Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Fifteen-Year Lease with Two Five-Year Options to Extend, Substantially in the Form of the Attached, with Nautilus Data Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, for Building 530, an 82,251-Square Foot Building Located at 120 West Oriskany Avenue, and the Adjacent Building 529, a 3,200-Square Foot Building, and Building 600, a 343-Square Foot Building, at Alameda Point.  [Requires Four Affirmative Votes] (Base Reuse 819099) [Continued from April 2, 2019 to May 7, 2019; please note: public comment was closed on April 2, 2019]
Good evening, Mayor. I am Ninette Mercado and from the Community Development Department. As was stated, as has been a topic before the council in three closed sessions and tonight is its second time in the public. At the April 2nd City Council meeting, the Council received a public presentation of the proposed lease with Nautilus Data Technologies for the public. Nautilus Data Technologies uses innovative water cooling technology to operate data centers that reduce the costs of computing power usage, eliminate water consumption, decrease air pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions. This would be their first site for this technology. And so it's it's a cutting edge technology at that meeting. At the April 2nd meeting, Nautilus provided an overview of its project, but consultants related to its proposed technology. Environmental engineers who would lead the permitting process and the consultant we use to locate and construct the harbor seal haul out advised them and spoke about the project's input . Our impact on the SEALs. In addition, there was a representative from the trade unions and a high tech tenant from Alameda Point who spoke in support of the project. The council asked to postpone the decision on the lease until the city had an opportunity to discuss the Site B development project and any impact Nobelist might have on the development. During the tour, the broker pointed out that we crafted and and novelis accepted a smaller parcel to allow for a greater development opportunity for site B. So tonight we're returning to ask for lease approval for for this lease for a term of 15 years with two five year options, which was negotiated as a result of council direction. The tenant has agreed to pay a development impact fee, also requested by the Council for a total of $1,562,971. At filled out, the project will contribute one and a half to two and a half million dollars in revenue for Alameda Municipal Power, which will help AMP keep rates low for residents. I hope that tonight you will consider this recommendation and support the lease approval. Thank you. The applicant is here if you're. Any questions that you might have for them. Thank you. Okay. Council. Question. Council Member Vice Mayor Nothing like this. I'm not sure this might be my first vote. This requires four votes. Yes. So I guess my question is, before we have any conversation, it seems like there have been a number of council members who have voiced strong concerns about this. If there are two or more of those, I think in the idea of expediency. I would love to know if there are people who are concerned not going to have talking. We can we can take a straw poll. Does anyone have any questions they want answered? However. Odie. I'll wait to the straw poll. I mean, I do. But it's not. You want a straw poll to asking any question? It would just be to reinforce my opinion. So maybe I'm not going to ask them. Why? Well, I should. Be honest about it. So. So. Well, for one, I'm not ready to vote because I want to hear council's discussion. But if you I mean, do people. You mean do people truly know how to vote now, how they're going to vote now? Councilmember De So you look quizzical, I'll say. Yeah, well, I'm kind of quizzical because I know that for the most part I've been quite supportive of this project and I don't see any reason to change my mind. Since we first discussed this, at least I first discussed this in the closed door, largely because I like the impact, their contribution into the into the feet. So it's not the 100% fee, but it's. But at 1 million plus, it is something. So the developer. Devoting. 40% of their to. That. I know that I could just speak for myself that, you know, I will continue to be supportive of this project. Okay. Councilmember de SAC Gleaning Support. Vice Mayor. I you know, I would want to have a conversation about some monitoring and and outcomes of the monitoring issues that I think would be problematic for the applicant. But I think if we could get there, it's a project that I could potentially support. Okay. Leaning support. Um, yeah. Councilmember Vela asked me to. Just logistically, it's easier. She goes last in the comments, but are you ready to comment? Well, I was skeptical before, and I'm still skeptical, even more so based on the tour that we did a couple weeks ago. Okay. Leaning skeptical. Councilmember Vela, who's going to come to us over the say? Are you there, Councilmember Vela? Yeah. Here you are. Hi. So you followed that. We're taking just a little informal straw poll here. I still have some outstanding questions. I think I think they're you know, the thing right now, I think, um, you know, potentially could be helpful to our conversation. Well, I think I think probably. And then questions regarding the the police. Um. And, uh, including the length of it and. The actual what was something about the lease? The term actual term lease? Got it. Okay. So is it you could be persuaded. Potentially. Well. Well, yeah. So it's worth continuing the discussion because I'm going to say that I'm going into this with an open mind. So we have four potential justice to continue the discussion. So to be the fifth to comment, I will say that I think by now applicants have had a chance to see the letter that the counsel received late last night and I forwarded to staff this morning from the