Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or His Designee to Execute an Amendment to the Lease with Pacific Shops, Inc. for the Tidelands Property Located along Clement Street between Alameda Marina Drive and Willow Street, Generally Known as Alameda Marina.  (Community Development 216)
Okay, this one is six. The introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager or designee to execute an amendment to the lease with Pacific shops for the Tidelands property located along Clement Street between Alameda Marine Drive and Willow Street, generally known as Alameda Marina. Deja vu all over again. I got a. Groundhog's. Day. Yeah, right. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Nanette Mchunu in the Community Development Department. So in May of 2012, the city entered into a lease with Pacific. Shops. And the structure of the lease was for 66 years total. The first portion was a 25 year option and with three conditions precedent. One satisfied the the tenant would be able to exercise its option for 41 years and thus have the total 66 year lease. The three conditions precedent of the three that applicant has satisfied. Two. The third one has not been satisfied from. No. No. Not because of them, but because of extraneous circumstances with outside agencies. The tenant and the lease provides that if they do not meet the the the conditions precedent that the lease would automatically terminate. Instead, the tenant has asked that we would give them an extension to meet as a third condition. And and we have tonight the staff is recommending that you do give them a one year option, an extension with a six month extension administratively offered. If they if they're still holed up from the outside agencies, if the city manager could offer them for a total of an 18 month extension. And and then if if in that 18 months, they do not meet those the three conditions or that third condition, the lease again could automatically terminate in exchange for the extension. The amendment to the lease staff has negotiated a few things. One is related to the Boatyard Project and there has been a lot of work done on the boatyard and RFP and interviews with with boatyard operators and under the direction of the council. We've said try again, try again, harder. And working with our planning department, there will be another RFP process with a third party managing it and try it with a goal of getting a great boatyard operator in place. So that was a negotiated as and in exchange for the the extension of the amendment. The other thing that we negotiated was related to compliance with our Climate Action and resiliency plan. We are requiring the tenant to to to offer charging stations in in the public lot. And in addition, they will not have gas gas appliances in in their in their residences. There will be some ancillary gas activities or options related in the residential, but it won't be inside of the units. We think that this is a good exchange for the extension, this 18 month extension, and we hope that you'll consider it tonight. The one thing that I would like to call your attention to is there the agreement and the staff report and audience were not in agreement, and we noticed it this morning. And so the agreement refers to a two year extension and council gave staff the direction for one year with that six month option. It has been we've edited it and there are copies outside for people. The second reading will include the revised version, but the version will reflect what the staff report is recommending. Okay. So just read us the correct language. Sure. It's okay. It's in section 23.4 is hereby added to the lease as follows Land Use Entitlements Tenant hereby covenants to obtain all other permits, approvals and land use entitlements required by all governmental agencies exercising jurisdiction over the development project collectively regulatory permits on or before the end of this year. Nine. Formally it said ten for avoidance of for avoidance of doubt and end of leave. Year nine is December 31st, 2020, the regulatory permits deadline. If tenant fails to obtain the regulatory permits by the end of year lease year nine, subject to any extension of tenants performance due to a period of delay caused by force majeure event as provided in section 2521. Landlord should have the right to revoke tenant's option notice by providing written notice to the tenant, and this lease shall expire on the expiration of the initial term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, tenant may request in writing from landlord a six month extension of the regulatory permits deadline, which may be granted by landlord in the sole discretion of the city manager. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Okay. So, counsel, any questions about the staff report? Yeah. Question Councilmember de SAC. Is it correct that at some point in time, Bishop in York was interested as being the operator of that ship area, but they just couldn't come to reach some kind of a negotiated discussion, negotiation with Pacific shops. So Bishop China bought us a portion of the Swenson's operations, which included the boatyard, but they decided to to combine the boatyard operations with their Richmond boatyard because they felt that the space at the Swenson's location was small and not viable for what they wanted to do. And and I can provide you with a letter from Allen Cameron where he talks about the fact that there's diminishing shipyards and that there was it was a better option for them to combine with their with their operations in Richmond. So that I mean, I had seen your question earlier from later today. But that's exactly that's what happened. So they should have not considered it, but instead they combined it and they moved some of the operations of suspensions to their main street operations. But the the sentiment of the correspondence from patient and that was that there is a diminishing number of boatyards in the in the region. And it's better to have a larger space because there's a lot of environmental concerns with boatyards and things. And it could be better served in a larger a larger space with more units or more occupants within. And so that was their decision. Okay. So what was conveyed to me was that there was some difficulty in in the discussions. Negotiations, I don't know what between bishop in yachts and Pacific Marine's and as a result that's why bay shipping out left for Richmond. So it was more they were discouraged away. So what? So what I can tell you is this I actually wasn't too much involved in the whole boatyard discussion. However, when Alan Cameron was writing the correspondence to the city, he actually called me and he said, You know, we really feel like it's better that we do this set up where we move our operations to Richmond. But I don't want to cause any waves with anybody. What do you think I should do? And I recommended it. He tell his truth to the council because we're not experts in boatyard operations. So just tell us what the real story is. And so that is what his email and correspondence says, is that, you know, they thought about it. They thought it was best to combine their operations with their Richmond operations. I actually have a copy of that correspondence with me right now, if you'd like to see it. I think I have five so I can give it to the council to look at. But that's what happened. And was that correspondence sent this afternoon? No, no. It was a long time ago. It was. And it was real time when that was happening. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Miss Mchunu before we hear speakers? Councilor Rody, just briefly. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So we're kind of doing a do over on the, um, on the on the boatyard, right? As I understand. It, we're going to do a do over and hopefully we'll get an operator available. Operator. If they, if that's not possible, then they're going to look to the, the, the plan the and go back to the planning board, I believe, and figure out what their other options could be for the use of that area. But our planning staff and our our planning department will be working on trying to. So hopefully the effort will be stronger than the effort that was last year. I would. I would think and I know. Your offense, the developer. Right. I believe that the staff we. We're involved a little bit in that process. I attended a focus a little a couple of meetings to talk about boatyards, because we do have experience of having a boatyard as a tenant before you all remember Nelson Marine, which cost the city over $1,000,000 to clean up. And so we don't want that to happen to us again. And so we were we we talked a lot about that. Okay. Thank you. Um. Did I see your hand? No optical illusions. Okay, so then. What? I have another question from Councilmember De. So why don't you give Ms.. Marcano just a moment to get back to the podium? Now there's. From the outset, there's always been community concerns of preserving maritime industry in the area. And I think the way that this whole process has unfolded, I think there has been an effort by the owners to do just that. But at the same time, there's some concern that from what I'm hearing and my talks with residents, there are some concerns that that we still might be at risk of losing maritime businesses, especially if two things occur or don't occur. One is that we make a concerted effort, particularly with regard to Building 19, I think, where Dore was making a concerted effort to attract some of the maritime businesses that are there right now but located elsewhere and potentially have them locate relocate to Building 19. So the thought that I want to kind of raise is, you know, what what consideration has been given to prioritizing Building 19 for commercial uses generally, but prioritizing the redevelopment of that ahead of of other parts because there are certainly some parts of the of this project where, you know, they were apartments want to be built, but there's also building 19. So what consideration has been given to prioritizing, you know, commercial development? Ahead of you residential development. So I'm just I'm going to answer part of this, but then I might turn I might turn over to the planning director, Andrew Thomas, a little bit of this. But what I