Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $7,960,608, Including Contingencies, to Alten Construction for Construction of the Emergency Operations Center, No. P.W. 06-14-23 and Fire Station 3, No. P.W. 12-14-18; to Appropriate Anticipated Loan Proceeds from IBank and to Appropriate 2003 A&B Tax Allocation Bonds Unspent Bond Proceeds. (Public Works 319)
Recommendation toward a contract in the amount of 7.9 million, including contingencies to Alton construction for construction of the Emergency Operation Center and Fire Station three and appropriate anticipated loan proceeds from II bank an appropriate 23 A and B tax allocation unspent bond proceeds. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council. My name is Bob Parnham, the public works director. You have before you now the approval of a construction contract for Fire Station three and the emergency operations center. I'm going to start off with just some basic background geography. We live in an island with somewhat fragile submarine infrastructure, water, sewer, natural gas, communications. All come on to the island underwater. The good news is, is Eastbay has agreed to replace their potable water crossings at the tubes and at the Bay Farm Bridge within five. And that's a significant progress. When I first started here in this position, they were talking 20 years and they've moved substantially. With those two pipes replaced, seismically reinforced, we should have sufficient pressure within the island to meet our needs. What are the risks the islands faces? In addition to earthquakes, tsunamis are the latest challenge that are we. We are actively preparing for with the assistance of the State Office of Emergency Services. Geology. Large areas of the islands are subject to liquefaction, as demonstrated during the Loma Prieta earthquake when we experienced sand boils at Alameda Point in an earthquake. Liquefaction will often cause differential settlement of a building leaning or tripping to one side, making the building unusable and scheduled for demolition. Risks. In addition to earthquakes and tsunamis, we also have concerns with potential flooding. A new flood maps will be before you in July for you to review. Terrorist incidents potentially related to the port cyber attacks that I just attended a seminar on last Friday. Civil unrest and ultimately sea level rise. Again, because of our geography and agile geology, we face additional risks compared to other communities within the Bay Area. The existing emergency operation center and fire station number three. The current EOC is too small to accommodate the 30 to 35 staff members that will be required. Right. Technical difficulties. We had this problem the other night. So there's a dedication plaque, a 1978, 1978. The existing emergency operation center in the basement of the police department was constructed. The current U.S. is too small to accommodate the 30 to 35 staff members that will be required to operate the EOC in the event of an emergency. It has limited capacities for additional communications equipment. Furthermore, the current EOC is used daily by the police and will not be available for the long. Term. Or the member already. I'm sorry, Mr. Honea said. 30 to 35 staff. Can you explain who those 30 to 35 staff members are? We'll get into that later on presentation. So the current EOC, that's the lineup room for the staff. FEMA requires 50 square foot for a staff member in an EOC or recommends a minimum of 50 square feet per staff. EOC and we can fit 16 staff members in the EOC in compliance with the FEMA recommendations. If you look at those tables, there are six tables, two chairs at each table for 12 people for the police department briefing. Again, the EOC is just not a point in time during the disaster. It is that's one of the primary reasons to respond to the disaster. But it's also going to be a recovery operation following any disaster. It reimbursement for FEMA to put the community back together. This will very much originate from the EOC. Furthermore, the current EOC is used daily by the police and so it's just not suitable for a long term use. As you can see, there's the basement of the police department, the hallway. This is the equipment storage room. So again, when we setting up the is the current EOC in the basement of the police department, we have to pull all the equipment down. The radios, as you can see there, all the stuff out of the things. We also have a storage container out in the parking lot that we have additional supplies in to pull the supplies out and set the room up. Probably takes a couple hours or so to an hour or so to hook up the room and get it working. There's some of the back again in the back area. The roof of the police station is maxed out as far as conduits going up to the roof and also additional capacity for satellite dishes up there on the old fire station. It's seismically unsafe. As you can see, the fire truck barely makes it into that single reinforced bank. That's a very tight. There's the house next door to the fire station. Fire Department is using the kitchen as a workstation area, too, so the kitchen serves both as the kitchen for the firefighters and as workstations for the firefighters. There's the old fire station, the rented house next door that we've rented for approximately 15 years. Proposed ELC. The first floor has breakout rooms or offices in conference rooms on the bottom floor, dedicated datacom room and ADA required elevator electrical rooms and showers for staff. The upstairs of the EOC can be reconfigured. We can have two separate ios's if we so desire. That wall during through the center is a movable wall. To break that down in the event of a large scale disaster, we can occupy the floor room. And the FEMA capacity in that room is 35. The Proposed Operations center and fire station or central structures, which by design will be able to survive a large earthquake on the Hayward fault. They are state of the art facilities that were provide redundant communication systems. And one of the things now, as with many things, the communication systems for iOS, these are migrating to the Internet. So out of the new EOC, we have four redundant systems, including a satellite transmission to Oakland and then two systems within the island, Comcast and our own system. A space for employees and food for disaster workers because the fire at the adjacent fire station has a kitchen. The proposed EOC is not a public safety building. I want to make that clear. It is a facility that will serve the vital needs of the citizens of Alameda in the event of an emergency. During a large scale disaster, the EOC will be fully staffed 24, seven or a week or more. There will be staff to some degree for this for many months after our initial response. The response will take weeks of recovery and with where the first response will take weeks and the recovery will take months or years. The EOC will be actively staffed until all three all recoveries have taken place and will and all every mutual aid has been demobilized. Ordination of a long term disaster in a central and dedicated location is a key to effectively managing, documenting, recovering from the impact of a disaster. These efforts in the event of an emergency need to be coordinated, and that is done in the EOC. The EOC is primarily staffed by the following city staff. The building official to inspect and tag buildings is necessary to protect human life. A public works department to clear debris from the roadways, repair and replace critical infrastructure necessary to get the community up and running as soon as possible. Aluminum municipal power to remove downed power lines, reestablish electrical service as soon as possible. The finance department to ensure that we are properly reimbursed by FEMA based upon records that they will maintain a public information officer to communicate to our citizens the extent of the emergency and what they should do and where they should go for assistance. The Planning Department provides central dual situational awareness of what is occurring throughout the city so that city forces may be deployed to address the prioritized incidents. The Recreation and Parks Department to provide care and sheltering for displaced residents. As an aside to that, the paradigm has changed. American Red Cross will not staff. They will have one representative shelter. It will be contingent upon the city to provide staffing for those shelters on a 24 seven basis, to provide food for those shelters, provide electricity, and get those things going. We estimate 8000 residents in the city of Alameda will be displaced immediately. You know, a large earthquake event. They're the information technology department to ensure our ability to communicate with the county and state uses both to ensure our ability to ask for assistance. And that is primary. The logistics section, which will locate equipment and supplies needed to care for our residents. We have a lot of challenges. We have to get everything onto the island by a barge. We have no seismically safe bridges. Arranging those services is going to be key. If we need large equipment