Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) regarding the Construction of a Replacement Seal Haul Out at Alameda Point; and Final Passage of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 60 Year Lease Agreement and Approve a Temporary Right of Entry Permit with Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) for 0.73 Acres of Undeveloped Upland Real Property and 3.4 Acres of Submerged Lands Located along West Hornet and Ferry Point Streets at Alameda Point. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Base Reuse 819099)
lease agreement and approve a temporary right of entry permit with Water Emergency Transportation Authority. 4.73 acres of undeveloped land real property and 3.4 acres of submerged lands located at West Hornet and Ferry Point streets at Alameda .00. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Ninette Mercado in the Community Development Department Base Fees Department. Tonight is the second reading of the six year lease with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority for its maintenance and operation center. And I just wanted to briefly remind you about the project and then go over that, briefly discuss the MRU and then try to address some of the issues that have come up in the last two weeks to help with the discussion. This project, just a reminder of this product is approved. It will mark the first new construction to occur at Alameda Point. The proposed project would provide maintenance services such as fueling engine engine, oil changes, concession supply and light repair work for the Wheaton Ferry boats operating in the central San Francisco Bay. In addition, the proposed project would be. The location for the. Operation activities of Weta, including day to day management and oversight of services, crews and facilities. In the event of a regional disaster. The facility would also function as an emergency operation center, serving passengers and sustaining water transit service for emergency response and recovery. That that project will bring 100 new jobs to Alameda. 50 new jobs to Aida. We will be. Paying a basement of $5,125. Instead of paying the development impact fee, which would be $714,640 for Rita. They instead will construct $2.5 million in infrastructure included in the master infrastructure plan for Alameda Point. A. The final approval of this lease tonight will give way that only the real estate right to develop the property. We will go through the planning board for use permit and project conditions. It currently is scheduled to go to the Planning Board on March 23rd. At that meeting, the planning board will make land. Land use will determine nice conditions related to the hours of operations, truck traffic, building design, etc.. To. Get into the heart of the second reading was conditioned on the city entering into a memorandum of understanding with we to the large. The outstanding issue was the seal. The existing seal haul out which we are, which is in the heart of the wider project development area. And so we had committed verbally to design, construct and fund the seal haul out and the council wanted more teeth to that. And so we went back and negotiated a memorandum of understanding what that what that M.O. you does is it establishes a $100,000 holding fund, which will be earmarked for planning, design and construction of the new seal hall out of the. Parties will meet and confer. To determine a site for the proposed hall out. We will design the hall out and go through the appropriate city approval processes. We will be the lead party responsible for all third party permitting for the new hall out. And we will commence construction of the new hall outside on before August 2016 and prior to the demolition of the existing hall out in connection with the construction of the project. Unless we to has not obtained all the permits issued by governmental agencies other than the city, we shall continue to diligently seek and obtain the third party permits. Upon receipt of all of our third party permits. We shall promptly commence construction of the new steel hall out during the earliest available, applicable environmental work window for construction within San Francisco Bay. That is not less than 90 days after receipt of the third party permit take into consideration the contracting process that we to has to go through. Upon completion of the construction of the new hangout, we have agrees to maintain the structure in good order and repair. If the city determines that we too is unable to commence construction of the new hall out, the city has the right to take over the project and use the site in the holding account so we can self-help if we believe that there is some stalling or anything that's going on. After a meeting on March 3rd. A member of the. Public referred me to a biologist or an expert in the field of harbor seals. I've spoken to Dr. Sara Allen, the Oceans and Coastal Resource Program with the National Park Service. She's not sure that she's going to be able to be a consultant with us on this project, but she has referred us for the names of several of her colleagues. One of the things that she said was. There are many. Biologists who can speak all over this issue. But the most important voice on the issue is the National Marine Fisheries Service, of which we too has had a sign off on the project. She says there are lots there are not a lot of examples of what we're trying to do. And the results tend to be anecdotal, which is why it's really important to have the determination from. The National Marine. Fisheries Services at their biological opinion. She says that their goal is to try to create a resilient ecosystem in the San Francisco Bay Area, considering all the environmental, economic and community concerns. So they're the voice that we can rely on for for making these kinds of decisions. So finally, I want to talk about some of the questions that came up during the last two weeks. And one in particular was about noise. And what I want to say is that when we went through its mitigated negative, negative declaration, it was determined that construction and maintenance dredging would result in a temporary increase in noise, but that noise would not exceed the applicable city noise standards with the exception. And if they were doing dredging after 7 p.m., therefore as part of the mitigation, construction and maintenance dredging will be limited between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturdays when construction noise is exempt from the noise limit. Set the municipal code for Alameda. And with those. With those mitigations, both are considered less. Than significant impacts on the city. There were questions about the public process that we. Went through, and most of the public. Process was part of the permitting in order to move the project along. The only meeting outside of the meeting that we had in March or two weeks ago that they've had in the city of Alameda was in November 2010 meeting where they presented conceptual plans of the project to the planning board. After that meeting, there were several newspaper articles and several blogs that presented information on the project. So there was an opportunity to kind of get the community engaged and or to to notify the community of the upcoming project. Finally, the issue of fueling was asked and. As we mentioned before. We will install aboveground storage tanks and the fuel lines will be underground and run to a pump station at their piers, on their floating piers. These lines will be permitted and built according to state standards, which include. Double walled pipes. So it's added protection. We also. Will have a skiff. Onsite, which will be able to boom and contain any potential spill on the site. They will be required to have an oil spill response plan, which is certified by the Coast Guard. And I thought that it would be for further reference for our council that we will be adjacent to the merit ships, which. Are also fueled above water. A barge brings in the fuel and it's pumped into the ship's mirrored in it. In the case of mirrored, each ship has boomed prior to fueling and the Coast Guard is notified that fueling operations are taking place on site. Marriott also has an oil spill response plan. And we've been extremely fortunate to never have an oil spill in the last 18 years. But I'm going to knock. On wood just in case. And then the other part of that is, fortunately, adjacent to the ships and. Adjacent to the mirrored. Mirrored ship. And to Aida is one of our long term tenants, which is in our environmental services. And you heard two weeks. Ago that they were the ones that were called out for the oil spill in the estuary. They actually played a huge role in protecting our coastline