can assure you that if a property is in our tidelands, it must be a maritime use. And so you always have that guarantee that on the land that is ours, you will have a maritime use. But as you. Know, the commercial. Will have to have a. To be maritime first. It's Highland. So, I mean, you could do a short term, less than five year nonconforming use. But that's I mean, you have to I mean, that has to be maritime use. So you will be guaranteed that. So related to the the the parcels that are not ours that are on feet title of the of the tenant. Andrew Thomas Guinness. Wanted to make it worth your while to be here. Oh, it's been fascinating. Oh, I hope. Yeah. The the entire commercial core, which includes Building 19, the entire commercial area on the land portion is in phase one of the project and the master plan has phasing requirements. You can't move to phase two to finish phase one. So that was our way back a year ago when we got down to the master plan to make sure that the commercial portion of the project got built early. I think right now and for the next couple of years is going to be the toughest time for the commercial because from a development perspective, you know, they're putting in all new infrastructure for not just the housing, but also for the commercial core. So there's this going to be this tough transition period where existing businesses in older buildings are going to have to move out. The good news is we're so that they can take those buildings down, put in new infrastructure. The good news is the main building, Building 19 is in the commercial core. The commercial core is as part of phase one and approximately half of Building 19 is in the Tidelands property that that that was talking about. And a good portion of the commercial core as well is in the, you know, overlaps the Tidelands property. So we think there is a future for maritime uses at Alameda Marina. Obviously, the 530 boat slips are not going anywhere. I think we all believe there will always be some boat services, you know, rigging services, navigation services, people around who can help work on your boat. The key issue with the boatyard, that is still the question that's still sort of out for discussion. Is there is there an operator who wants to come in and who can run a profitable business for the part of the work that the on your boat that has to occur on land, the scraping of the hull, the repainting, that also is the type of work that generates the hazardous materials and a lot of the regulatory hurdles that any future operator is going to have to to jump over. I think in terms of this this next second try at the RFP, the RFQ, the first one was not successful is the introduction of this third party to help us evaluate what is really going on out there in the market. Why did was the first effort so unsuccessful? And what can we do or adjust in the second effort to try to be successful? And if we're not, we come back to the council at the end and we explain to the council, here's why we believe we are still unsuccessful and here's what we think is the path forward that does it. And if we're unsuccessful on the boatyard, it doesn't mean the commercial core goes away. The land for commercial that's devoted to commercial for maritime purposes stays. The question is, if it's not a boat yard, what? Where, where does Pacific shops think we should go? You know where it is, where the city staff think we should go from here. Okay. Thanks. Any further questions before we go to public comment? Let's go to Pepper Summit. And how many do we have? We have seven. Okay, so with seven speakers, you each get 2 minutes. Okay. Listen for your name and come on up. Dorothy Freeman, then Chris Nicholas, then Nancy Hurd. Good. And good evening. I'm Dorothy Freeman, a member of SOAR. And this is what you did to my speech. When the city of Alameda placed the Alameda Marina. On the. Housing element in 2012. It did not envision a loss of the maritime industry to Alameda and the entire. Bay Area boating community, both recreation. And commercial. Several of the main businesses are already gone. Presently, many of the remaining. Businesses are being forced into a smaller, inconvenient space where. They thought they would be able to move into a renovated building. 19. Several of the remaining. Businesses are choosing not to. Have their business. Disrupted by small spaces. Two Relocations and a future future at Alameda Marina. That is not very predictive. So many of them are now leasing leaving town. Another issue with the marina. Development is. The efforts to retain the operator for the. Very much needed boatyard. So understands that two prospective boatyard operators have shown interest in managing a boatyard at the marina. Unfortunately, their interact interactions with Pacific shops was very discouraging. Bay West and Pacific Shops. Has been reminded evidently. About how important the boatyard return of a boatyard to the city of Alameda is. To the boating community and to the Greater Bay Area. I'm pleased to hear that there is increased effort for the boatyard. Sau is also asking for the City Council to make maritime tenant retention a priority