Northern Alameda County chapter of the Sierra Club. And I. So I do want questions, answers to the concerns that were raised and specifically the the issue of the data center requiring constant cooling and the impact on contributing to the appearance of toxic algae blooms. Um, and also, um, well, and with the warmer temperatures and I will note that just this week, earlier this week, you may be aware of the report that the United Nations would publish, noting the dramatic decline in biodiversity in the world, largely the result of human activity. And I do think this is potentially one such activity. I will say, and I see one of the applicants is here to respond, and I'm happy to see him, because this environmental issue has been a topic that has been raised by this council in closed session the however many times we've met with you. And so that's why I was disappointed. When in the staff report referencing the project in Stockton, all I saw were bullet points of the permits that you you received or have applied for. But as I said in my email, the staff bullet points don't provide any information. I wanted to see specifics, and I will also note that I think there is some material difference between a data center that is located on a barge in the port of Stockton versus what we're doing. But I did see that there was some communication with the author of the Sierra Club letter is Sophie Hunter, City Council Member in Berkeley. So with that, my biggest concerns are the environmental ones. So please, please address that. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor and council members. So I want to begin just the high level on the environmental question. Our company was founded to be a solution to a very bad problem, which is the current technologies around data center. So our objective was to design our project to dramatically contribute to the abatement of greenhouse gases, to the reduction of air pollution, and especially in California, to provide a technology solution that will be able to showcase here that will eliminate the consumption of water in data centers, which is common throughout data centers all over the world. And there are other environmental features, too. So so the project is to produce a significant environmental benefit. That's the objective of the technology. And we went through quite rigorous review, federal, state and local regulators with respect to our first effort in Stockton. And the. Madam Chair, you quite thoughtfully asked for the actual permits. We've been happy to provide those. I thoughtfully asked for them and they were voluminous and I would have appreciated having the opportunity to review them before this meeting because that's what allows me to make an informed decision. And so I directed to specific actually while voluminous, the specific conclusions, especially of the state regulators, including the State Lands Commission, which involved now Governor Newsom and Alameda resident Betty Yee. I put very specifically to the page where the you know, where the determinations were made about the environmental benefits as well as the lack of any significant adverse impact. So if I can help you find that that would be that would be great. It would have helped to have found it in its entirety in the actual staff report. But let's talk about the Sierra Club letter that you've had a chance to review now. So in the the second full paragraph, there is the reference to the projected volume of 10,000 gallons per minute. The heat being transferred to the bay will maintain a permanently warmer zone of water next to the Rockwall Jetty at Alameda Point. Movement of the tides will not permanent. They dissipate the relentless infusion of warmer water into the bay? And can we at least agree that that's significantly different than the condition with the barge in the port of Stockton? Well, actually, we welcomed the engagement with the Sierra Club, as we have with the SEAL folks. What lies ahead of us is actually do the modeling work and the technical work to specifically go after those questions, which are quite important and in which we are 100% aligned to prevent anything like that from happening. So so I want to begin with that if something that were happen, we don't want to do the project that that is not the objective of our project. Now specifically on the on the technical aspects of it, the in the materials that you asked for, it is it was well studied and part of the secret process and part of the state water quality permitting as well as the State Lands Commission process to look specifically at the thermal discharge issue. The thermal discharge, the way we're engineered is the thermal discharge. Well, it's four degrees Fahrenheit difference in temperature leaving our facility when the water hits the nearby receiving water. So the area that's being discussed in the Sierra Club letter, it is highly likely. And the the work ahead of us in the permitting and the modeling will bear this out, that that water impact will be less than 1/10 of a degree Fahrenheit. So it is highly unlikely that there'll be any contribution to algae formation. But the point is, with the least, we can conduct the studies and working with the Sierra Club and working with the Harbor SEAL people and anybody, any other environmental interests, I'm an environmentalist to get that technical information and have the state tell us whether there's a problem or not. That's the advantage of the process that lies ahead of us. And in the interest of fairness, I should note that this letter was received. I flew in from New York last night, and I think this came to me just before 10:00 at night Pacific time, and I glanced at it. But you didn't get it until today, because that's when I forwarded it to staff. So, I mean, you know, it's in the interest of fairness. You haven't had a lot of time, although again, we've been asking for things from you. But I think the point you're making is that the list of