when the ASCO Busan. Had its wreck. So they kind of voluntarily protected the shores of Alameda and received. A proclamation. Several weeks later. So we do have that. Local resource as well. So those are all at Alameda Point. And so that's. Is there another staff member that's going to be presenting at this point and. Are you okay? Yes. We will have a representative from their staff to come and speak. All right, so what council? Do you want to take questions? No, not at this point, yes. Remember I said two quick questions. One, and this is in response to an email that I received today. And I think I know the answer. But just for public clarification, this is the maintenance facility. This is not a ferry terminal. It's not a ferry terminal. Correct. Okay. And then the other question, I think at the previous meeting, I may have attributed some comments to you about the relocation of SEALs to the breakwater. I think those weren't really from you. Okay. So I want to apologize for that. Thank you. That's fine. I swear. Just a question on the of the construction noise you address, but the operating noise, um, I understand that that's part of the planning process where the use permit is discussed. I didn't talk about the operating noise, but that was also included in the mitigated negative declaration. And they they were there was no significant impact on that. I only discuss the two that had the had considered an impact and needed a mitigation but the rest of it now. But those could be a topic at the planning board. Yes. Yes. Permit is discussed. Okay. Thank you. Remember Ashcroft. And with regard to a couple of emails that I also received ahead of the meeting, there was reference made to the fact that at the ferry terminals which indeed use we to vessels parking has been a problem. So two points, if you could clarify for me. We're not talking about parking for ferry passengers at this facility and then I'll just throw out what I know, which is that we the and the city are very actively working on solutions to the ferry, parking at both the Main Street and the Harbor Bay ferry terminals. I know because I've been involved in a couple of meetings and I was also heartened to hear that the Transportation Commission is soon going to consider a range of parking alternatives and solutions for the Harbor Bay Ferry. So even though that's separate in a part, people hear the term, we don't tend to to lump them together. But that's not something that we're considering tonight. But just so the public who's listening knows those issues are not being swept under the carpet, they're being addressed. And questions that any other members have questions. Okay. All right. I had questions. Could you clarify? Is my understanding that to approve the list tonight, it requires four votes from council? That's correct. That is correct. Our city charter requires that for a lease over a year, which this is, it requires four votes of the city council. And within the MRU and regard to the hall out, for instance. When that comes back, it would be mutually agreed upon for council. How many votes for that require? Madam Mayor, the you that is before you. There are actually two separate items, action items before you in this item that we've been talking about together. One is to consider approval of the memorandum of understanding with we have related to the hall out that requires three votes of the city council. The other action item is the second, the final enactment of the ordinance which would approve the lease with Aida. And that requires four votes. And in regard to rent at some date in the future, there appears to be. But is what is determined a mutually agreeable site? Would it require three votes from council to agree or four votes from council to agree? McNamara I'm not sure that that would even come back to council. The idea is that the parties would, through the EMU, there would be agreement as to where the site would be, if there would need to be an amendment to the EMU that would have to come back to council and that would require three votes. But I think the authority is for staffs of both entities to be able to work that out through the process of getting permits from the various agencies. So so then can you clarify? It would not be in regards to when staff works through a process and works through a process and determines what they think is an appropriate place for the hall out. It does not come back to council for agreement or any vote at that time. So it's strictly between reader and staff to determine the what they think is a mutually agreeable location. Primarily. And then, of course, whatever, whatever pruning or whatever. Permitting process. Required, then they would have to agree to it. It would not necessarily have to come back to the council. Would it also involve whatever consultation we did say with the National Marine Fisheries Service? So even though parties, I understand from the lease refers or from the EMU refers to the city and Rita, it would also be their consultants, is that correct? Right. We really I mean. We want to get this right. And so we don't want to just tear down something that serving a population and then and put it just anywhere. So we do want. It kind of. But my question goes to right now, and we heard this on the prior item, we this allows the public to come and weigh in when an item comes before council. And I want to clarify that. If this vote if this lease is approved, then I actually the the NYU does not require four votes. Only requires three. And then from that point forward, if the menu is approved, then the item does not come back to council the public there. Their path of input would be to communicate with staff, but it would not be on an agenda item here. But the determination by council, is that correct? That? That is correct. Okay. And then in regards to these other issues that I appreciate you sharing are not part of the lease. For instance, the the design of the building, for instance, the height. But it looks like that will be determined through the ironing board. And then does that come back to council for approval? It would only come back to council if somebody peel the planning board decision and then at that point, how many votes would require to approve the design of the building? Council acts by three votes unless specifically required by charter to act by four. So it would be three votes. Thank you. And then so in regards to transportation of fuel, since that item is not addressed specifically in the lease, I want to clarify again that that if it ever comes back, it would require about three votes of council, not for it to prove, for instance, any issue regarding storage of the fuel or transportation of the fuel . M.R. Unless there's something in the lease that would have to be amended, unless the lease needs to be amended, that would require four votes. If it is something else, it is part of the menu or part of some other permit or whatever that might have to come back to the council. It would be three votes. All right. Thank you. A member, Daisuke. Just a quick clarifying question to when it comes to a planning board appeal, because that costs a lot of money. Sometimes council members appeal a planning board decision and bring it to city council for four decisions. So if there are concerns at the planning board level about design related issues and a council member could take it upon herself or himself to appeal, it would save money. However, at that point, regardless, it's still three votes as opposed to four. The only time. Correct. All right. Number Ashcraft. And just for clarification, Ms.. Marcano, I think if I recall reading the lease for the last meeting, those items of the fuel storage and and, you know, how the ships are fueled and the protection from spillage and response planning all are all contained in the lease that we voted on. The lease document is talk specifically about the types of the storage units and things like that. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. And and I would just add that I think, you know, these council discussions are very useful for helping to work out the. Kind of going to be clarifying question. Correct. Yeah. So I mean, this is what we're going to continue to do. Well, are you asking the question? It's well, we'll have that opportunity. Remember? I'm sorry. Just one more. Can you tell us what the property's zoned for right now? Excuse me. What's the zoning of the property? Isn't it commercial maritime use? Open space. Open space? It's in the tidelands. So it's maritime open space. So there are limited. But limited uses. Limited uses. And this is one of the they use. Okay. If I could get some clarification from Wheater, if you don't mind. On the seal, haul out. You know for certain you'll have to get a permit from D.C.. I think, Mr. Conley, they'd like you to come up so you can. Speaking to the microphone in. Someone. Thank you. Kevin Connolly, Water Emergency Transportation Authority Planning Manager. The question is from the assistant city manager here. Yes. Okay. I'm going to answer that question right after I answer the first question about the zoning. Enterprise for zoning district requires. That's what it is. It's not open space for zoning. It's enterprising person. You speak in the microphone, please. Utah. Yeah. Can you kind of explain to us what that means. Please? You can ask the plan. I it's not fair to ask him. I think someone from city. State. Yeah. To explain what enterprise zoning means. Yes. Okay. Ms.. Ms.. That possibly. Expert. So there's actually two parts to their project. One of them is in the piers, the piers in the water and some and it's adjacent. It's in an open space district. Adjacent to or used to call. Enterprise Park. There's the fueling station, which. Is an enterprise for. Which is for maritime commercial businesses. And so it's actually within state lands. And so there are a lot of uses that aren't allowed. In that area. But this is exactly the type of use that's consistent with the zoning for the Enterprise for. District on the fueling part of. It. Thank you. I'm sorry, miss. Could you clarify that you were speaking in regards to the fueling station falls within this enterprise zone. And what about the building? And then what about the ferry or the ferries for that? Well, the actual part of the piers are in. The water. And. And the zoning is for the zoning. For the actual buildings when the. Open space district. So the whole thing is in the open space district of the. And an open space includes buildings. Yes. We can and we can. That's what we were just looking at, the zoning map. But the fueling station. Is within the enterprise for. And then in regards to where the ferries will be. What is that? It's how is that treated? It's within the. Water portion of the property. And I'm just I just don't. Know off the top of my head what the property. Is exactly how the water the submerged property is zoned. But I think it will just we'll have to look at that. I just don't know if that got my head. Members. Did you have any other questions? I do. In regards to our attorney or counsel, in regards to enforcement of an MRU versus a lease. What are the differences? For instance, if the if there's an issue with the haul out that's in the mail, you as opposed to having that language in the lease itself. Well, the M.O. you provides, I think as Ms.. Mercado identified and in the M.O., you for the fallout, that the way it is structured is that the widow will have to put $100,000 into an escrow account. And they are committed also to doing various to getting the permits and identifying the site and constructing the hall out and utilizing that $100,000 toward completion of that. And they have to do it on a particular deadline, and they are not to begin construction and pull permits until they have accomplished that. And if the city believes that they have failed to meet those deadlines and they are not adequately and diligently moving forward, the city can go ahead and do what Ms.. Makana calls self-help and go ahead and and complete the project itself and utilize that hundred thousand dollars. So those are fairly substantial ability to to be able to enforce those obligations. The lease itself is a property. Right. And it's, you know, complicated as to what the default provisions would be and the requirements that you have to go through to enforce a lease. But ultimately, you can terminate a lease and, you know, take the property back and pursue whatever remedies there might be at LA Equity pursuant to the lease. So if this if if we do has issues completing the hall out for whatever reason, then the city can do self-help and step up and utilize this $100,000 to complete it. And if it takes more than $100,000, then what does the city do? Well, the MCU doesn't really doesn't have language about if it costs more than $100,000. But what we do know is that we can go. To our. Partner and amend the MCU. I mean, I think that I mean. If we're self helping, that means that they haven't fulfilled their obligation. But I think what they have committed to is help is getting the the hall out there are putting the hall out in place. Okay. And what if there's not a mutually agreeable location for the hall out? Does the project still continue? I think finding a location has to be the first order of business that we need to work on, because in order to design and figure out what it's going to look like, we have to find a location. And one of the. Obstacles that we've. Had or the reason. We don't have one now. Number one is because we. Don't own all the water. The seaplane lagoon is still owned by the Navy. It's not even on our lease. And so we couldn't put something in the seaplane lagoon. So we're just trying to figure out a logical. Location for this whole layout. And and I think. We're going to be. Working with biologists and experts to figure out. What makes. Sense. And if we if it makes sense that it goes into the seaplane lagoon or if it goes under the piers, we've just got to figure out where, what side, what makes sense. I mean, I talked to Dr. Allen today, and one of the things that she talked about is that we need to determine why the SEALs are coming to this location. Are they coming for foraging or are they coming for recreation? And that that actually informs where you going to put your call out? However, it would not be considered a breach of the lease to not complete a bridge to not complete an additional the new hall out. The list does not speak to the hall at the MO you speaks to the hall loud and what we but what the MRU does say is that the only delay that the city will allow them not to build is for the third party, not getting the third party permitting. So everything else, they should be moving on. We should be moving on together. The only the only thing that we're really giving them any kind of a pass for holding up is if they can't get these permits from AC, DC or whomever else needs to weigh in on it. Right. So. But since that's since the fallout is in a separate NYU and not part of the lease, the lease continues. Separate from the more you separate from the hall out to two documents, two different parts of work. That is correct. I don't know if this helps or not, correct me here, but the idea is if potentially you approve both of these documents tonight and for some reason, so the lease goes into effect and Rita has to begin to pay their lease payments and they are expecting to begin doing construction, but they can't begin the construction until they have satisfied the requirements of the EMU and the hall out. So the city will have leased the property, will have a tenant, will be getting rental payments. But frankly, if we do doesn't build this building, we're still going to get lease payments and have a tenant out there. Thank you. All right. We have speakers that. Yes, yes. Oh, and I'm sorry. Rita. Good evening, Mayor Spencer and council members. My name is Nina Rannells and I am the executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. Thank you for hearing our item today. I'm here to thank you for your consideration of the item and your support. We have worked with the city since 2008 on this project. First, in looking at and identifying a site for it and then working through the various planning and development environmental permit consultation processes and in working to secure funds to actually ultimately move to construction. It's been a long conversation and we're really excited to be here today. This represents a significant milestone in the in the process and in delivering this project. It represents a very important part of our operation. It's a key component of our core infrastructure that will support our services that we provide to the city of Alameda and the residents of Alameda and surrounding areas. With your support tonight, we are prepared to move forward quickly on work to establish a new and lasting steel hall out. As outlined in the memo U. We are a proud partner with the city in providing ferry services to this community. And when we transition when the services transition from the city to us in 2012, we've done a significant amount of work since then to secure significant funds, to implement projects, to rehabilitate and improve those services, including adding over $2 million annually in operating dollars to support the system and to provide actually service improvements, as well as about $50 million to support rehabilitating the terminal sites, gangways ramps, bicycle parking, parking