to clear debris, we will have to barge in on to the island. That's a significant challenge. As you know, we built the EOC previously and had a bid protest and staff estimates, we say estimates that we saved approximately a half million dollars by rebuilding the two structures together. The recent bid had three strong pre-qualified bidders, all of whom had prior experience building essential structures. In all, the bids fell within a very close range of cost, which is a compliment to the architect. Saylor Consultants. The project estimate has indicated the rebuilding the project will add additional 10 to 15% to our class. This three year project. Has been through an a community engagement process beginning in 2013, designed through 2014, was a plan of with approvals by the planning board. And bidding to pre pre-fall qualified contractors in 2015. Staff stands ready to implement this project as soon as possible. The time is right to provide the best possible response in the event of a disaster to the citizens of Alameda with the proposed fire station and Emergency Operations Center tonight. These structures benefit the entire community. And as we saw in the recent Napa earthquake, you can quantify the cost to build the structure, but you cannot quantify the risk if we don't. Therefore your police chief. Your fire chief and your public works director. Are stand before you tonight. Recommending the approval of the contract before you. And we stand here to answer any questions you may have. Council members. If you want to ask questions at this point, do we have any speakers? We do not. Oh. Okay. Well, no speakers on this item. And then it's our turn. And one minor. Member only. Had one minor question. Yes. Thank you for the presentation, Mr. Hunt. You mentioned something about FEMA and reimbursement. I mean, is there some. I thought I heard something about the ease of that or not ease of that. If we don't have any or see versus we do or are you able to elaborate on that at all or . FEMA reimbursement has become very difficult. Okay. FEMA has gotten smart. If you want to say FEMA won't. It used to be if we had a sewer breakage, let's say along Santa Clara or in front of us, they would replace that whole block. Now they will go and we will have to show them the ten feet that actually broke in the disaster and replace that ten feet. Okay. FEMA wants us prepared. We are going through a disaster mitigation plan now. Okay. And Aaron Smith is leading that effort out of the public works department. We know that disaster mitigation is a FEMA document that encourages us to provide as much readiness as possible for any event. And that's the document we develop to prove to FEMA that we are prepared in conjunction with doing that disaster mitigation analysis. We will be having community meetings, meetings with the planning board, meetings with Shrub, meetings with the Mayors Committee on Disability Information on Disability. We will have a series of meetings to gain the community's buy in. Also following that effort, we plan to go through a series of community trainings led by Jim Friends and other members of staff to educate the citizens on disaster preparedness as much as we can educate our citizens to be ready. It's beyond 72 hours now. I think we're talking about a week. It used to be be ready for the first 72 hours. FEMA will give or it will only promise me that they will have water on to the island within 72 hours. FEMA's plan currently is to bring everything on the island by Hellcats. El cats with a large landing craft, the air driven the landing crafts. That's their preferred method to bring supplies onto the island. They we've toured the island with them. We showed them the constraints of the island. We showed them the different bridges. And they agree that we are challenged. We do not specifically get penalized by FEMA for not having an EOC. It is strongly encouraged again, and EOC is recognized by FEMA and nationally as the way to handle disasters efficiently responding, fast, getting quick situational analysis of what's going on. Choices have to be made in an EOC. It's an extremely tense environment as you're making decisions on life and limb. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Could those I assume most of what you said is being done now is building independent. So all of the work that's being done at public works, etc., that can be done where public works currently has its office or actually convene in EOC when that disaster happens. As somebody looked at the alternatives, like we have a very new constructed building right across the street. The main library that has very large conference rooms is wi fi enabled and of. Could accommodate the number of people that you're talking about. Has that been examined? It has been initially examined. I built the library, saw I'm very familiar with the construction of the library. The library will fall 3.5 inches straight down. It will not have differential differential settlement. A question regarding the library. It would act to be acting as what we refer to as a cold EOC. We would have to reconfigure the area in the library appropriately, hook up the appropriate communications equipment, and also take solar panels off the roof. Off the roof to allow the addition of satellite and radio transmission from the library. I have not gotten into the details to see if in the electrical room or if we have sufficient room down there. I did meet with the librarian on Monday and offered this idea. There is no room in their communication and data area whatsoever. We would have to find a standalone communications and data room which is vital to the operation of any. I think the other feature of the library is that at some point, you know, for a day or two, once a year or so often, you'd need to shut it down to actually do training there. Because that's one of the things one of the concerns that we have is where is a facility that we can do training ? And I think we want to do the training in the facility where we're actually going to be managing the event. And the trade off would be one day, $3 million pretty much. And, you know, that's I. Think that's not the only trade off, but that is one of. That's one of the considerations. Yes. Again, during the recovery period, which will extend for a month. If we have a disaster that's going to have a recovery period that extends for months. You know, I think that that's something that the the use of the library is probably a higher priority of of the EOC than it would be as library conference room. Also maybe I mean, I'll answer this and maybe the chief wants to answer it, but I mean, it's not a small disaster and a very large it's going to last for a month. Right. There are many things in between. And so, you know, it could be that you're using it more than just, you know, when the disaster actually is occurring. So, I mean, there's there's lots of variations in between on that theme. I understand that I'm trying to make the most of what we have in front of us. And. I haven't seen the analysis shows the gap is like if the earthquake happened tonight, what is it tomorrow that we can't do? And. I've been asking for that for, for quite some time and I got some up in our packet or I don't know if you got it. We got it emailed to us this week with a rundown, but there's no analysis. My main question, quite frankly, is it would if would the police station still be functional? The police station was constructed in 1978. It was designed in the early seventies. It wasn't until Northridge. That the earthquake and seismic codes really became evident in the state of California. There was a lot of lessons learned at Northridge. And there is a lot of lessons learned in the Kobe earthquake is regarding liquefaction. This is not all new information since 1977. The police department is a very heavy structure. Okay. It's got the jail below. It's got a lot of concrete in it, which was the theory behind, you know, at that point in time, we literally don't know how the police department will perform. But we're proposing tonight is a building that we know how it will perform as it's been designed to perform that way. And it's a highly regulated. Issue for the state of California. They are guaranteed to perform. Both of these structures will survive a 7.0 earthquake on the Hayward. We have nothing that we can guarantee like that. Not even the library. Remember Daisuke. Thank you very much. You listed various departments and personnel who would comprise the 30 to 35 people who are part of the emergency operations center. I think it's important to realize that one person or someone else who needs to be part of that equation is the mayor. And. Largely because that is first and foremost the. Yeah. Responsibility of the mayor under the city charter, section six, dash one. The mayor shall be the official ceremonial head of the city and shall provide at all. Meeting shall be preside at all meetings. The mayor may take command of the police and fire department and govern the city by proclamation proclamation whenever the City Council determines that public danger or emergency requires such action. So there