regulatory bodies that you will come before and need to satisfy will be addressing this thermal discharge issue. Is that. Correct? That and many, many other issues that we know we will be studying and encountering as a result of our experience up in Stockton. So then in the second paragraph of the Sierra Club letter, they talk about how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, describes how warmer water could contribute to the growth of harmful algae. EPA Website States Toxic blue green algae prefer. Warmer water. Water. Warmer temperatures prevent water from mixing, allowing algae to grow thicker and faster. So I think I mean, as far as my concerns, the the issue of algae, these algae blooms, toxic algae blooms are certainly not something we would want to be fostering. Not not something you would want to be fostering, not something Nautilus would want to be fostering. And, by the way, certainly not something that the state regulators would approve if that was a projected outcome. The advantage of the lease is the leases expressly conditioned on us going through these regulatory processes, getting the approvals and getting the signoff from the regulators that we will not have any significant adverse impacts. So that's that's our commitment. That's what we're about. And so that's why we embrace the Sierra Club letter. I immediately sent actually a letter back to Ms.. Hahn outlining these very points and actually looking forward to a meeting with her and her colleagues so they can be part of the public process that lies ahead. Should the you know, should the city council decide to move forward with the conditional lease? Okay. Councilmember Vice Mayor. So thank you. I also received a letter very late last night and actually responded to. At the club and received a response to my questions. And my questions were about this. And so Richard Banger, who is the lead on this project, responded. From what I could tell, his concern and and position was that. It would be untenable for your company to meet any needed. The state could say, go ahead. They could be wrong. What happens if they're wrong? It's going to be very difficult for you to shut have spent millions and millions, millions of dollars and then just shut it down because algae is detected or whatever that is. You know, I have been operating and I was going to ask Mr. McConnell if because we had had to I believe there were two things we asked for. One was clarity on which are the, you know, the state water board, which are the regulatory regulators that addressed this issue. And the other one was some sort of monitoring. And what happens if section I can't find the monitoring section in the exhibits. I can find the no loitering and other. So so my question would be if we were, you know, the only way that I could see us moving forward would be something where we have weekly , you know, I don't know what the frequency is, but some kind of monitoring of the water temperature and some kind of, you know, and possibly even spelling out for the water board what it was that we wanted to make sure that they were confirming in there. Right. So so the Sierra Club has raised very, you know, credible concerns. I would want to make sure that, A, the water board has that they are literally that is what they're approving. And in from talking to some folks there, I imagine that is what they would be confirming is that their belief that this would not lead to those outcomes. But then also what kind of monitoring do we have so that if it starts happening that, you know, essentially those pumps are shut down, which I know is a problem, but, you know, and is that something that could be built into this project so that there is a conversation that could continue? And if I could just piggyback on your question I'm monitoring sounds like a good idea to me. And I would want it to be independent monitoring as opposed to the monitoring from the the tenants themselves, from models. Is that what you were thinking? Yeah, I don't think I. I may not have thought it through with that. Yes, as long as we can figure out who that person is. And. Who's paying for it. So, I mean, because my guess is it's the city. So the state water quality board is actually very good at this and they impose actually quite substantial monitoring requirements with respect to their permits, as do some of the other regulators. You know, for example, we have for endangered species permits up on the San Joaquin River. That's how our impacts are so low that we don't have any effect on endangered species in the river. And so we are more than happy to do monitoring and we are more than happy to bear the business risk. So the risk is is ours to bear because we do not foresee this being an issue at all, because of the way we've engineered this, we are very focused on and it is complete a minimization of environmental outcomes as possible. I would note that, you know, at a 10th of a degree in the nearby water, when you move beyond the nearby water, it's you won't be able to measure the thermal load with the heat transfer we're doing is against a modest heat production by the data centers. It's enough that it requires cooling, but it's not a massive amount of heat that we're actually putting out returning. The other thing you should know, because it will be likely be a mile long pipe run, there'll be a lot of exchange, heat exchanges on the way out to the water. It's highly likely the numbers will be even lower just from natural geothermal cooling that will occur. So but we're happy to model all of that. We use an independent modeling firm for this. You met one of the individuals from that firm at the last meeting. She's she's great and her team is great. The models they use are the ones that actually the cities all rely on as well. We'll be working with Dr. Harvey on the the harbor seal question to make sure that there's the complete protection of the whales. So, again, we are so committed to. A positive. Outcome. Well. I think there SEALs, unless there's been a whale spotting. I'm sorry. I must say, I misspoke. Sorry. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So that. So monitoring. Happy to do it because it will be required of us by the by the state as part of our permits. Okay. Are there other comments from you guys? Anyone else. So, Councilman Brody. I guess I'm concerned, like, okay, we monitor what happens, we find toxic algae. Then what? I mean, some of these environmental disasters, once they happen, they're too late. Right. Like, if the SEALs somehow get disturbed and they never come back, that's too late. They're gone. I mean, that's just the way it is. So if we have algae. Toxic algae develops in a year, two years. We've gone down a path. We've tied up a building for 25 years or maybe three. If some for some reason, they have to get out of it. We've limited our marketing opportunities for those three years, lost opportunity cost there, and we may have an environmental thing that can't be reversed. Maybe it can. I don't know that much about it. Or somebody's sunk a lot of money into a building that now they're not going to give back. So when we come back in three years and we're all lamenting, why don't we just do the right thing in the first place and, you know, prioritize the environment? And so I think we'll ask the applicant to answer that. But as far as you're concerned, that we're locked into a lease. I imagine that we could add a clause or a condition that indicates if some environmental I mean, significant environmental impacts were determined that there would be some some recourse. I see Mr. Roush moving towards his microphone. So please. Marin Counsel. I think that's correct. We would have to add some provisions into the lease that would basically have a, for lack of a better term, a poison pill provision such that if there were significant environmental impacts, that the applicant or the property owner or or tenant could not mitigate adequately, then it would be grounds to terminate the lease. Obviously, that's a huge risk that the developer tenant would have to take. But if that's the the kind of provision the council wants to see in the lease than we would we would have to draft that and and bring that back to the council. Well, and that's something to consider. Something else to consider is perhaps some of these concerns will be answered by the regulatory bodies who are looking at the impact to the water and the likelihood that these conditions will lead to the toxic algae bloom. But I do think that there's there's some ways you can address some of the concerns in the lease and. I you know, again, I don't think there's answers for every question, but we certainly want to address the most significant environmental ones. Councilman Rudy said, I see your hand. I would just say that if this project moves forward and the project proponent goes and attempts to get approvals from the regulatory body, that the city staff also needs to be involved in that so that they clearly understand the technologies that the regulatory body might be suggesting and be able to evaluate, you know, the adequacy of those technologies, all the while recognizing that the regulatory bodies have a lot more competency in the area. But we've got to be a part of that, that process as well. That's us. That would be my suggestion. So, Councilmember Desai, if I might, we actually initially at first have to go through the secret process. And because this is a lease on city property, the city will be engaged through that whole process. Actually, the process calls for the city to be involved and then the city will also be involved in each of the permitting processes . So so the answer to your question is it's well answered and there'll be extensive process. This is actually a relational contract. We'll be side by side on this all the way through the period where we are well assured that there's no significant impacts. And if there are significant impacts, we won't go forward with the project. We won't need the city to tell us or the regulators, because the mission of our company is not to produce significant impacts. Okay. Okay. Councilmember Vela, your thoughts? I think my. Concern is that they've all been fine in terms of getting off the ground. But if there's an issue I and we've discussed this in the past, I would want something that's concrete and laid out, will define what is significant, what we what we deem to be a significant impact. Because I'm not necessarily of the mind that that one of these regulatory board is going to have. They don't have the city's best interests at heart. They have a mission statement that I think how they define significant impact might be different, how we work our decision. So I think that becomes a reality for the people that have done that. From my perspective, it makes me feel a little more secure in how to take it out of the other ways. If we think that there's some risk to our. Okay. And you've heard you've heard what the acting city attorney said. So. Okay. The poison pill provision. Yes. Okay. And then and that's what you're thinking of as far as something concrete. To state what we deem as significant risk. Yeah. Yeah. That's I think the other problem. You know, the other question that I have is has to do with the location of the input and output of the water intake valve and discharge. And again, having some sort of provision, not just for me, I guess, if we're going to be probably going to get installed, but for the removal of that and that we actually have a bond on deposit to cover the cost of removal. So one of my questions was, what do you think the cost of installing that system is going to be? Because certainly the security deposit is $68,000 or something like that, and it could cost a significant amount of money to remove the . Casing this time. Yeah. That for a location. And you know, will there be opportunities for input