lots, as well as more. Most importantly, about $45 million to invest in the four boats that that we inherited two of them money for two of them to undergo mid-life overhauls. And we're in the process of going out to bid to actually build two new boats, to replace boats that have met the end of the end of their useful life. We are your partner. We love providing services to your community. We are committed to the city of Alameda wholeheartedly in what we do every day. And we thank you for your support tonight and look forward to moving forward with this important project. Any questions for to. At this point, council members. Thank you. Right? Right. Then I'm going to proceed with calling the public speakers. I believe this is Captain Ray Shipway and then Mark Klein and then Andrew. And this livecast. Yes. He's in the back. Mayor Council members. My name is Raymond Shipway. I'm the regional representative. California Regional Representative of the International Organization of Master Mason Pilots United Inland Group. I represent 350 members in our specialized fleet, but that big title just means I'm the head of the complaint department. I have several things that I have to do in conjunction with being head of the complaint department. And I. One of the most enjoyable things I got to do was was advocate for the funds from the Federal Transportation Administration. We were able to go two years ago to Washington, D.C., as we do every year for an event called the Sale End, where we actually advocate for items that are necessary for the maritime fleet. And when I go back there, of course, I'm California, born and raised in San Francisco. I did 20 years as a tugboat driver here in San Francisco Bay. That's where the title came from. But the idea that we can go back there and advocate for for big ticket items and shipping and all that sort of stuff is great. But I went down there and became I had to use the term maverick, but I visited our local delegation who were very responsive and very receptive to the idea that we needed to do something for our folks local here. So on behalf of my members and the folks that work for the WTA and and the and the hardworking staff and crew that put together all this program, our hard work in, in getting those original funds and helping out with with this program is a matter of pride for myself. So I thank you for allowing us the opportunity to come before you and speak. We look forward to putting this together and and making a good investment in Alameda and talking to you folks about ferries is is like preaching to the choir. I was here in 1998 when we had a real contentious thing going on between who was going to provide ferry service between blue and gold and Roger Murphy. And if you all remember that, I kind of got myself in the middle of that as a guppy. So, again, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Please, if you have the opportunity to support this, I thank you. Aren't clean. My last council meeting, I spoke and said a verbal promise wasn't enough and we should have something in writing. And you now you have a signed memorandum of understanding. So I thank you for that. And. Few days ago, someone asked me if I could dig up an expert to help plan a seal haul out. And I inquired at the Marine Mammal Center and from an official when he came back with a name. Sarah Ellen. So I hope you can work some something out. And that would. Maybe work. Of course, one should always recognize that when you're working with. Wild animals, nothing ever is guaranteed, but hopefully something can be worked out. Just as a final note. I must say, if I had known about this a few years ago, I would have opposed the present site for this project. The site would be better as a park, and it seems to me that the estuary side, which is more industrial and with its ferries going in and out anyway, would have been a better location. But that I know that train has left the station and that's just my $0.02. So I hope it goes okay and we get a hold out for the SEALs. Thank you. Evening, Madame Mayor. Members of the council. My name's Andy Slick. I'm going to be wearing three hats tonight. First is, I'm a long time resident homeowner of the city of Alameda. I'm also a representative for the Carpenters Union here in Alameda County. And for the sake of time, it's starting to get a little late. I'll be speaking on behalf of the Alameda County Building Trades Council. So I feel and the council and the Carpenters also feel that this is a good project. It's a good example of cooperative labor management in the building of the project. There's going to be a project labor agreement in that. It's always a pleasure to be up here speaking with an agency that values working families, as we do does. And it's a partnership that you as the council, should look at moving forward when you're looking at building out at the base and the commitments to working families and project labor agreements. So this is the type of project that the base needs that Almeida needs to move forward. So I would encourage you to implement police and the right way and move this project forward. Thank you. Michael McDonagh and then Alex Knox. And then Marcel. There is all our. Thank you. Madame Mayor, council staff Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. You know, this sounds like a great project for Alameda. I'm excited that it would be the first breaking of ground at the new Alameda base that we've got out there now. I think it's good for business, too. There's 100 new employees. There is new infrastructure. And the maritime industry is one of the most important industries we have on the island. And I think this is a good extension of that. And so we are all for it at the Chamber of Commerce. Commerce and urge you to approve this lease and the IMO you tonight. Alex Knox. Madam Chair, City Council, City Staff My name is Alex Knox. I'm the director of Community Relations for Richmond Mayor Tom Butt. And I know you have a lot of speakers on this. I don't want to take up a lot of your time, but I am here to support your adopting this lease agreement with Wheeler because I see it as one of the the many exciting opportunities and initiatives where we can see mutual benefit through regional partnership. You know, I know we do spend a lot of a lot of time developing this project with the city of Alameda. And we have also spent a lot of time with we are developing our expanded ferry service in Richmond and. Part of why I'm here today is because in order for us to realize our goal of having very service enrichment, we need this maintenance facility to go forward. If the tables were turned, I think the kind of proposal that that's before we do it today would be something that the city of Richmond would be really excited to. To look at the jobs, the additional emergency preparedness it provides for a transit increase, public access, bay trail upgrades, the sidewalks, lighting and your main street ferry terminal . All all elements that I think are very attractive. In order for us to continue these exciting regional cooperations, we need to we need to be able to take these big steps. And this step will lead to another, which will ultimately lead to another. And in that we can realize a more robust transit network in the Bay Area that serves all the cities and all the residents. And if approved, I would hope that the city council and the city staff will move to. Move this project forward in a expedited manner, because we really do believe that this this could help us all quite a bit. And with that, thank you. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for coming tonight all the way from Richmond. Appreciate it. Marcel. And then Chad, Rick Smalley and then Leslie Cameron. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Preston Dula and I'm speaking on behalf of Marcel. He had to leave early. I'm. I'm a carpenter. And in the union. And my life has been building community improvement projects. I've dedicated my life to that. As well as a long time resident in Alameda. And I'd really like to encourage you guys to promote this project with this project forward. Improve the IMO you and please let's put some residents to work because I'm one of those residents and I really want to support this community and make a better life for my family in this type of projects. That helps me do that. Thank you. Q. Good evening, Madam, or Member City Council and Chadwick Smalley, Capital Projects Manager with the City of Richmond. Just to reiterate an Alex Knox message, we're very excited about this project. We understand it's critical to the expansion of the regional transit system that we have operates and we encourage the City Council to approve the lease and more. You we feel strongly that a 30 minute high quality transit ride from Richmond to San Francisco is a deal changer. I mean, it's it's a big it gets folks off the I-80 corridor, which today is is a mess and it can only get worse from here. And so the regional environmental impacts of this project are significant. The environmental benefits of this project are significantly significant to the city of Richmond and the entire region. So we just want to ask for your support and voice. Thank you. Lastly camera and I'll be Carrie Thompson and then Phil Holt. Hello, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor, council members and staff. My name is Leslie Cameron, and along with my husband Alan Cameron, and my business partners, Bill and Vicki Elliott, we own Bay Shipping Yacht Company, a shipyard here in Alameda celebrating 21 years this April. I also serve on the board of directors for the Alameda Chamber of Commerce and the working water waterfront cohort. There are a lot of exciting things happening in Alameda these days in the maritime industry. A new job, opportunities for our youth, and a maritime focused program starting this fall at the College of Alameda. So we are very excited with the prospects of Aida coming to Alameda with their maintenance facility, along with the new jobs and millions of dollars that they will invest right here in Alameda. We wholeheartedly support and welcome them here. But most of all, I'd like to say to all of all of you that I'm confident with your leadership abilities that you'll come to a collaborative solution which will be good for all, including the harbor seals. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Alameda. So please go for the win win. And welcome, Rita, here. Thank you so much. Good evening, Madam Mayor. City Council members and staff. My name is Carrie Thompson. I am a resident as well as a past president. Of the Chamber of Commerce. And I don't know about you, but I was living here in 1989 in the earthquake. And I really like the idea of having we to here that we would have our own emergency transportation authority here in Alameda. As any of you who were here then do, remember the challenges that it was to get across the bay to San Francisco or to other points. So I do encourage you to approve this project, this MRU. And I also want to remind you that as a business person and we're adding jobs to the local economy. The other thing we're doing is we're we are reducing, hopefully, the traffic congestion that we all are so frustrated at. Going out through the tube, across all the. Bridges, and hopefully we can keep those jobs here in. Alameda. Thank you. They'll. And Irene Dieter and the Richard Banger. Madam Mayor. Council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I urge your strong support for the wider project. Without further encumbering it, I think I. Bring a balanced. Perspective. I've been a member of at least a dozen environmental organizations. I'm a member of the Nature Conservancy. People that know my background would understand when I say that some of my best friends are or were seals. Seriously, though, I do have a special affinity for marine life in general. But also found several businesses, one of which was a commercial diving contracting business. I've been involved in shoreline projects like shipping terminals and docks and bridges, etc., from Alaska to New Zealand. And I'm always concerned with trying to minimize negative environmental impacts from these projects and always looking for effective ways to mitigate. And there are always pros and cons to all of these projects. I think the positives, positive benefits of the wider project far outweigh the negatives and the fact that Rita is willing to spend $100,000 for a new seal hauled out. Is more than adequate mitigation for that impact. I urge you to move this project forward and not impose requirements or with further delay it or otherwise further impede its progress. And I just want to end with thanking you all for your service to the city. I know it's a tough job. Hello, Mayor and council members. First of all, I'd like to thank you so much for actually having the contract in place with WADA. Thanks to Vice Mayor Materazzi for leading the charge on that that we have something in writing. It's definitely a reassurance. And tonight I'm speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, who has a few concerns with the EMU that we're hoping that you really look at closely before moving it forward. And mainly there are two clauses in there that kind of contradict each other. Section 2.4 says that Waitomo will demolish. Excuse me. It says that prior to. Demolishing the harbor seal haul out that they will try to build a new one unless way to have not obtained a permit. So that means that. The hall out may get demolished before the fields have a new home. To take that into consideration, please. But what contradicts what's puzzling is in the city right to construct number 3.1. It says that if Wadah is unable to. The inability of waited to to commence construction is solely due to the inability to obtain permits. Then the city will take over the project. Well, if wait a can't get the permits, why will the city be able to get the permits? Why would the city ever want to take that? In my misreading that or something, Marilyn saying no, but that's what it looks like. It says solely due to the inability of wader to obtain all permits. Then the city will take it over. So please. Between number 2.4 and 3.1. If you could look at that, it seems like the 3.1 doesn't need to be there in back to the site selection. It says that the parties shall meet and select a location, a mutually agreed location. And tonight, we've heard that the National Marine Fisheries Service will be the guiding light to that. Unfortunately, sometimes our regulatory agencies also missed the boat. They are the ones who said that the SEALs could haul out on the Rocky breakwater, too, which is doesn't make any sense. They did not do their due diligence in their last paperwork, and many wildlife experts know that. So with that, I'm hoping that the site selection, the tiebreaker to that is the city council itself and that the public actually can weigh in on the site location. Thank you very much. Richard Banger and then Rachel Campos and Travis Wilson. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the city council and city staff and to the waiter staff that are here tonight. When I first started following this project a good four years ago, I after wasn't long and I started wondering if it was ever going to happen. But here we are. And after a number of years, I started taking an interest in the harbor seals, and I realized that their their presence there wasn't just an anomaly. Turns out they aren't there year round. So if you go there in October, let's say, or even September, you might only find one or two. But it became apparent to me that it was a regular hall out site. And in fact, last year there was a harbor seal pup that was born there and we found there. So I'm glad that this memorandum of understanding has been finalized. Could there be some improvements in the language? I suppose so. But I think at this point there's a public perception that. A whole lot will be built that is so strong that. Failing to execute is not an option anymore. I think it will happen as far as consulting with different agencies. I mean, it's already been pointed out by Mr. McConnell that there's only anecdotal evidence on constructing a fallout for Pearl Harbor SEALs. So I would just caution against studying this to death. I mean, you know, you could mimic what's already out there, only make it build it to last 30 years, you know, couple of beams and and something that looks more or less like what's out there now and pull it out and anchor it and the SEALs will make their way up onto it. So I would I would caution against studying it to death as far as where it goes. You're you're pretty well constrained by the traffic, the Marine traffic lanes. And so, I mean, obviously, you're not going to put it out in the. Barry Lane. There's a limited number of places you can put it, and I can I can point to where the limited spaces are that you could put it. And one last thing. I, I don't want to. Be managing this, the staff's discussions with Wadah. But I do think it would be important if if you gave direction to the city manager to bring back some sort of report in a couple of months so that at least the community felt engaged in the process. So I don't have a specific proposal, but I would like to have it brought back at some point in the next couple of months and touch base with the public. Thank you. You mean Mayor Spencer and members of the City Council? My name is Rachel Campos de Ivanov, and I am the