is I think the role of the mayor ought to be considered in the. Emergency Operations Center. And we have addressed that role. And we've addressed that role not only for the mayor, but for the council. Okay. There is a room in the fire station. There's a conference room in the fire station that is specifically set up for mayor and council. It's great because in fact, I think it's not in the charter, but I think it's in the somewhere. There is an emergency council, I think, consisting of the city manager and and the and the mayor and some others in the event of incredible emergency. But like you said, you know, the situation what happened in Napa last year underscores that, you know, we're in a region where things can happen and. And you know, I think the message that you and also our chiefs have put out is that first and foremost, the facility, the emergency operating facility that we have right now is inadequate. I think anyone who's been in there, we ought to give the city towards anyone who has been in there, will know how inadequate it is. Moreover, no slap at the at the police department. Anyone who goes into the police department the way that, you know, it's very Byzantine how you go through from one one. So. So it's clearly I think they're I. I don't think I need science to tell me that we need a modern emergency operating center. So. It's not just for the police, it's not just for the fire department. It's just not or public works or anyone else or, you know, the mayor is for the residents of Alameda. Like you said, we need something that's in the center of town that can respond. Thank you. Thank you. The city of Napa lost both of their elks during the recent Napa earthquake. The county, Napa County, which was in the Board of Supervisors chambers, crashed. The ceiling crashed in and they had to relocate their EOC. Okay. Same thing with the city of Napa in council chambers and they had to relocate their EOC also. Both of those operations delayed their response by 24 hours. The napa earthquake. Remember Ashcroft? Well, and what result did that have by delaying their response? 24 hours, potentially. Those fires on the trailers got out of control, is what they've told me. Okay. So thank you for your remarks tonight, Mr. Horne. And also, I'll be quick to acknowledge that I spoke to you this afternoon or this morning maybe, and also to both of our chiefs up here. I'm chief long for chief and chief for the three police chief. And first and foremost, I want you to know that I have no dispute with the need for a new fire station three in a new emergency operation center. I have toured both of the existing locations back when we in 2012, when the city placed a sales tax measure on the the ballot within it in an attempt to secure funding to build a new fire station three, an emergency operations center. And at the time, I was asked by then police chief Paul excuse me, I'm looking at Mike Noonan to to endorse the measure. I think I was planning board president and I wasn't on the council. So I'll be quick to state that I didn't love everything about the sales tax measure. I actually thought there was too much in it, and I think maybe that's why it didn't pass. But that's water under the bridge, as they say. But I did go back and take a look at the staff report from March 7th of 2012, because that was when the city council that council voted to place Measure C on the ballot. And I remember it because, again, Mike Noonan had taken me through the EOC and Mike Djerassi had taken the chief fire chief at the time, took me through first station three. And at that time in what's in the staff report is that the the staff report details how outdated and structurally unsafe and inadequate fire station three at 1709 Grande Street is and concludes that for that reason, a new fire station has been proposed and is currently in the design phase at the corner of Buena Vista and Grand Street. So we call that a location in the design phase, sort of a nebulous term. The design calls for an environmentally friendly facility that we can house, that can house apparatus, equipment and personnel and provide the city with a much needed modern EOC on the second floor. So literally, since last October, when John Russo was still our city manager, I've been waving this around saying, But why isn't this adequate? If this was good enough at one time, when did we morph into aa3, not a three story at two different structures on a larger parcel that, you know, is partly Buena Vista in Grand, but goes beyond that over to Hibbard. And then we have the council has seen in their package the recommendations, not the recommendations, but the analysis that, well, if we were to merge those two uses now, we'd be paying even more than we're paying. And I do appreciate that this evening, shortly before this meeting started, the police chief, Chief Hillery, got in touch with now retired chief Noonan. And let me know that apparently I mean, you could answer this, too, but I'll go ahead. And and apparently the concept at the time and I do understand the city didn't go forward with having plans drawn because unless the parcel tax the the sales tax passed, there wasn't going to be the funding to do that when it didn't pass and the city realized it still had these needs. And they started looking and they realized, you know, that site actually isn't big enough. So then it did morph into these two distinct uses. So what I try to apply is my criteria. When ever I'm making a tough decision and this is a tough decision for me is what is best for the city of Alameda, for our citizens, what's the best use of our capital? Because this does come with a hefty price price tag. I do understand there's some grant funding for the EOC and the different sources of funding have been identified, including including some loans. But there's also a debt service of almost over $5 million over the course of 20 years. What I said to Bob Hahn this afternoon when we were talking was that I when I think about resiliency, you have to get this. Does it require an answer? When I consider resiliency and making our community safe, it's all of the things that you listed. We don't know what our disaster is going to be. We don't get much of a warning. But what we do know is that we have aging infrastructure. The last week we finished up our budget hearings in public works, had an outstanding presentation that also detailed that we have old buildings that need to be renovated and some of them replaced and we have streets. Then we have water mains and sewer pipes under those streets and we are going along in a very methodical fashion doing those repairs and replacements. If we had more money in our general fund, we could do more faster. And that's that's something that I, I keep in mind also. But then there's a couple of other things that concern me. One is that I was very distressed when our city withdrew from the Rockefeller grant program a year or so ago because we were selected. It was a prestigious award. We were selected to receive a $1 million grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to be a recipient of this Resilient Cities program. And what was especially attractive besides that six figure number of seven figures was that we had other cities in our region. I think Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco were also chosen in. I think we can also assume that any disaster does not stop at our city limits for the most part. And so we will need to partner with our neighbors. I would like to see our staff go back and contact the Rockefeller Foundation, see if there's any possibility. We obviously qualified for the criteria at one point, if there's any possibility to get some of that back, because not only is the money attractive, but I think so are some of the, say training opportunities, opportunities to learn from what other communities are doing so we don't have to start from scratch. So that would be something that would be very important to me if I am to support this proposition. And I also think that we need to start our training across these different departments and and areas that Mr. Hahn identified even before shovels are put in the ground or certainly before an EOC is built. And I think that for a number of reasons and again, funding was part of it. We're always, you know, juggling not enough dollars for the things we need and want to do. But I think we need to start now. We've got the buildings out at Alameda Point that we use now for the Sirt training. They can be used for the training for these different departments, and I think there is some use of that. But I just I want to make sure that we are we are making best use of our dollars. I think you've made a pretty convincing case. I, I do understand that this is more than just everyone rushing in with laptops and setting up an emergency command center. This needs to be something where the exercises can be rehearsed in in the actual location. But I also have been concerned over the months and years even that we've been considering this, that it at first it sounded like the EOC was going to be a very sparsely populated, rarely used building. Now, I think we're