly, given the fact that it's restricted from a use standpoint, has a lot less potential for demand and potentially less value in that building because of that. So for us to get a market value on a building that essentially is kind of restricted and is is important to us, it's been vacant for two and a half years. We built there's a $500,000 roof that has to get fixed on that building. They're going to be putting our $4 million into this. And it's not honestly the tenant we had there before we it was a very, you know, a tenant where we spotty payment and other things that happened that was very risky to the city ended up costing us over $1,000,000 to ultimately deal with the removal of that tenant and to have essentially a national I mean, the credit company like this that we will not have any insecurity in terms of payment, you know, good rent on a building, putting in a significant dollars, an investment into a building that's falling apart in a restricted use that kind of suppresses the potential value. And we're getting market value for it. I mean, those are some of the reasons in a working waterfront zoning, which is essentially we really try to minimize, you know, those concerns that you have, Councilmember Desai, about that working waterfront spilling over into those other areas. We really want to capture jobs here. We're restricting them, put it putting them as close to the marriage ships, which are big, heavy industry, you know, heavier kind of industrial feel and keeping those uses close to where those ships are and trying to do that. So those are I just wanted you to have the benefit of all the thinking that we had in terms of why we're recommending this.
Speaker 1: What is the term of their current lease?
Speaker 4: There is sub ten into West Coast novelties who has terminated their lease. So there there under their their lease which is expires at the end of the year.
Speaker 1: So they essentially don't have a lease for the current. The current property is going to be ending. That lease has two more months or something on it. Correct. So then they're looking for a new site regardless or a new lease regardless?
Speaker 4: Well, yes, ideally they would. I mean, they would want to stay in 23. However, because it's a maritime use, we have a maritime facility and we also have Google. We have other tenants who want to expand. We felt like this was a good fit. And I just want to piggyback on what Jennifer also said is that and to respond to Councilmember de SACS comments that we have had other interests in this building and some of the the users that were pretty exciting and dazzling high speed ferry we were and we were competing with that with new technology and those people love love the location, hated the building, hated the fact that they had to put millions of dollars into the building and would and and turned us down. And our brokers can tell you how many times they've toured people who ended up going to Seattle and getting a turnkey building. And so we have tried to lease this building for the last two and a half years to and to the people that we think would be a good fit to. And this is serendipitous that Madsen was needing a new home and they they fit the that island. And it's also, again, I concur. It's commitment to the working waterfront, which is diminishing in the San Francisco Bay area.
Speaker 1: So what about a five year lease? And we do that. Does it have to be ten years?
Speaker 4: We would have to relook, renegotiate the entire document at this point if you want to take the term and it would impact because they have to finance the half a million dollar roof that they would need to put on the building as that in addition to the improvements that they need to put into the facility.
Speaker 1: How much is that?
Speaker 4: So as I understand it, and you guys can feel free to jump in. As I understand it, the roof is a half a million dollars alone. And I believe that they're intending to put in about $4 million into the building.
Speaker 3: Madam Mayor, I think that's that's another reason to to look at this, the investment in the building. We own it. Nobody else wants to invest. And that's number one. Number two, medicine is not a second tier name. I think you're it's an American flag line. Right. And, you know, if you look on the back of their ships, they're they're registered in the U.S. of a not in Liberia, Panama or wherever. So they're a marquee name that we can also put as a as a a tenant at Alameda Point to attract other marquee names. So I think that goes with it. And as far as getting cruise ships out of I know this was talked about ten years ago, getting cruise ships out of the port of San Francisco is a daunting task if if not realistic within the next ten years. So I do think it's important. And I also believe that the tenants across the way who are our largest tenants, are going to be continuing to use that waterfront in a way that is industrial, just like with it is just kitty corner and it's not in the enterprise zone near price zone. And when we get to that point on the agenda, that enterprise zone provides the proper buffer between the Main Street neighborhood and what is Tidelands Truss the remainder of our working waterfront. So I think we have to bite the bullet and do this, but I'd hate to lose. This tenant, especially with the name Mattson associated with it at four or something that is is I think is doable for the next ten years.
Speaker 2: Ben Amir, Question.
Speaker 1: Member days out.