Alameda resident. I'm also a huge supporter of the ferry, improving our public transportation infrastructure. And I absolutely love that there are going to be some new union jobs that are out there. But I also really appreciated that you guys on the city council have listened to the public protests and have ensured that there is language that will ensure that we are getting the call out, that we have been jumping up and down and trying to fight for. I completely agree with Irene Dieter and Richard Bangert that there could be some improvements to the language. But I also appreciate that Mr. Mackinaw has, you know, is also listening to the public and is taking action to make sure that those concerns are being heeded. But I also would encourage you guys on the city council to please remain vigilant and provide, you know, accountability that this is constructed within Alameda and that the public is brought back into the process because there are some sensitivities around this particular project and feeling as if it has sort of come in under the radar. And we haven't had the opportunity to have our voice heard until it's a little bit too late. So I would please recommend that that the public, as you know, continue to be a part of the process through the planning board meetings as well as, you know, with the building out of this all out. So thank you. Thank you. Hi. You might remember I was here a couple of weeks ago in support of this project, and I have changed my mind to. We don't know enough. I know. I know you don't like delays, but that's why we do second readings, right? We might change our minds. Let's pretend. Hear me out on this. Let's pretend I have a measure of public sentiment right here. And it says that Alameda in general, we've done the survey. We figured it out. Alameda think that that piece of coastline down to internal high is, in fact, a natural area worth preserving. It's blank, but we'll pretend. And if you have that, you know, if it's true, then as stewards of our city property, you can't really you can't really approve this. Right? That that piece of property is then worth more than the rent and the commerce we're going to get from it. And you are you are risking it by leasing it. The whole thing we know, as Sara Ellen will tell you, you you can't just take little pieces out of an ecosystem. You're going to threaten the whole thing. It's fun to talk about a seal haul out and and draft language about it. It's something that we can control. We can control that hall out. Right. We have no idea what's going to happen naturally to the nature. I didn't hear any CEOs come here and testify a couple of weeks ago. Right. I mean, the fact is, we don't know. So so we can risk that piece of land or not. And the question then, I think really is, does the public think that that piece of coastline is worth preserving? And we don't know. And it bugs me that we don't know. It bugs me that that we don't have a better way to ask the public that direct question. Right. It's not like it's not the same thing to have hearings in San Francisco and count the number of people who don't show up. That's not the same thing as asking them, do you want to preserve this piece of coastline? And I know that Mr. De Saag, you are so. I feel it. I am also so sensitive. About the number of times you're asked to delay. It happens all the time. This has been going on for a long time and a lot of people have done a lot of work. And I want to know why no one has asked the public this question. I could have been on a ballot by now. I would like to delay until we ask those questions. If not, you're going to guess right. And if you do believe that. People don't value that piece of coastline, then yes, you should leverage that piece of land. And if you believe they do. You have to not do this. And if you don't feel confident in your guess. Please do something tonight that can be reversed later. Thank you. Bobby Winston and then Terrace Hall. And those are our last two speakers. If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip. And a mayor. I'm Bobby Winston. I am the owner of Bay Crossings. I have been involved with Wheatus since the very beginning and Alameda resident and I am just delighted that the prospect of this maintenance facility being here in Alameda, it's a boon for the region. It's a boon for our community. I think you should know that one of the things that figures to be involved with is a thing called the working waterfront cohort, which has been created with the College of Alameda that seeks to do something about the terrible lack of vocational education. This project will be an important part of that. I honor the environmental concerns. I sincerely do. But the bottom line is this is a boon for this community, and it should be welcomed with open arms. So thank you. Grace Hall and then that choose our last speaker unless there's any more slips. Hey. Good evening. Madam Mayor and City Council. And I appreciate all of the work you've done on this project, and I'm really in favor of the project, so please understand that right off the bat, one of my. Concerns is that I am a multi-generational alum. Maiden, and I haven't. Been brought up to speed on this. Uh, on this project. The first I heard about it was at the end of last year, and then all of a sudden it was located down next to the Hornet. That aside, my concern in reading through the piece is, is that it does seem that you fixed the four stories in the lease agreement. That seems to me that it's bypassing our our. Planning board process. So that was. One of my first concerns. And if it's part of the lease agreement and. The city does citizens of. Alameda decide we do not want a four story building there? Because if you take a look at the rendering, it appears that most of the other buildings in the vicinity are two and 2 to 3 story. And I wasn't even. Aware of the continued, you know, our plans. In the future of maintaining all of the maritime activity out there. So that was one. I'm concerned about the planning board process and if we don't meet the four story requirement that we'd be in breach of half of the lease. Another thing I noticed in the lease was the hazmat tanks and that the the safety measures around. The. For the fuel tanks. The only stipulation we have is for a double walled tank. Any of the other safety requirements and measures I guess are up to WHITTA and the sole responsibility of the tenant. So that was a concern. And then. Lastly and of course very, very. Important to me is the whole seal all out. I am a birder and am just so excited about, you know, our. Bird sanctuary. And maintaining the beauty of our coastline through Alameda. It's been it's been a big part of my life since I've been very, very young. So I'd just like to know, is there a measure for a metric for measuring the success of this hall out? We keep talking about this new location, but I think someone mentioned it is what is the metric for success here? Is somebody to talk to the SEALs? Are we going to measure it across one season? Is it, you know? So that was a big question. How are we measuring that success? Um. I think that was it. And thank you for listening. Thank you. There being no further comment slips. We'll begin with member comments. Member Ashcroft. May I? Thank you, Mary Spencer. Thank you to everybody who stayed to help inform this discussion. As I sit in, listened to all the comments, first of all, I do think this has been a very collaborative process. And you can see that the council and the staff listened to suggestions about the SEAL fall out. And kudos to Ida for coming up with an MRU that addresses that, not only in my view, but hundred thousand dollars for that effort. What I'm trying to look at is the big picture taking into consideration all of the efforts to bring funding into our city for this project. And it's something that we as a council struggle with all the time. Our budget we're going to be you'll see in the next couple of minutes we're going to be doing budget hearings. There's never enough money for all that we want to do. For years, we've struggled with the former Naval Air Station, closed in 1996. It's 2015. We have some very robust leases, thanks in large part to Mr. and Mrs. Marcano, who helped measure help manage those efforts. But we really should be excited about the efforts to bring funding, federal and state funding to our island for this project that is serving water transit. We are an island. We say that all the time. We're an island. One of the ways that we'll get people on and off the island and not make them go through the tube over a bridge. I'm an island to an already crowded freeway is by water transit. And we want to we need to support that. It's how a growing community that is an island