seeing that we can make it a little more widely used and across a number of different departments. So I'd like some assurances along those lines. And with that, I'll listen to the remarks of the rest of my colleagues. Thank you. If I may, Madam Mayor, just a few comments. Yes. I define resiliency as a slinky. If you take a slinky and you stretch the slinky, if you've kids, you have one kid at each end of the slinky and they pull the slinky slinky. I'll go back. Okay. If they walk outside and they take it outside in the street and they walk 100 feet away from each other , that slinky is not going back. And I'm trying to put the Slinky back after the disaster. And this is what we need. We have started training already. We trained 35 people in this very chamber already. We're going to train another 35 people and another 35 people. We're looking at three shifts of folks to staff the EOC. The main training will occur when the EOC is up and operating because you want to be there, you want to be able to know the screen that you need to look at all the time is right there. Because in the operations when you're coming in, you're replacing somebody. They're going to give you a very brief briefing because they've been working 12 hours straight. And they're going to say, you need to keep your eye on these and these and this and this is important. And you have to have positional awareness of where these screens are. You're making fairly rapid decisions. You're making decisions about sheltering people. You're making decisions about rescuing people. You may have 200 people trapped on this side of the island. You may have 500 people trapped on that side of the island. Where do you go to first? Those are the kind of decisions that will be facing us and requiring us to make these calls fairly rapidly. We want to ensure both that the training occurs. We're beginning already. We're going to continue it through the years course of construction. So staff will be ready when the building is ready. And then we will continue that training, both for staff training and for citizens training within that very structure. And so my point, if I could, Madam Mayor, is just that I do understand the usage as uses as usages of the EOC. The point about the training is that the disaster could strike tonight as we're leaving city hall or tomorrow or next week. And so we have to be as ready now as we will be with this spiffy new building. That's that's my point. Surprisingly, a lot of the staff has already been trained on the resiliency question. I'm engaging right now with the resiliency officers of San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland. I have said meeting meetings with those people. They're very busy, very hard to get an appointment with them. But my strategy is to meet with each one of them, ask how it's going with the Rockefeller Foundation. How's it working? How's the coordination? Is it a good program and kind of get their feedback? And then I don't think after that engagement, if it seems to be going well, we can potentially revisit the Rockefeller Foundation and say , would you reconsider us after this one year hiatus and see what their reception is? Thank you for that information. Remember Brody. Thank you. In a minute or so, we're on comments now or. Actually, we do have a speaker slip now. Do you mind if I call the speaker? It was just brought to me. Thank you. Yeah, we didn't have before. John Spangler, would you like to come up and speak at this point? There is. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Spencer, and members of the council and staff. My wife and I just got back from a non-emergency. The Warriors won tonight. 110 two. Our six giants are leading the. We've been waiting to see. Thank you. So just in case anybody is worried about the next big emergency, we're okay in those departments. And I want I want to address this project very seriously, though. I was in the room for the moment. Create a quick. I was working in a concrete structure that could have easily gone over with customers underneath heavy old cell heaters that could have fallen out of the ceiling. And some of the h-back stuff did fall and nearly killed one of the three part owners. This is serious business. It is not something I've been happy to see the council delay making a positive decision on for good reasons or not. Delaying is potentially suicidal. Councilmember Ashcroft, you mentioned you said we don't know what kind of disaster is going to hit. It's true. We don't know specifically which one might hit. But the U.S. Geological Survey says the odds are better than 70% by 2030 or 2040 or possibly 2060. We're going to have the ground shake again. And we're sitting on top of not one but three major quake faults here in the East Bay. And as the public works director ably said. In his presentation, which I was watching from home when I found out there were no commenters. This is serious. There will not be bridges. Everything is going to have to come in by barge or by helicopter or if you want us to swim across the estuary, I suppose we could bring them across a first aid kit at a time, but that's a cold swim, and I'm not sure that that's very safe for some people. So we have to do this on our own. I talked to people on this island in the last 15 years who say they're going to just leave the island. They won't be able to go anywhere. That is foolishness. We need a space that is earthquake safe. We need it now. Please approve this project tonight. No more delays. Thank you. And Brody, where are you going to speak? Sure. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thank you for the presentation. And I appreciate my my colleague's thoughtful comments and concerns. You know, I kind of share a lot of those concerns, but like everything else we do here, we kind of have to balance and and weigh, you know, like the vice mayor said, you know, whether, you know , this is worth this or this is worth that. So, you know, I look at the. I guess we kind of have a choice. We could approve this. We could not approve it and give direction to go off and split it off and reconsider that again. And I think if or we could just say no and not do anything. So. I don't think that's where I prefer to do, but I kind of want to address, you know, splitting it off from what I think. Mr. Hong, I talked to you earlier. You mentioned to me that we've spent 700,000 on this already. Is that. I talked to approximately $700,000, $750,000 on design, community engagement for both the structures. That's absolutely correct. So that's a sunk cost that we've already already incurred. And then, you know, with your bidding this out together, you know, we've saved 500,000. Approximately 500,000 by economies of scale, doing the two structures at one time, doing the site at one time. So if we if if we decide we're going to split these bids or if we decide we're going to, you know, kill this, then, you know, to me, that's another 500,000 that know we're not going to be able to realize. And eventually we're going to have to do this. You know, that, you know, you're unable to split the bid. It was one single bid. So we're unable to split the bid between the two structures. But we would have to kind of do redesign, split the structures up. I'm almost positive we do have the contractor here that is the awarded contractor that these contractors, these three contractors who appear to be the best essential structure contractors in the Bay Area would not take an opportunity to rebid this project. But my point was, eventually, in my opinion, we're going to need to replace the fire station and build an emergency operation center. I mean, that, you know, whether it's this year, whether it's in ten years, whether it's in 30 years, I mean, that's going to have to be. Done, whether it's after an. Earthquake. And then the sailor you know, the sailor report talked about another 1.5 to 2 million in cost. Right. So, you know, I look at that and I see, you know, adding it up. You know, that's like that's 3 million there. That if we suddenly said. We're going to stop this. It's not money out of our pocket that, you know, we're losing except the 700 and the 500. But it is a lost opportunity cost that if we delay, you know, we're not going to ever be able to recapture. So. To me that that figures into the equation as well. So that was kind of my my question. So if you are correct. Thank you. So in my opinion, so and then further comments, I also appreciate, you know, the hard work of the neighborhood that's gone into the planning. I mean, this has changed since it was, you know, first proposed. You know, that's the process, you know, percolates through the planning process, percolates through the neighbors. The neighbors get their say. And, you know, as far as the design and the esthetics, you know, when we had the discussion on on the Del Monte Project, I mean, the opinion of the neighbors, you know, and the ones that live closest to it was most important to me. And the fact that they've been thoroughly involved in this process and they've come up with a design that they feel blends into their neighborhood and that they can live with, I think