Speaker 7: So just to clarify, so. Building 23. There is a tenant who has a lease and their lease will expire soon. And Mattson is a sublease. Yes. So when that sub10 it went, that expires. Then they're out?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 7: So when they're out. Google should they so want or whomever it is. I don't know who it is.
Speaker 4: Whatever tenant.
Speaker 7: Whatever tenant and go in there. Okay.
Speaker 1: This does not impact that, then.
Speaker 9: Well, they might want to stay in 23 then. I'd have a hard time, you know, denying a lease to somebody that's been there and operating without any problems.
Speaker 1: Actually, there have been problems or complaints about the containers. That has. There have been complaints about the containers.
Speaker 9: Okay. Well, that's going to be and I thought we've kind of taken steps to alleviate those complaints.
Speaker 1: So let me ask you, in regards to the containers, could they be behind the building so that when we drive up. What could they do? You know what I mean? When I'm. When we drive up to Ticonderoga, could they be on the, you know.
Speaker 4: On the engineering side.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Could they be between the two buildings. So first of all, I think when you're driving around.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, this the blue is the fence line. So behind. So here. Right there. But back here.
Speaker 1: Actually behind the building between the two buildings.
Speaker 4: Well, the Madsen folks say that they won't fit. It's not enough space between the fence line and the building so that they could put them here in this location in the corner.
Speaker 6: They have to unload them, correct? Yeah. I mean, you have to be able to get.
Speaker 4: They have to be able to access them to get the equipment in and out of them. Right.
Speaker 1: Okay. What about? Um, actually. So I'd like to figure out a way to have these containers as less visible as possible. And so I think that that. Maybe. Maybe Karen Bass would like to tell me where this could go anywhere. Is there any place where they're less visible between the two buildings or even maybe to the right of the building on the other side? By or a scar.
Speaker 4: On the side?
Speaker 1: Yeah, on that side. So when we're driving around the water, we're not looking at them. Could they be on the back side and on the side?
Speaker 4: That's so we don't do it here.
Speaker 6: Can I just ask a quick question about the nature of the screening fence we're talking about? I mean, is it just a cyclone fence that you see through or is it.
Speaker 4: It's the black netting that you see on the fences.
Speaker 6: Okay. So it would be sort of opaque.
Speaker 4: It's it's opaque.
Speaker 6: And this is we're talking about 6% of the yard space. That's 145,000 square feet.
Speaker 1: Okay. So what about those two locations? Would that be sufficient?
Speaker 4: We're told that this I'm told that this could work along this.
Speaker 0: Here and I'm.
Speaker 1: Behind it all.
Speaker 4: And here.
Speaker 1: No, not outside.
Speaker 4: You want it here?
Speaker 1: It is in between the two buildings and on the so.
Speaker 4: In between the two buildings is okay. Siding and close to.
Speaker 1: The building as possible. I don't think we drive on that road as much as the side. I think we drive around. So I think that would be less visible.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Madam Mayor. Council.
Speaker 0: I'm very sorry to interrupt, but you need to vote to go past 11:00. All right. So moved.
Speaker 9: Second.
Speaker 1: All those in favor, I.
Speaker 4: All right, so to continue, we can. They can put them here and in the corner there.
Speaker 2: Of.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 3: I think I'm fine with that because when I drive by there, I'm certainly not looking back at Old Nelson's moran. I'm looking at the water. That's one thing. I think the fence will help mitigate it. That's another thing. And what I'd like to do is that we can allude to where you pointed as part of the motion. Yes. And when you come back and if there's a problem and it has to be adjusted, I would like this to be able to come back so we can adjust this provision, because this provision to me is minor . I think the most important thing is that we've we've got no logistics. We're not stacking any containers. We're counting the truck trips. And we're limited to 36.
Speaker 1: Okay. And what I think is important is there is invisible as possible. So I think there is less traffic there and I don't know if any US wants to invisibility. I think there would be less visible there, in which case there's motion. Those amendments, all those.
Speaker 9: Amendments.
Speaker 1: We have to second all those in favor.
Speaker 5: I, i.
Speaker 1: I pose.
Speaker 2: Both.
Speaker 1: Of motion. Carries four in favor. One oppose. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. Next item. And now 60.
Introduction of an Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease with Matson Navigation Company, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation, for Building 167 Located at 1500 Ferry Point at Alameda Point.  (Base Reuse 819099)