from the club or some of the other groups? So I'll deal with this last point first as part of the secret process and then consistent with the other follow on processes, including the involvement of the B, C, D, C, we'll have a very intensive public process to get input as to the location of the intake and the discharge. We offered what we think is the best solution. That's the least impactful. But we are open to other alternatives. We're not dogmatic about that. The pathways we identified were done in consultation with the city engineer. But again, if there's a if there's a different path that folks want to look at, we're happy to do that. That is part of the secret process. You have a proposal and then you also look at alternatives. So that's an explicit part of the secret process. What is that from the contract to the lead as we look at one of the factors, the actual construction, I think that concerns me more aspect is now. I think that, you know, other groups like the Sierra Club or some of these other environmental groups might have a difference of opinion in terms of the best location for in taking this charge high good faith, not not having to do with the connection to other infrastructure already in the building, but. With the overall environmental impact, my disapproval of the current calculations about water quality but that we have any idea out. Yet by the way you are correct we went with that route based on the the discussions related to infrastructure. It may be there's a better environmental alternative, and certainly that's what the secret process will, in fact evaluate. On your second point, I would prefer not to call it a poison pill. I don't like that expression, and we'll call it an assurance of environmental protection provision. We are more than happy to have that included because as I indicated, it's not a problem for us because our objective is not to create that kind of risk. Finally, on the removal we have, actually there is a provision in the lease now following the actually before the last meeting to ensure that we have an obligation to and have posted funding for the removal of the of the intake structure when we're done. So that's included in the lease. Okay. Can you talk a little bit about what that would look like to remove that those structures because it's fairly, fairly involved? You know, we saw the drawings that were included in the packet. Yeah, I suppose, Madam Mayor, it's a matter of perspective for us, actually. Wouldn't be involved at all. It's a relatively minor. Whatever it is, infrastructure project happen. Well, the proposal is there'll be the intake box that has piles and so the structure actually sits on top of the piles. So we'll use the same process to take pull it out as we would as we as we used to put it in. And so it's just it's just civil works. It's good old fashioned maritime civil works. There's great contractors. We have representative of of the group here. Folks know how to do this. And what we're doing is relatively simple. Think of the pier. That's big. That's complicated. This is a very simple thing under the pier in relative comparison. So and again, you are happy in this process over the next year to put together the plan for how that would be done and make sure that folks are comfortable with that. Because, again, our objective is not to have any, at the minimum, the smallest possible impact on the environment that we can achieve. Okay. Any further questions? No questions, but comments. Mayor, can I ask please. Mr. Roush. A clarifying question that I know is part of the the lease provision indicates that the lease as the project would make the council's making a finding that it's categorically exempt under secure based on existing facilities. The applicant has indicated that there is a some sort of separate secret process that the applicant will go through. So the Council may want to ask the applicant to explain that secret process further so that the Council is has assurances that the city and others will have an opportunity to weigh in on that, seek that separate secret process, because this finding will make the project categorically exempt under sequel. Good point. Okay. Went to the acting city attorney's point. Can you explain that separate secret process? Yes. As I understand it, actually, the category exempt exemption applies to the existing facility and the property. But it is our belief that our intention will be going through secure for the intake discharge component, the off it's called the offsite improvements. So the lease is split between the building and offsite improvements. The buildings categorically exempt, as I understand it, but the offsite improvements will have to go through secure. And who will be the lead agency with respect to that second aspect. Is my understanding will be the city of Alameda. Thank you. And if it isn't, let's make sure it is. That would be our view. Okay. QUESTION All right. Councilman Brody. So can I just. Say something just so on that on that point, I talked to the the director of Planning and building, Andrew Thomas, as part of this process. And he said that the entitlements that we that are on Alameda Point envisioned an industrial use in the enterprise zone, but not this this intake, the system that Mr. Cunnington was talking about . So he is correct that that process will have to go through a secure process. And Andrew said that the city would be the lead applicant and require almost the exact same studies that they would have to provide to the state regulators. But with the cost of the secret process being borne by the applicant. Absolutely. Councilmember. Thank you, Madam Chair. So questions for the interim city attorney. So can you remind us, like the secret process, how it plays out, like what they have to do an application and go and. How long is that take? Once the application comes in, there will be a determination as to whether or not the the project as as described