by completing the commercial space at the marina so the remaining businesses can move into more permanent business locations. So understands the time element for the start of construction and what it means for the bulkhead improvements. But Alameda Maritime Business is also an important asset to Alameda. What's going on. In the next speaker is. Chris Nicholas and Nancy heard. Mr. Nicholas and then misheard. Tell me when. Hi, my name is Chris Nicholas. I am Commodore at Island Yacht Club. I've said it before and I'll. Say it again. The guy, I'm a 33 year resident of Alameda, the guy who taught me to sail. Second wave in Normandy. Said An honest job in sailing after work is what we won the war for. We're going to have 500 we have 500 slips there. Island Yacht Club is going to be celebrating its 50th anniversary there. And we've been running races there as an all volunteer organization since our inception. It's more than just a sterile. Scenic environment. It's a integral part of the fabric of this community going back to the beginning of recreational boating. When you see all the sailboats out there as part. Of the picture, that's us and our community and. Our challenge is we are in building 14, which, as per the Historical Board has been deemed unsalvageable. So our challenge and we are in dialog with Marine is to find a workable transition plan. We understand the realities of. Real estate in the Bay Area. But Alameda marina has will have a unique asset in the boat hoist and. The small boat program. Which is a result which was not in the original plan. So as of asset that has come through these dialogs. What we're asking you is to ensure that there is a workable. Transition plan and. No gaps so that we will continue into the future. Perfect timing. Thank you. I Nancy heard. Good evening. I'm Nancy Hurd and I'm representing save Alameda is working waterfront or. I was pleased to hear that there is some movement and having a third party come in to do the RFP for for the boatyard. I'm going to sort of throw out the mike speech that he's going to say and try and speak. My main focus right now is then saving the maritime businesses that are there now when and I think the way to do that is that when they need to move a business because they need to to do whatever they need to do to to go in and build what they need to build. They cannot be moving these businesses into unworkable spaces and telling them that they can't that they aren't going to have these spaces for potentially a couple months. These these businesses need to have the assurance that they're going to be there for, you know, long term and they're going to have the space that they need. So I would really like to see Bay Building 19 get developed sooner rather than later, sooner than the apartment building, even though they're both in phase one. I'd like to see Building Number 19 done before the apartment building so that the businesses can stay there. We are in the process of of potentially losing some of these businesses. And once they lose the island and moved to someplace like Vallejo or Mer Islands, we're not going to see them again. And it's not going to be that easy to get other businesses to move in there. So I really want everybody to be thinking in terms of say, you know, keeping retaining our maritime businesses here in Alameda Marina. And that means having space and and preferably the permanent space, because this is very disruptive to a business to have to move two or three times because of the at the convenience of the developer. That needs to be more to the convenience of. The next company. Janet Franco, then Jamie Camacho, then Paul Mueller. Or any of the speakers. We've driven them away. Okay. So Jamie. And the next one is. Paul Miller. Okay. Hi. Hello. My name is Jaime Camacho. I am the vice commander of Island Yacht Club. I'm here to remind you that we are a little bit scared of our future. It's under threat. We serve the community at large, including the Marine community. We have been. Sponsoring a Sea Scout troop, Sea Fox, for 28 years now. That. Ah. We're very proud of them. They're considered the ranked second best in the nation. And six months ago, they saved a drowning man in the middle of the bay. They received that training at Building 14 OC. We serve the community and we need your protection for our continuation there. And we need to, of course, talk with the developers. But I am concerned and I'm worried and I do have a mandate of my membership for the continuation of Island Yacht Club. So I would appreciate the consideration of this board at sea to secure the businesses and marine operations that still exist at the marina to continue and not be under threat like they are currently. It's it's tough. It's tough over there. It's hurting the club because our pool for people to join the club has been just hammered. It's empty. Okay. How can your club survive if we don't have a community there? If we don't have boats, if we don't have activities, it's basically pretty well closed down right now. And it's hurting our ability to bring members into the club to to make the club strong, to continue. So we're kind of weak right now