is very critical to me. But but the the thing that in a ways overall, in my mind this you said that Mr. Town, this is not this is not a police building. This is not a fire building. This is, you know, not a public safety building. This is where if we have an emergency where the heart of our city's operations, you know, including the mayor and the council, the city manager, you said public works planning building officials, AMP financed the pill Rex and park it. I mean, this is where they're going to function. And in my thoughts, it's not a matter of if we're going to have a disaster. You know, my thoughts are, you know, similar to Mr. Spengler's, we are going to have something and most likely it is an earthquake. You know, we can't predict what it is, but it's going to be an earthquake, tsunami or flood. This will happen. And I think it's our you know, our ultimate responsibility as elected officials and as council members, in my mind, is to protect our citizens, you know, whether it's, you know, making sure that, you know, if their structures get on fire, they get put out. If they call an ambulance that they get taken to the hospital, if they are their property or their lives are in danger from crime, you know, we do that. That's our number one priority. And this, I think, is our utmost responsibility here, especially given the propensity we are to the to the water and the faults. It's our utmost responsibility to be prepared in the event of this emergency that, again, will happen, not might happen, but will happen and probability it will happen sooner rather than later, especially an earthquake on the Hayward fault. So, you know, I feel that if. I guess it's another one of not on my watch comments, you know, not on my watch. Do I want to be the counsel that says we're not going to prepare for this, we're not going to be ready for this. We need to do everything we can to be ready for when this happens. And I appreciate all your hard work on this. And the police chief and the fire chief and you said it best, but I will re re-emphasize it. You know, we can quantify the costs of delaying. We can quantify the cost of debt financing. We can cost quantify the cost of savings, you know, on combining bids or delaying. But we can't quantify. The risk of not doing anything. And that's where I come down on the scale. And I think you can and I'm prepared to support this moving forward. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. And. I may be inclined to support this. I just want us to be sure we're going into this with our eyes open. I don't disagree for a minute with Councilmember O.D. that our ultimate responsibility as councilmembers is to protect our citizens. But that takes many different forms. And in a perfect world, we'd be able to replace all of our aging infrastructure and buildings and hire, you know, more personnel that we need and also build these new buildings. So I think we just need to understand there's going to be some trade offs. We are incurring debt. But, you know, we have many we choose to spend it in different ways. And so just so public works, for instance, knows I told Mr. Horne today, I mean, I'd like to wave a magic wand and let you get all your your wish list taken care of, because I think we're better served that way. I. So. I do. I do actually want to report back from the public works director on the air. And I think I also discussed this with the interim city manager about getting back in contact with the Rockefeller Foundation. I just think, you know, maybe they have some hoops for us to jump through, but, you know, everything comes with a price tag. But I definitely think the benefit of partnering with them and availing ourselves of the training and this is something that's going on worldwide. So, you know, really, we should be doing this for our citizens. I, I don't think, you know, this is something that we decide whether it's convenient or not. I want to see this done. I'm hoping to have something before you before the end of the year. Regarding that item. You said before. I said I hope to have something before you before the end of the year regarding that item. Okay. It's May now. I'd hope it would come a little sooner than that. Yeah, but I'm going to have to meet with all these first for us, and then I'm going to have to reengage with the Rockefeller Foundation. Right. It's just that I recall having this conversation, say, six months ago. So I you know, or before you know how I am. Okay. All right. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Just a comment. I think as far as Fire Station three goes. Everybody knows the situation at that fire station needs to be replaced. There's enough development, new development on the northern waterfront now and in the future to warrant its operation. And that is without question. The emergency operations center, I still think, needs analysis as there has been. No fine analysis again, either by fire drill or disaster drill that shows what our shortfall is, what our time is. And I'm assuming and I'm glad to hear that there's training going on and I'm glad to hear that there's coordination going on. But I think it'd be very it would have been a very valuable exercise before this started to have that codified. Whatever the shortfalls in the drill were, were codified to point to what's needed. And as I go down the list here, and I would prefer to have that center here in the center where there's the police station, fire station, Park Street and city hall, because all of those players are going to be playing in this in this activity in the emergency operations center. And I think that's the way our our emergency response plan is written, that it can be convened. It's not specified where it's convened. And I'd like to make maximum use of our buildings and other see other options, not just this or that, whether we retrofit, whether we use existing or whether we build new should be laid out. And. And then finally, these are our people driven, and I'm glad we've got the team that we've got here, because I think they're going to execute. But. Out how we put our money in and where we put our money. I think we have to look very carefully at. I appreciate comments from council members and staff. Your report public not just here but outside here and also emails and whatnot. I have questions in regards to first of all, the are our emergency water supply system. And it's my understanding that in the past there has been discussion of salt water pumps. There has recently been speakers regard to that and letters to the editor and whatnot. And I think at the beginning of today's meeting, Mr. Hahn spoke about it being mad, and then we wouldn't need saltwater pumps, but I don't think we've ever had that discussion. Okay. We are looking back into getting a. Emergency water supply or the city. We've looked into it in the past and had different options with the different equipment and a large diameter hose and saltwater pumps that would supply those hose in the city. It comes with a very large price tag. We've gone to FEMA and asked about grants to to purchase that. And because we've been so successful in our grant processes before, we have built strong relationships with FEMA. And we've been told and we've received letters that FEMA does not fund projects like this, that we would need to find funding somewhere else. We have reevaluated. We've come up with a plan now with some different options that we're starting to look at as far as having an emergency water supply. Currently, we do have a new fire boat that can supply 2000 gallons a minute through the five inch hose that we carry on our fire engines. So we can do that and pump it up the street or we can just have the fire boat fill up our fire engines that have 500 gallon tanks and shuttle water to where the fires are. We also have relationships with the large tug boats. Down by the BO back buildings that can also supply large supplies of water force for our firefighting efforts. But we are putting a new committee together with community members that have interest in this, to look at ways to to fund this project, because to this point now, there still is no grant funding for such a project. So it's based upon the letter to the editor. It was back in 2007 that the fire department established a project team to look at this. And at that time, it's my understanding that there were already pumps installed in San Francisco, Vallejo and Berkeley, and that this team did conclude that it would be important to get these saltwater pumps. Is that correct? That's that's correct. And I still believe that's important to have an emergency water supply. It's a matter of funding. If you'll support it, I'll bring you a proposal tomorrow. Well, so for me, this is important because we are talking about, if I understand correctly, an emergency center here that so that an emergency operations center, so that in case of an emergency, we have a center, we have fire stations. We're being asked to modernize or improve another fire station. But if we don't have an emergency water supply, water supply if we don't have that. I don't know how prepared we are to respond to any