we're reminded of that all the time is going to grow both in an environmentally and community friendly way. And then there's the added benefit of the emergency operations center, the water based emergency operations center that will service in the event that our roadways, bridges, the tube are somehow impacted or impaired in an event like an earthquake and creating maritime jobs. You know, it is a struggle. We never I think we never win this struggle of trying to keep our public informed of all that is going on. But ever since we began talking about the redevelopment of the Naval Air Station, we have talked about preserving its maritime character. We and only a number of other communities, I mean, Oakland and Richmond certainly and in parts of San Francisco have a working waterfront and bay shipyard. I don't know if people really understand if you know, we're the main street ferry terminal is you see their big structure but I went to the opening ceremony when they they introduced this working waterfront cohort in conjunction in partnership with the College of Alameda. But let me tell you a little bit more about the people who are going to be getting jobs as a result of this program. These are the formerly homeless near and dear to my heart. Some of you know, I'm a former probation officer are people who've had a criminal past. But, you know, they're they're out now, but they're looking for a job. As the district attorney of Alameda, Nancy O'Malley, district attorney of Alameda County, happens to be an Alameda resident. She was at that ceremony because she is one who knows that if you don't find people who are down on their luck, who've had brushes with the law jobs or the the formerly homeless are on the verge of being homeless jobs. They're going to get into trouble. They're going to burden the system in so many other ways. But right here in Alameda, in partnership with Bay Shipyard in the College of Alameda, we are doing something about it. We should all be proud of that effort. I'm as concerned about the environment as the next person, and I do appreciate that we have the birders and the SEAL watchers and all of you, and I wish I had more time to be out there, but but I will get out and see them. But bear in mind that one of the things this project is helping pay for is the continuation and the realignment of the Bay Trail around that area and a park. So we'll get people out in a much nicer environment to get out and watch and just recreate in in a park. And I think that we as a council always need to take into consideration all the different competing efforts, interests and weigh the balance and come out with the best possible project. And I, I think that we've worked long and hard on this one. I'm very excited to see this facility come to Alameda. And I appreciate staff and we time in coming to what I think are two excellent agreements that I'm prepared to support. Thank you, Mayor. Any other member comments? Member, Brody. Go for it. Okay. I'll try to be brief. So. Just the takeaways for me on this. This is an exciting project that kind of helps us take advantage of our situation as an island. We can. Also respect our heritage as a maritime center with having a maritime industry here. That's what the properties designated for commercial maritime use. It's perfect use of the property. I'm excited about the jobs. The project labor agreement is also very important to me and I do want to thank Richard and Irene for I know last week, you know, I did the balancing test and I came out with a different balancing test than you did. But I want to thank you for your perseverance on this and making sure that we we have an agreement, we have a written agreement, and we don't have to trust somebody's word. And I appreciate that. And I'm glad that we found a way that we can have a win win. Minute. Vice Mayor. Thank you. I think the MCU is good because it puts what was a verbal agreement in writing. It also provides both staff of Weeden and Alameda with the guidelines to go forward. And I owe your attention to 4.1, which talks about. Time is of the essence for the lease. And I think Mr. Mercado hit the nail on the head that time is of the essence in selecting the site, and I would like to have that reported back to the council and not take a couple of months. Use every effort to bring it forward with consultation with the biologists as soon as possible and then as far as the list goes on. It is a judgment of this council based on all as a representative body, based on all the interests that we have for preserving the community and the ecosystem with our best efforts on the float. But we're also bringing jobs to me to point, which is a key priority for me. I think it's a key priority for the city, its first $50 million project, which most of that is a cost of building it. Most of that is labor that goes into it. It pays people jobs, pays people who are working two jobs that allow them to live in the Bay Area. 10,100 new jobs, $2 million worth of infrastructure, housing, parkland, a new water main and Bay Trail realignment. So I'm properly prepared to support both going forward tonight. Again, with time is of the essence as far as getting the provisions of the memo you met. Everyday. Thank you. Thank you very much to the members of the public who came out not just tonight but two weeks ago on this matter. This is an important matter, given the magnitude of the jobs and the, uh, just the way that it's positioning Alameda in terms of the regional transit network. It's also important in terms of how we move forward with Alameda Point, not just in terms of affecting the built environment, but also making sure to treat the natural environment correctly. And that natural environment does include wildlife, not just on the old runway, but also in the waters in and around Alameda Point. So we understand the magnitude of this project. Because as a council, you know, we deal with a lot of issues that come before us, not just here in Alameda Point, but throughout the city. And as each and every issue comes before us, city council in conjunction with staff and in conjunction with all the previous commissions and boards . What we are tasked to do, among other things, is to evaluate what threats and risks arise when projects come as well as, you know, what are the opportunities. We have to evaluate the threats and risks thoroughly. And we also have to come up with the right and the best mitigations to threats to the environment if and as they arise. So the question then is, has the city council and has the process leading up to tonight as each of the members exercised basically the term of due diligence? And is there a framework in place, i.e., the lease agreement, as well as a memorandum of agreement, to move forward and to embrace the opportunities that arise, but also protect us against threats and risks should they arise. I think the city staff has put together a proposal that all of us in Alameda should embrace. It is something that moves us forward, not just economically but also environmentally. And I just want to make sure, to reiterate one point that I said last at the last meeting. What I said then was that, you know, this is a city staff and this is a city council that's willing to listen and modify accordingly. And we work well together at within. On this day as as well as we work well with the community, we're not here to just shove things down the throats of people. You know, we're here to get the work of the public done to move us forward as a community. Not just having blinders that just look at jobs and and our economy, as important as that is. But also, we look at the natural environment, do what we can to protect it. So as I indicated as well at the last meeting, okay, if we need to improve how we're going to deal with the harbor seals, then then let us do so. And we've done that. And it's important for me to mention this because I got to say, I mean, we three of us on council here. Council member Odie. Council member as he Ashcraft and myself. I mean, we get really castigated in the press. I mean, the way in which we got castigated in the press, basically calling us people who don't care about the harbor seals. It was incredible. I've never seen something like that. And I've been on the council for a long time. I got to tell you, I've. The way in which we are castigate in the press. It was very, very. Not very happy. But, you know, there are times when, you know, you get good news in the press. So, you know, as council members, you know, you have to balance it. But you've got to understand, members here in the public as well as those watching in the in the in the through the Internet or on television. Now, this is a council and this is a staff that's doing its level