because of this. So this development is seriously affecting us. And let alone that our club 14, our building is going to go. Be torn down. So we need a future. Help us. Thank you. Thank you. Parties don't want to speak. So the next one is Trevor Yamamoto and then Sean Murphy. Thank you. Mr. Yamamoto. Good evening. My name is Trevor Yamamoto. I'm also a member of Island Yacht Club. I've been the Treasurer there for several years now and everybody who's spoken so far from the city planner on to the members of the community have said basically the same thing, that from a business perspective, the uncertainty as well as the the need for a workable transition plan to establish continuity for the businesses, the maritime businesses that have been there, like in our case for 50 years, can go on. We need to have something workable because we understand the exigencies of business that permits get delayed, financing gets delayed. That's just part of development and development will go on. However, the businesses there need the assurances from with the working with the developer, working with the council here that we can have something that's workable, not just conceptual, a workable plan going forward to ensure that the businesses can survive there during the transition. If it involves a move that such a move is practical, it's economically feasible that the businesses remain viable. So that's essentially what I think what the speakers here have been talking about and what we are asking for tonight is that rather than just conceptually, that we have a clear plan that establishes a workable continuity and workable transition for the maritime businesses that I think we're an asset to the community of Alameda as well as the Greater Bay Area, especially in terms of both in terms of the business, the yacht club, the boatyard, etc.. So that's why we asked you for that tonight. Thank you. Thank you. And do we have a. Murphy. Question? Murphy. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Fellow City Council member Sean Murphy, Aluminum Marine Civic Shops. So we're excited to have this important tightly and lease item in front of you tonight. Just a brief recap. In September, we got units approval from a third meeting from the historic advisory board, which is that commercial maritime core. We've been working very diligently on every aspect of this project, and last month we had, you know, approval on the first residential project, 360 units from planning board. So there's we've been working on this project for essentially eight years. We're very committed to this boatyard, and we look forward to working with the city and third party EPS to push that boatyard, RFQ, through again so that we can find a qualified operator. Electrification, absolutely. A big component of the Karp plan is implemented with this master plan and then the regulatory approvals. We've been working diligently since last summer with all of the agencies, Army Corps Bccdc, and we're making great progress there. And then really the most important component here is the tidal lease, because it allows for us to finance this project. This project, the the real focus of this project is our sea level rise that we must deal with. And there are failing sea wall. And it's with this lease extension that allows us to amortize that, to then pay for this massive infrastructure costs. And so this project is an important one for us. It's an important one for the city as our partner, because it really addresses a number of issues. Yes. The critical housing shortage. Yes. The job creation that we have for that maritime core. Okay. And this is the applicant, is it? Well, actually, I am. I might call you back because I have a few questions and I am going to start first. Thank you, everybody, Miss Mercado, for your presentation. There you are. And all the speakers. Um, I would like to know and staff Mr. Thomas or Ms.. Mercado, if you can answer this. Otherwise I'll look to the Pacific Marina folks. But, um, so we've heard some concerns about the existing maritime businesses that are at the Alameda Marina now. We've heard from the Island Yacht Club concerned about their future. I'm aware of that Sea Scout troop. I was just helping with scouting for food this past Saturday, and they came in to the the church. That was one of the collection points. And somebody said, hey, that says he's got a group and there's some of the fellows who are on that rescue were there. So that was kind of cool to see them. But anyway, what, what, if anything, is is the city doing can the city do to see that these existing maritime uses have this? I think it was I think Mr. Yamamoto phrased it quite well. He said they want a clear plan that establishes a workable continuity and a workable transition. Anybody want to take a stab at that. Under the terms? I mean, this is a project, this redevelopment project, two thirds of the land is privately owned by Pacific shops. The Tidelands is obviously leased to them. There's no provisions in that lease or the master plan for their property that basically inserts the city into their leasing decisions. They're obviously limited by the Tidelands lease in