emergency. And it sounds like these other cities have dealt with this and they did it prior to 2007, and we have not prioritized it. And we are going through our budget process. And when I look at what we're being asked to approve tonight, I don't think we're being afforded the opportunity to to determine what is the priority. And I think that's what the budget process is for. I'd be happy to bring that. I mean, the vice mayor actually has a we have a parking lot of issues that we're going to be bringing back. We can add that to the list. So I think that's important to add to the list. And also probably in the list that the interim city manager is going to put together, I believe, because Mr. Chief Long and I met with Ken Laban, who is one of the proponents of the water pump idea. I think we learned that the city of Berkeley actually did a ballot measure. They did. And that's and the citizens of Berkeley voted to tax themselves to buy those pumps. Because I'm, as the chief indicated, they are expensive. So if you're going to look into what other cities have done and certainly the way they funded it would be good to know to. No, I agree with you on that. And we've we've looked into various options, whether large cisterns, which are large tanks, could be placed strategically around the city, whether they're under arks. That would be a place where we could draft and supply water to our fire engines. Another possibility is buying large water tankers, which FEMA kind of pointed us in that direction, to look at our rural fire departments that don't have hydrants, how they fight fire, and they use the water tankers generally at least two. So they're shuttling one is at the fire supplying, the other is getting filled up. That would be a start. Because the the above ground system that gets laid on the ground, the large diameter hose in an earthquake or this natural disaster, there may be so much debris in the road that we may not be able to lay that at home and we may need to go zigzag with the tankers to get to where the fires are. But we would like to have in our arsenal different options based on what our our emergency is. So we'll be looking at all those options, finding out what the cost is along with that citizen committee, including Mr. Gottlieb in. So I appreciate that. And then I have my next question is when I look at the funding sources for the EOC and the fire station of the EOC, it's my understanding that the bonds were already refinanced and the sources are this capital project, 400,000 tax of unspent proceeds from that from the bonds 863 and then the refinancing of the cops. And that was EUR 3 million. So I think that that's covered the financing for that. However, the financing for the fire station. It's not covered that will actually go to the general fund and or 20 years as my guest for oh for 20 years. But we're we're being asked to is this correct? We're being asked tonight to approve a 20 year loan that we repay out of our general fund in order to finance the fire station. Actually, that actually has been already approved. That right. And the debt service is in the general fund and it's about $200,000 a year. So the funding sources that were listed in the staff report, a lot of them have been approved. And the two funding sources that we are bringing up tonight, the eye bank loan and the proceeds from tax allocation bonds, the tax obligation bonds were already identified as a source, how they or they haven't been appropriated for the staff to spend. So that's why it's included in the staff report to ask for an actual appropriation in terms of. To continue on that one. What else could those money to be spent on? Um, I believe it's tax allocation. Bonds is from a redevelopment area which is technically gone, which is now a successor agency. So any proceeds from the tax increment or that were. Subject to tax increment. Repayment will have to be approved within the redevelopment area. In that particular case, the fire station is within the redevelopment area and is an appropriate use of the proceeds and it was identified. Correct me if I'm wrong by prior counsel that that is an appropriate use and should be used for that purpose. Is it. For you? Continue on that money is Alameda Point near the Almeda Point Collaborative part of that area. No one else is in that. But is that do you know what that area is? It's the B web. It's the it's the old be web. So it's the old it's essentially the northern waterfront area. By the waterfront. And just for the sake of alphabet soup avoidance, there. Is this waterfront improvement project, right? Water improvement project. Okay. And in regards to the I bank loan on here, it says an estimated additional debt service anticipated not to exceed 300,000 annually or a total of 5.3 million over the 20 year term. Along with there would be savings of 50,000 a year because you wouldn't need to lease the adjacent house. And then but then there's also additional fees of approximately $1,000,000 on this loan. So the I bank loan, which was the cheapest for the city after the city actually contacted its financial advisers to find out what would be an appropriate funding source. With. I think their whole purpose of their program is they issued tax exempt bonds and distributed to other agencies such as Alameda in a smaller dollar amount. So the understanding that we have, as I have, is that we've tried to contact our financial advisors and they looked around to see what is available and what can be used for the city. The cheapest way, in essence, to finance this project. There were a number of things considered or looked at by. They certainly advised that this particular option was the best just because it had a very low interest cost. It's mentioned in the staff report it's 2.29%, but they are also charging certain fees and the fee is one time payment of $30,000 when the financing actually occurs. And then they charge a point 3%, I believe, each year. And it's on the outstanding principal, which totals about $96,000 over 20 years. So there's also an interest cost of 2.29%, which is about $1,000,000. So if you spread it up over 20 years overall, it's fairly cheap way to get financing just because it's was made specifically for that particular purpose. And as a matter of fact, both chiefs, the public works director myself, went to Sacramento when this particular loan was considered by the eye bank board and they won that unanimously approved it, and were very encouraged that Alameda is in essence a perfect example of the use of I bank funding because it was in a small dollar amount. It's in essence cheaper than any other financing that we could have gotten because of the small dollar amount and the period of time that we were looking to finance it over. All right. And that's $250,000 a year for 20 years, which I think is $5 million is what we're talking about when you include your principal. Is that correct? What's the. I thought the debt service was 200,000. It's about 200,000. The additional, I think a roughly 50,000. It also adds the internal loans that the city is looking forward to take from fund building maintenance fund. So that particular dollar amount was actually included in the proposed budget in anticipation that it might be approved. And so then I bank loan will not actually start require a payment until the construction of the building is actually done. So until then, we're going to actually capitalize the interest. When do you anticipate that will be? According to the Public Works director, we believe he believes he should be able to get, once everything is in place, complete the construction within about 12 months period, I think because they tend to be conservative when they provided the estimates expected 12 months plus an additional six months. But that's part of their policy when they did the calculation. And Amir, quickly. Yes. So you quickly reference capitalizing the interest. So we're capitalizing the interest on a loan from ourselves. Correct? No. From the eye bank. Oh, from eBay's bank is capitalizing. Yes. Okay. Sorry. I thought you were specifically referring to my bank rate. And what that refers to is that you don't necessarily have the revenue stream to pay off the debt service. So so the interest that you don't pay its rolled into the principal that's well capitalized. Correct. So in regards to finding which bank to get the loan from. It sounds like we had a consultant. As opposed to just going out and shopping banks and finding that getting offers from banks specifically for this. That's what our that's what our financial advisor does actually does. Do shop. At. Absolutely. It actually, we we got a phone call from former finance director Fred Marsh today saying that we did actually contact at the time Bank of Alameda, which is now Bank of Murrin. So you confirm that? Yep. Okay. Two calls to former employees today. Yeah. Okay. So we don't. So. So. This is not coming through our budget process that we're being asked to approve this prior to looking at our budget. And we do have a multiyear budget that shows the deficit after actually, I think this year these numbers, we have reserves, right? These numbers