will have a significant environmental impact on the environment. And depending on what that answer is, there could be a that would mean there could be an exemption or more likely, there would need to be a determination whether a mitigated negative declaration would be sufficient or whether a full blown EIA would be required, depending on what the answer to that is, is going to drive how long that process takes. Typically, a mitigated negative declaration can typically be handled in a, you know, 3 to 6 month process once it's prepared. I mean, from preparation to to approval, if it's an air that can take anywhere from depending on how long it takes to prepare the air and then go through the review process can take anywhere from six months to, you know, two years depending on the on the severity of the project. I would assume this would probably take six months to a year, just as that just kind of my sense of it. And then thank you and then the other agencies as the review concurrent with that process or do they have to wait to the the secret process is finished? I'm not quite sure how the timing on that would work. Typically, the the regulatory agencies would want to rely on a city environmental document where they would be considered. They would be part of the review process as a responsible agency. And then once if the environmental document were approved, they would then rely on that and going through their review process. That's typically how. Okay. I wasn't quite sure either, but that's why I asked the question. So then if somebody opposes a secure approval, they would file a lawsuit and we would be the defendant in that lawsuit and we would we would be the one footing the bill, right? Correct. But typically, when an application comes through, part of that application process is that we would look to the applicant to provide the legal defense if there were any challenges to the project, either on environmental issues or for other reasons. So even though we would be certainly the the defendant in the case and we would certainly keep control of the litigation, we would expect the the applicant to, number one, have its own counsel and number to be involved very closely with the city and defending that if the council had approved the project and certified the environmental documents . So we expect mean is that that seems a little squishy to me, but I mean, is that an ironclad this is how it's going to happen or. That's our normal process for when we have a project that comes forward that, you know, the applicant's going to bear that financial cost if there is a challenge to the project on either the merits or the environmental documents. And I think the city manager wants to comment. I would concur with how many cities actually put that, and I think Alameda does to put that in the agreement that it would be their obligation. So the lease agreement or the secret application or. As a part? Well, I don't know whether that precisely is in the lease currently, but typically as part of the conditions of approval, it is usually embedded in those documents. So we feel that there is adequate, adequate coverage to make sure that that, in fact, happens. Well, okay, I still have more, but thank you for the high level overview of a super complicated process. Yes, he has every day. So, yes, you know, one word that I heard earlier this evening kind of made my ears pick up. I heard the word developer. So the question that I have is, do we know if the project proponent is going to if it goes through the approvals, local approvals, as well as regional approvals, if the project proponent is also a going to continue with the project itself or if they're going to sell the project to some other person once the entitlements are obtained. The applicant is going to do the project themselves. I mean, the only thing they could do is sign the interest in the building. They can't sell it because we own it. But there this is a project that is theirs they're committed to. And if they even had to assign it, it would have to be a similar use and we would have to approve it. Okay. And the B, I said A, so B is if they do the project, do we know if the applicant will do the project with the current corporate structure that's before us that came before us? Or will they create a separate corporate structure? Do we know anything about that? I believe they're going to use the existing structure that they have now and bid the project out with contractors and project management, like similar to all of our other tenant improvement. Okay. And could that be a part of the understanding, the legal agreement, that if if if they get council approval? Well, here, let me get maybe I'm being a little opaque. You know, if someone can make agreements, do a lot of things, but maybe they and I'm not a lawyer here, but maybe they can create a limited liability corporation so that, you know, if something goes bad, that that's the responsibility of that separate corporate entity, not themselves. So. Well, typically the the lease provision will have that that it would typically allow a lessee to assign it to some other similar corporate, you know, where the same people are basically involved. But it may not be have the same exact name as the lessee if the less lessee intends to actually to wants to assign its interest, for example, to a separate, you know, completely separate entity. For lack of a better description that would need to be approved by the city before that that assignment could occur. Okay. That's again I mean, again, typically, if it's sort of an internal restructuring, that's usually allowed sort of by matter of course. But if it's going to be a whole separate new company or entity or whatever you want to call it, then that's going to require an approval by the city for that assignment. Great. But you get what I'm kind of getting at. What I'm kind of getting at is if the worst case scenario happened and suddenly, after having sunk