terms of the types of businesses, the maritime issues we were talking about with Councilmember Desai, but we are not involved in their conversations with their tenants. Okay. So then I will ask Mr. Murphy to come back. Please. I'll give you a summary. So I understand from Mr. Thomas that the city doesn't have a role in. In relocating businesses or finding new locations. But, um, can you tell us what you are doing to make the transition smooth? If you're doing anything to make the transition smooth for folks who are out there now, especially the maritime uses? Because we very much I think we understand the idea that this is the maritime based side. And so we want maritime businesses out there. But what what are you doing for the folks say that we've heard from tonight. Happy to discuss. So for instance in that first phase, really executing on the city council's approved master plan, it does focus on the maritime core and then the housing component. And so for the first phase of tenants that were maritime, those are accommodated in the balance of the property in phase two. And so we have transitioned those tenants over to the eastern part of the property with this project. Building 19 is a is a it's a great building that sits in the center. We need to be reminding ourselves that a project like this has to deal with sea level rise. We have to bring the whole portion of that project three and a half feet up in sea level rise. And so there is absolutely a transition with the renovation of those buildings. We're making the maritime core a priority. As I mentioned, three separate historic advisory boards, which then in September got unanimous approval, which allows us to then start working with staff and the building department to start implementing the renovations of those buildings to the Secretary of Interior Standard, because three of them, and principally Building 19, is a historic structure. And so there's absolutely a transition for existing maritime tenancy. Uh, and, but there, you know, these are big projects to take on and three and a half feet of sea level rise will not be able to happen overnight. And so the seawall, construction, all of the agency work that we've been doing it, it does take a tremendous amount of work and capital. So. Okay. Um, okay. So you're you're saying I think if I understand you correctly, that you are moving some of these tenants to phase two phase two areas in the eastern part of the project. But then you're tackling this core that includes 19 and that's going to take some time and a lot of money. It is. I mean, one of our major elements beyond the sea level rise is the environmental remediation. We have a very dirty site related to the boat repair. We want to get a new clean boat repair operator. It's part of this, you know, this rescue effort, 2.0. But we must remediate from prior actions. And so we cannot fill the site until we clean the site. And there's absolutely activities that we're embarking on with the county, with here the city to start remediating those 50 years of. You know, environmental contamination. And frankly, a lot of it is on the city property. And it's it's important that we understand, you know, the complications and timeline that are associated with that history. And so we're embarking on it right now. Okay. Thank you for the questions. Councilmember De. Thanks for answering questions. So a comment was raised that possibly. Building 19 and whatever uses happened there. While in phase one comment was raised by a resident having that prioritized above the apartment that were to occur were the family that to occur in phase one or as a demonstration of that, you're aggressively going to, you know, create the space to save the businesses, some of the businesses that are being moved to the eastern side. What was your response to that? If we can prioritize building 19. I'm sure you'll excuse the interruption. I have a housekeeping item. It is. I don't know how I got to be this late, but it is 1057 and we have to make a motion and pass. It was for affirmative votes to consider remaining items past 11 p.m.. So we have two council referrals after item one is on the code enforcement. We have three speakers and the other is on diaper changing stations. So Council, what's your pleasure? I move that we extend the meeting to 1130. I think those two items go pretty fast. Okay. What do you think we have second. I'll second that. Okay. We have a motion to extend the meeting to 1130 and and presumably to fit in as to council referrals. So moved and seconded any discussion. Councilmember Odie if we're at 1125 and we're not there yet, can we extend it longer? We'll cross that bridge him to. Make sure we're an island. Yes, we can. Are we allowed to consider that? Yeah, we can consider it even. Yeah. Okay. It's been moved. It's been seconded out in favor. I, I was there about five guys. Yeah, look at that. Okay, please continue. Strive for Delta. Member de sog to try and be concise because you still have action here. And so since ah you announced approval, the master plan with the city council, which we took place in in July of last year, our first effort was that maritime