are already incorporated in the budget because we assumed that the project was we wanted to make sure we have we did this for everything. We wanted to make sure that it was fully loaded. So all these numbers are included in our not only in our two year, but in our five year projections. Okay. So is there a reason why this is not why this isn't coming back at the same time that we're approving our budget? Because I know we do have a park parking lot, if you will, of other things to come from the general fund. And this is asking for money from the general fund. We asked the bid and Bob can talk to this. When we went out to bid, we asked them to hold it for 60 days. That 60 day period ends, I think, at the end of this week. So that's the reason why there is some. And if you recall, when we when we came in, I think it was March, we wanted to go in early spring when the bidding environment was was a good environment. And, you know, in early spring, in the winter, we didn't want to wait until summer. And so that was the reason why that happened. And just to be clear, the the hodgepodge, the big 5000 feet view of this, the reason why we're driven to the hodgepodge nature of of different revenue sources is because years ago, Measure C, I forgot, did not fail. I did not win at it. One that would have been a more seamless way, you know, it would have been so absent that. City Manager Russo, in conjunction with the then City Council, including myself, looked about it because we believe that there was a need for an EOC. So we so we had to put together this hodgepodge of, of various funding sources and these, you know, these are real, real decisions that are being made because certainly, you know, some is coming from somewhere. But that was a council decision that was made in 2014. So, you know, and as the city manager had indicated right now that the budget that's being contemplated now bakes in a cake, these cost considerations. So that's the background. So I appreciate I want to respond to that because I appreciate that and I appreciate you actually reminding me because so I see two things here. I see the EOC and the fire station and I see them that they were put together to bid both to say 500,000 is what it sounds like. And the IOC has its own. When you when we talk about why that's so critical and urgent and all of that, I think that those arguments go to the EOC separate from the fire station. And it and the IOC has these funding sources lined up. The fire station does not. The fire station is the one that requires the 20 year loan from the general fund. So so to me, they are separate. I appreciate that they were put together. It's the fire station that requires the loan from the general fund. Right. Well, we're going to be paying it from the general fund, but not for. The IOC from the general fund, because those cops are general fund funds that are in the general fund. They're paid for the cops, the refunding that we did in 2013, and we withdrew the 3 million for the EOC, that that service is also in the general fund. And I just want to make sure what. So I fear this is different things because we're taking out another. We already have committed to this. The city has already refinanced the cops. That's correct. So that was already done. The city has not committed to this loan because if we don't proceed with the building, then we won't be responsible for paying the loan. That's true, I think. So those are separate issues. Those are separate financial decisions we're being asked to make. And I think that so so when you look at that, when you look at the EOC, though, the city is already committed to those sources from our general fund. We're not asking for new. That's true. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So then when I'm looking. So to me, they are separate. And do we is it appropriate to put Fire Station three ahead of other issues in our budget? At this point? When we do a two year budget, we have been asking our community to come forward and talk about other things and how we're going to build. And I think we actually have a relatively long list. We had initially suggested to our departments to have a one and a half percent reduction across the board. We came back as a council and we said, okay, we're going to try to look at reserves and other sources to avoid that. And we haven't run those numbers yet. There were at APEC in regards to their living conditions and which buildings we can demolish, if any, if there's any moneys we can set aside to improve the conditions there. I think that's one of the things on the parking this I think we actually put quite a few things on the parking list that our community thinks is important. So a concern I have is. Is there a way to go forward with this EOC and hold off on the fire station until we complete our budget process, which is middle of June? I'm not the way that we have it right now. We have because the project was bid with both projects. So we would have to reject all bids and then go back out. Okay. In which case, in regards to the fire station, there was a report in 2009, International City County Management Association Data Assessment, ICM, that suggested closing station three is my understanding on page 43 of this report. Then it also suggests on page 45 that the training center should be adjacent to the administrative headquarters as confirmed. I think the vice mayor's concerns are that was in this report, that report. And then I know and I feel like this has not been discussed where we've actually discussed do we need a fire station three. As regards to looking at these reports. And that report was done in 2009. And then I have another report from 2007, I believe, that says that we need to improve some of our fire stations. And I don't think we've done the analysis. What was the year of that report? This report is 27, I believe, twice city gate associate. And then but then after that 2009, another report was done and. And now it seems like we haven't just we're trying to. I think this decision to go forward with Fire Station three based upon the consultant's reports that fire councils have had. The latest report is that it's not appropriate to questions. It actually says recommend recommends closing station three on page 43 of that report. I appreciate that we have competing reports here, but it's like, okay, so when it's so important by spirit. It gives me a thought on that because you picked a point that I was going to make. One is the cops refinancing. My understanding is if we go back to the people who bought the bonds that can be used for the fire station if they approve it. Is that correct? That's right. And then the second thing is, after I think the council has to consider it's a good point about the ACMA analysis, but what happened in 2012 when the multifamily overlay got laid on the northern waterfront, the number of people who were going to be live that 229 didn't anticipate. If you have 2400 units, which is not even to zoning but it's when our with what's in our land inventory. You could have 6 to 8000 more people living along a place that's true or underutilized. So I'd like us to consider that when we're talking about fire station number three and the future of development on the northern shore of of our city. And I would just also add that I think in the intervening years, we closed a fire station, added Alameda point. And I concur with the vice mayor that we we have more development now in the northern waterfront and we have more property leased out at Alameda point in those businesses and residents too including Alameda Point Co collaborative . What I think I'd be very vulnerable without fire station three. And I want to let police chief. I'm sorry, fire chief respond. Thank you. Okay. You're referring to the ACMA report that was done in 2007. What does that stand for? International City County Management Association. Prior to that, there was a report done by Rayland Research and. Then there was City Gate, which I provided you today. This one. And then there was ICMP. And then there was another report done by trade data. All except the ACMA report were fairly consistent showing that basically what we're doing we have about the correct staffing model which shouldn't be cut. The City Gate report shows that at the time that it was done, we had the five stations fully staffed. They said we could adequately, adequately respond to a fire on the second floor of a structure. And that was really about it recommended that we couldn't go. Any further down without reducing any companies. We've done that by closing station five, so we've gone below their recommendation. The ACMA report was very contrary to any of those other reports that their staffing models said that we should really only have two fire stations for the whole city. Reading through it really didn't make a whole lot of sense. They counted on office staff to jump on the fire engines and. And respond when needed. And it. We found. It just didn't make sense. We didn't see really how it applied to the city. What we found was that. I see Emma was more or less called out across cities across the country, specifically in Michigan