best. And we're always open to modifying things, but we're going to move forward. And, you know, if there are questions that people think that there are unknowns, I think that that's a valid question. But I think that question has to be balanced against, well, was there a framework in place that treat unknowns right now as well as treat whatever might happen down the down the path? And I think we do have a framework in place. I think I've read the lease statement, I've read the environmental sections, which is section 12 of the lease. You know what? Can't can unfortunate things happen like in the oil spill. It could happen. Unfortunately, we live in a life where there are threats and risks and threats. But the question is, as a council, have we done our due diligence to be able to deal with those as they arise? I mean, think about it. We're building a new gas station right outside of the Webster Tube coming into town. Now, this is I mean, think about what that means. Think about that. Even setting aside the fact that we're building a gas station, that we have gas stations in town, all cities. Of risks and threats. The question is not simply do we do nothing because there are risks and threats. The question, the real question, I think is are we putting in place the right processes to deal with those as they are as they arise? But at the same time, embracing what opportunities there are with regard to improving our environment or improving. Our our economy. And I think we struck that balance. I want to thank, you know, wheater for making the investment in in the city of Alameda. I want to thank the representatives from Richmond for taking the time to coming out here. But know that we had a facility will be built in Alameda. And I want to end it by this way. I really thought that what Leslie Cameron, owner of Bay Shipping Yard, said was not only great, but I think that alliteration was great when she said win, win and welcome Wieder. Indeed, I think that's what tonight is about. Win, win and welcoming Guido. So I, i to appreciate the project and the work that's been done to date. However, when I heard at the beginning of this meeting that this issue, that the last public meeting prior to the last council meeting was way back in November 2010. And that was the planning board meeting that there have been no meetings actually reaching out to our community, showing them what we're talking about. We have a project going on right now, a site A, and Joe Ernst has been going around this community with drawings, reaching out multiple places. We haven't had that here. And I agree with the speaker in regards to. Our ecosystem there, the natural area that we haven't heard really from the community. And I appreciate that we have had representations or speakers on behalf of the unions and we leader coming out here and encouraging. And the jobs. But I my concern is that we haven't done our due diligence in regards to reaching out to Alamitos when meetings take place in San Francisco held by WETA. They're not advertised here. I personally am very active in our community, as I know many of our speakers that came tonight who honestly did not know and do not know very much about this. And they have questions and I think they have a right to have their questions answered prior to the approval. That doesn't mean that it would have to. It would it would create a delay for the project. It doesn't mean that after by giving the community an opportunity to weigh in on a project and have meaningful discussions with our community, it doesn't mean that we'd end up necessarily at a different place. It means that our community has an opportunity to hear answers to their questions and concerns. We had a speaker that brought up that the site would be better for a park, that they would have preferred this to go to the estuary. I think the public has a right to know why. Why that location? In regards to the MRU for the SEALs, I have concerns in regards to the location. I'm not sure that it is as simple as just being suggested that you can just build another hall out and the seals will go there, that they'll return. And I also don't know. I think the SEALs are actually the surface of the ecosystem there. And when we have 12 ferries coming in every evening, making noise, being refueled, leaving in the morning, what impact does that have on the habitat? And not just the SEALs, but everything else that's there. I don't think that's been addressed. And we did have a speaker at the prior council meeting speak to protecting concerns about the campground. She had thought about that. We would have that campground as an option in the future. Well, we may have the campground, but it's going to have. 12 ferries coming in every evening and leaving in the morning and who knows what else. Damage to the ecosystem and and and I don't think it's appropriate to have one standard for Joe Ernst to to go around and communicate with the public. And a completely different standard as in the last prior meeting was November 2010. Here we are or a year later. Being asked to approve a project with no other meetings with our community. I think it's a serious problem. I think that we can do better and unfortunately we have. This is city land, by the way. We have very little city land. When a private developer owns land. We we have less input on what will happen there than when it's Alameda land. This is Alameda Ann's land. This is not council's land. This is not Wieters land. They don't own the land. This is the city of Alameda, this land. And that to me is a serious difference. Then I think it's even more incumbent upon council and staff to engage the community in this decision. And so the other issues that were raised in regards to the fuel tanks, the height of the building, the success of the sale out of the hall, out, how will that all be measured? I think those are all questions that the public deserves answers to before the lease is approved. After that, it will be too late, as it was already explained to us earlier. Thank you. We have a motion. I will move. Man City Council. We need to do it. And we should do them separately. And you should do the M.O.. You first. Okay. All right. So I will move that council, authorize the city manager to execute a memorandum of understanding between the city of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority regarding the construction of a replacement seal haul out at Alameda Point. Second. All those in favor on. This. Issue. As well. You had your hand up. Yes. I have a friendly amendment, if you would consider it that. A staff brings through the city manager a report on the status of site location. In in a timely fashion so that we have a ability to track the progress. And if it gets out of hand, we know sooner rather than later. And I would actually say that I don't think that that needs to be an amendment to the memorandum of understanding is in that direction that we give to. That is where. We also give staff direction. Okay. That we can do that. Okay. And that we in addition to authorizing city manager to execute the reference memorandum of understanding, we also give staff direction as to what he said. Report out. May I ask what the maker of the motion. We don't have any. I'm the maker of the machine. I'm sorry. Then the amendment person who made the initial proposal regarding time the proposed amendment. Like to be sure that staff has clear direction on a monthly basis. On a monthly basis. I would ask that you not do that. I would ask that you look more at a bi monthly basis. We already have monthly reports on side. We have the budget coming up. The staff is overwhelmed right now with the reports and we just agree to come every two months with this. And I actually think there was a speaker who suggested that very thing every two months. So would you? Well, we only have so many people on staff. Understood. Thank you. Okay. And I know our brilliant city clerk got that all down. Right. Okay. Another comment. There's a second. Russians point. All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose. Madam Mayor. Oh, you know, I'll make a motion that we accept the recommendation and direct the city manager to execute the lease. I think it's actually final passage of the ordinance with the second reading. I'll second the vice mayor's motion. You're not going to make him read the whole thing, are you? No. It's fine that you're enacting the ordinance. It's fine. Thank you. All those in favor. I those I oppose. The mission. Pass. Motion passes. Two one. Then 60 introduction of ordinance, approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of 24 month lease with Advanced Roofing Services. California Corporation for Building 612, located at 1450 Viking Street at Alameda Point.