core in in so much as that we went to historic advisory board three times and just in September we got units approval for those buildings as proposed by our architecture team. That was the first approval that we sought. And then last month, yes, the apartments absolutely. The apartments really are the financial mechanism to pay for this 20 plus million dollars seawall. But the apartments were our second unit has approval that we achieved last month. So the maritime core is it is a critical focus for us and I think that we have a track record of going through these approvals with that focus. So last question. Would you have a problem if we prioritized pulling building permits or whatever for Building 19 when it gets all finished, that ahead of allowing for building permits being pulled for the residential. I yeah. I know what I'm going to choose to ask the city attorney to offer some advice or opinion or anything we should be mindful of at this point. Obviously, we want to stay on the agenda items that's before you, members of the council. And so to the extent possible, the matter before you is the lease extension. So I would advise that we as much as possible, stay on that point. We'll take in. Okay. Was that your last question? Okay. Um, does anyone else want to ask Mr. Murphy? Anything? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Okay, counsel. So, um. Right, we've. We've heard this side and we've heard our speakers. We have a decision to make. Who wants to lead the discussion or make a motion? I'm happy to do both. We multitask. Take it. Away. Yeah. So I just want to. I want to thank a members of SA who met with me. I did follow up on the questions. I got a lot of you know, but the staff report clearly laid out that we have we have an RFP. So I think those concerns around the in a process to to make it as effective as is humanly possible which I appreciate staff working really diligently on that. So that's good. And I do believe we have a transition plan that is going to work to the best possible. We have proved a master plan that to me that the key thing is here. It saves the city $20 million that we don't have to come up with on the seawall and whatnot. I don't want to get into dickering around trying to renegotiate the master plan in the phase in at this point in time, we need to move this thing forward. My hope is that that the Pacific shops have heard from us for now, almost two years, that the Maritime Corps is very important to us and our our local community organizations are also very important to us. And I have strong confidence that we will move forward with that and in great haste. I'm not moving forward. This lease stops the entire thing. It stops the Maritime Corps. It does not save anybody anything. It just causes risk to the city. So with that, I would like to move that. We approved the staff recommendation as written. Let's get a second. Think we can have discussions. Going to. Second Councilmember Vela and Councilmember Vela. So I and I'm going to be supporting this and I do want to say a few things. First, there is a substantial benefit to the city and it's directly related to our goals, related to addressing climate change and sea level rise, which is a priority of this Council. I am not interested in increasing any more costs to that than are necessary because I think the cost is already substantial. I would also add that we have also stated that another priority of this council is housing. And so I am very troubled to hear that, you know, I don't want to lose sight of that. And I think that putting forward, you know, subsidizing for profit businesses when there's a, you know, a plan in place to try to work with them while also addressing our need for that seawall and getting the housing that we need. I think that's really important. And frankly, I just I don't like the direction that. I want to make sure that that's not a direction that people think we're open to because. Not before. It's not before us today. And I think it also undermines what our priorities are as a council. You know, we just heard an agenda item where we were talking about the number of our meetings when we were talking about fees. And one of the things, the number of meetings that were actually using the facility and I think the scouting scouting program is great. But I also think that when we're looking at some of these things, we're looking at how many Alameda those are going to be impacted and and that sort of thing. And and what is the cost to them? And I do not want to increase the cost of housing any further. I appreciate the electrification and all of that. Again, we're getting a lot of things that are in line with our goals, and I think we need to be supportive of that. Thank you. Any other comments, Councilmember? Thank you. Just real brief. I will associate like with the comments made by my two colleagues. I mean, we get a second bite at the apple at the boatyard, so that's good. Gives us a chance. And, you know, whatever complaints somebody may had about the last process, you know, we're having a third party. We're having our staff. So I'm hopeful that we'll have a more positive outcome. You