and Oklahoma, for basically having a boilerplate template report that they were charging cities for. It came to a head in 2009 in Lake Havasu, Arizona, where. The report that they provided to the council actually still had city of Alameda Fire Department on it. So they. The reports have been very discredited and that kind of goes to show why it really didn't line up with the other reports for staffing in the city. I think I can I can leave it at that for ICM. I appreciate that. So thank you. On the emergency water supply, do we have a commitment from East Bay Med that we will have that working and by 2020? And is that? Is that we will not require any salt water pumps if we have that. If if he's been about replaces those two pipes, he's favored but guarantees me that they should be able to pressurize the island to a sufficient extent for firefighting purposes and potable water purposes. Okay. They have made a verbal commitment to me on that. They will reinforce that commitment in our rescheduled May meeting. Madam Mayor, that you and I have with these families coming up. And does that cover they farm island as well as the main island. Bay Farm Island. It is less of a concern because the pipes are actually coming through. That's not a water crossing. Okay. Again, the water crossings are our our challenges. A bay farm island is a pipe that's typically buried in the earth, actually performs fairly well in an earthquake. Okay. I mean, yes, there's instances. And if there's a fault line, there were a specific grade. But generally, as with tunnels, they tend to move with their earthquake. I'd just like to add that I'd like to see commitments in writing. Excuse me? I'd like to see commitments in writing. Oh, I will definitely get it. Thank you. As a commitment in writing, we are waiting for the mayor and I had a previously scheduled meeting that we had to cancel. And so once we get that meeting with the higher level of respect. That's because of protests in Oakland. Oh, okay. I think isn't easy, but going to do a presentation for the council to. The East Bay. But it's going to be really doing a presentation on the council, I believe the next council meeting June 2nd. 10th and June 10th regarding our water usage and the savings that we've read. Sorry, it is the second one, Laura, saying that it's. Yes. The second staff told me it was the second. So we're approaching 1030. We need a motion to consider the remaining items, which is 60 of PSI, a sum. Of. Four votes. I know. All those in favor. I. I'm going to pose for 4 to 1 motion passes. Um. Okay, so another question I have on the fire station. So we went out there and we visited it. And it's my understanding when the when the firefighters get dressed to come out or something, that there's some reason why you can't get dressed inside on the second floor where the rooms are. And you discuss that. Of research is showing that the turnout gear that we that we wear, the black firefighting outfits, they get contaminated with the products of combustion. When we go into to fires, it actually gets absorbed into the material. And then in farther because of you're sweating the steam, the water that you're around. And when you get back to the firehouse, even after they've been cleaned, they do what they call off gassing, which is toxic gases which have been found to cause cancer. So what we've implemented is that we do not allow wearing of turnouts within the living quarters of the firehouses anymore. So at our other firehouses, the crews wear shorts and when they get a call, they go out to their the fire apparatus and the apparatus from the garage, basically, and their turnout gear is sitting there for them. They change their they step in, they go on the call, they come back, they get out of that gear and it stays outside of the living quarters. The problem with fire station three is we have two separate buildings. They need to leave their living quarters and go to another building to respond. So. Basically, especially at night, they almost need to get up, get dressed, go next door. Get dressed again and we have a delay in response and in inclement weather. That's a problem also. It's an additional delay in response. We're also dealing with the stairs that you saw, which are are kind of an accident waiting to happen. They're steep or they're not level. That firehouse also doesn't have the amenities of of being a fire station. It doesn't have adequate space to for storage of extra ozone equipment, places to to clean, soiled EMS equipment like like water vomit out of suction units. There's other firehouses have. Large things outside of the stations. So that's another delay for Station three, because in order for them to clean their equipment, they need to go out of their district to another station, clean their gear. And while they're doing that. Their district is basically unprotected. Hmm. And the new fire station will address this issue so that the firefighters then that changed in a garage or somewhere where it's not out on the grass or front of the building. They'll just go right from their living quarters out through a door into the apparatus room where their gear and there are engines. So this is an issue for me in that there's a female firefighter there that I understand has to run out, get changed in the front yard and then go to the fire engine. That's correct. That aside, I think it was described. That's that's how she said it when we were there. Well, I don't think she. But she she doesn't she doesn't change in the front yard. But she says she does. You may have spectators. Or boxers. She got. So actually, this is what she described. And this was. Disconcerting to me. And it actually suggests I wonder if there is some possible liability in regards to having our firefighters in the moment, especially going out to the front yard in her boxers to get ready. They're in pretty darn good shape. But isn't this actually an argument for why we need to replace Fire Station three? That's what I am speaking to this. I actually think it's important to share with our community why these? Because this is this is a lot of money. And we've talked about a lot of different things to the EOC. Personally, I can say it's more it's easier for me to support that than a new fire station at this point. I would have preferred having the fire station come to us later when we look at all the other budget things that come from the general fund. But that's not the way it's brought to us. So that's why I brought that up. I think it's important for the community that it's urgent. Any other comments? Madame Mayor, I think there's a recommendation by staff that's before us to move forward with staff recommendation. And I think I heard a desire to report back on the on looking into. The Rockefeller. Rockefeller. Resilience that. He's going and see. And the emergency. Hoses. And emergency water supply. So, Admiral, I think I think the staff has earned a yeoman's job in terms of providing the information. It's been a long time in the making. The public understands what what the situation is. And I think I'm ready to make a decision and I would like to make a move. Staff's recommendation, including the recommendation with regard to Rockefeller grant and the. Emergency water. Emergency water supplies. Supply. Pumps. And I have another question in regards to staffing. Does this preclude the council at some point? Does that impact our staffing levels at all? Not at all. This is just a replacement of an existing facility. Thank you. I'd. Remember Ashcroft. I was just going to say, I think especially Chief Long coming back up and and giving us the explanation. I know you're the fire chief, but it does make me realize that, you know, fires are one emergency that can happen just on their own. But they also happen in the course of something like an explosion or an earthquake. And so I think listening to all of you and Miss Adair, you still hear a really good job explaining the financing aspects of all this. So while I am never I don't spend the city's money easily. But on the other hand. I think it's time for us to get up to date on our safety and emergency preparedness for this city. So I'm willing to a second councilmember designation and then. But the concern about the salt, the emergency water and trying to work with our team, our community members and moving forward with the plan, because I don't think it's appropriate for us to have to not address that issue. Already happening? Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Horn said. I want to make sure. Okay. So out of. You in there. All right. We have a brochure. Do you have a second? Yes, I can. All right. All those in favor. I. I suppose. Most. Motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you. Madam. I request is short. And we will take a short recess. Thank you. And if I had my wallet back. My mother. We are now resuming. And we're on. Thank you. And our last item is remember me on our 6060. That is report on site, a. Joint. Development at Alameda Point. Including presentation on city council approval process, financing plan and fiscal impact analysis. And we're putting up the presentation.