Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Leases And Real Estate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pier 23 Cafe family asks Port Commission to restructure lease, seeks repayment credit and 15‑year extension
Summary
Representatives for Pier 23 Cafe asked the Port Commission to consider revised lease terms including a 5% percentage rent, a base rent of $10,738.75, credit for historical overpayments (estimated about $142,735), capital-improvement crediting, and a 15‑year extension to enable borrowing for repairs.
Get email alerts on the Leases And Real Estate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Family members representing Pier 23 Cafe urged the Port Commission during public comment to approve revised lease terms and to consider repayment or crediting of historical overpayments.
A speaker identified only as a Pier 23 family representative said the restaurant invested “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to keep the business open during the COVID‑era downturn and asked that the Port adjust rent to reflect the business’s unique operating constraints, noting most seating is outdoors and winter revenue is low. The representative proposed percentage rent of 5% with a base rent of $10,738.75 and requested a year‑end “true up” so any overpayment relative to 5% of gross receipts would be credited to future rent or applied to capital improvements.
The representative said the port’s property manager, Don Cavanagh, and Scott Landis Sittel had calculated historical overpayments and that credits and adjustments could result in roughly $142,735 in repayment or credit, based on data the lessee provided; the speaker said the parties had not yet presented that calculation to the Commission.
Because the lease has roughly four years remaining, the family asked the Port to consider a 15‑year extension to allow them to borrow to fund capital improvements and said they had no plan to sell the business.
President Gail Gilman responded to public comment by saying staff would be asked to work with the Pier 23 family “and to try to expedite it as soon as possible so it can come to us in closed session for consideration, hopefully at our next meeting,” and cautioned the Commission could not discuss the matter further because it was not agendized.
Ending: The Commission took no action at the meeting; staff was directed to work with the Pier 23 lessees and the matter was likely to return for closed‑session consideration as a non‑agendized item could not be debated on the floor.