know, electrification, that's kind of exciting, too, because now for the first time since we passed our our climate action plan, we have an opportunity to implement it. So, yeah, you know, I was catching up with Madeleine from the chamber today and you know, she mentioned they had a maritime some type of forum or event where they were talking about attracting maritime business. So I think that remains a priority of of this council of of our staff, of our chamber. I mean, if there's some issue I mean, I'm not going to I can't really dictate from up here. But if there's some concerns from some tenants that it's not a workable transition plan, I would encourage everyone to keep talking and see if you can figure out something that that meets that definition for those that are impacted. But I mean, I'm ready to to vote in favor of this at this point. Mr.. JASON So did you want to add this? Well, thank you very much. We're here tonight because, uh, Pacific shops would like to get a one year extension in order to make sure they get its approvals as well as they would like to exercise the, the 41 year trigger. So. But in pursuing these items, they had not satisfactorily fulfilled at least one of the three items. So to me, that gives me an an opportunity, frankly, to pursue the concerns raised that I'm hearing from constituents in my discussions with constituents. I know we all represent different constituents, which is the way that each and each of us on city council represent our different truth. And but we do our best to to speak our truth. And what I'm seeing, frankly, when I'm hearing from the residents, even tonight, is that the effort to save the maritime businesses needs to be . Better than what we're seeing. And so I'm just not seeing that. And when I hear that we have to go to a second RFP and I'm glad that we're going to a second half, but better than not going not doing that. But it kind of makes you wonder, you know, why was the first one so bad? There's something in the air, I believe, that is being discouraging of maritime businesses, comments provided notwithstanding. And so what I'm seeking to do is basically pursue the second bullet points on the alternatives section, which is basically the second bullet points was to direct staff to renegotiate specific lease terms. So. Mr. Day, so I appreciate your comments. It's 1107 and we have a motion in a second. But it. Is, of course. So that's what I'm trying to pursue. And I obviously I don't have enough votes for that tonight, but I would say it will be a sad day, though, if we begin to lose a lot of the maritime businesses, not just the people who showed up tonight, but some of the people who are there operating right now. It'd be a sad day. I mean, because these are the businesses that help give the city of Alameda an island, its identity. I mean, at the end of the day, let's not forget that, you know, our flag, the symbol of the flag, is an anchor, you know, obviously reflective of of of our maritime tradition and history. And honestly, I just don't see I see a rush to build more housing. And even there, you know, I mean, the housing is needed, but sometimes there's just too much housing. And so I think, you know, we need to give a better effort. And I hope to have seen a better effort at saving the maritime industry, which I don't see tonight. Thank you, Mr. de seismic. My comments brief. Well, as far as housing, I don't think we can build it fast enough. And there are a lot of things that keep me up at night. I don't like the thought of losing maritime businesses, but there are also it's always a balancing act. I'm also mindful of the cost to maintain and restore the seawall and shoreline to make them adequate to address the anticipated sea level rise would cost between 15 and $17 million, and 80% of that needed work is on city property. And as far as the boatyard operator, I like the approach the way that it is being done this time around. I will also share that I think it was maybe two weeks ago, a few of us were at the Wheat Board meeting, the Water Emergency Transit Authority, because we were supporting the New Sea Plan, the ferry terminal and one service. But when the executive director was giving her report, she mentioned that one of the things because we did water transit around the Bay Area is expanding, which is wonderful. We're on the water. We should use that water transit. But she mentioned that they are finding it increasingly difficult to find maintenance facilities to maintain their boats. Now, granted, these are ferries, so they're bigger than sailboats. But the the gist of what she was saying was that this is just one of those fields where there are fewer and fewer people doing these jobs, which means you get creative about the way you do it, and sometimes you bring the workers to them. But be that as it may, I think this is a very important measure for our city and I am prepared to support it too. So we've had a motion, we've had a second all in favor. I opposed abstained. Those opposed. Okay. So that motion passes with four affirmative votes and one in opposition. Thank you. Okay. Now we are going to rush on to the next item.