in all these investments, now they have to pull out the the some of the equipment that was out there. It's completely possible that someone might simply declare bankruptcy and say, well, you know, wait, you don't have the wherewithal to do it. And and by the way, you have to go after that that entity. And that's, I think, has been brought up as to make sure that there is adequate security with that that the city has access to, so that if the if the improvements need to be removed and the and the responsible party is financially unable to do it, we have a source of funds to go to to make sure that it can occur. Thank you. And I'll just interject. And I just skimmed this this lease, and I'm not pretending to be the attorney, I think. Did Miss Maxwell leave officials there? So I just want to confirm, because I'm not acting as the city attorney, but I do see that on page 20 of the lease agreement under assignment and subletting landlord consent required and we're the landlord that this is section 13 that landlord consent tenant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law mortgage pledge assign or transfer this lease or any interest herein to another. So that would have to come back to the city. Correct. And it's is that address the concern that Councilmember de Sug was raising. It does. And it generally tracks what Mr. Ash was explaining as well about sort of the assigning permitted assigning, as opposed to a unrelated assignee which would need to return. Okay. All right. Another question. Yes, Councilmember. Thank you. I mean, since you brought this up, I don't I get too much in the weeds here, but just say there is a need to pull everything out. So what type of environmental review of that process of pulling anything out is going to happen? I mean, could they just go in there and, you know. Come in with their big equipment, pull it out, and then it's gone. Who cares about what the environmental impact of that is? I mean, there does seem to be any standards around this. Maxwell, this you want to introduce yourself? Hi, I'm Lisa. Into the microphone with. Lisa maxwell. I'm the assistant city attorney, real estate area councilman Odie. The restoration and surrender provisions in the lease, they expressly obligate the tenant to make those to remove their alterations at the end of the lease term. However, it wouldn't be something they'd be able to just do blindly on their own. There'd have to be a consultation with the city and there'd have to be a coordination about the way in which those were restored. And as I mentioned to Mayor Ash, as he Ashcraft this morning, there may be a determination that it was not best to remove all of them, but instead it was better to cap some and to cause them to be inoperable because disturbing them would cause other improvements that maybe had been laid over around them to be just to be damaged. So that would just be something that would have to be determined at the time. But we have the right to cause it to happen. It would just be a matter of making sure that was the right decision. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Mayor, at this time. Housekeeping detail. It is almost 11:00, and we need a motion to consider the remaining items on this this agenda that looked relatively short. But there are some of these are time sensitive and really must come to tonight. That's item 60 is the CDBG item. And then we have six D and six. These are Park Street and Webster Street Business Improvement Associations and then six f is our city attorney contract. We have to approve his arriving next week. So what I'm looking for is a motion to go past 11. I do have a motion. Yes, I have a motion in a second. All right. All in favor. I rise upstairs. Know she's just. Okay, that's unanimous. Let's go as quickly as possible. Actually, I'm wondering whether we're ready to. To to take a vote. Any any more concerns that I see, please. By Ms.. Vela. So and we previously talked about the threat to the about 40% of the. But 40% of the victims only stayed with the execution. Of his options which is to get a full amount applied to of the. One of my questions is what are we getting in exchange for the fact that we are considerably better than the kind of woman in the city of New York City? I mean, we have Ms.. McIntyre here to respond. To the council directed staff to try to get some payment for the deaf. So the calculation was based on the lifetime of the life of the building. And we assumed that the building was was a 60 year life or 66 year based on the wheelchair building that was directly adjacent to it. And so we just did a straight percentage calculation of the first 15 years and then the additional two five years being was seven and a half each. What we're getting from from this lease for the option periods and for this term is we're getting money for infrastructure that we wouldn't ordinarily get. And in a in a ten year lease we wouldn't get, we would just get straight lease revenue. On this deal, we're getting lease revenue plus funding for infrastructure and an acknowledgment that this is a long term lease and this is almost similar to ownership. So we are getting an investment in infrastructure for the for the base, not necessarily for that area, but it's revenue that we can use base wide for infrastructure. We have approved it, but not until. Yes. 25 years. So I do have. A couple to the point $3 billion in capital, $300,000. That building that nobody likes to come here. There is more than $100,000 investment in the building. I mean, there they're they're going to put millions of dollars in the building. They're just not getting credit. They were not offering a shell credit for. Much of the work that's being done in the building, back to improvements for the building and the transfer of over to the equipment that they're getting from such. A great deal that building needs an entire new roof. Mr. McConnell, I wonder if we might bring Ms.. Maxwell up and the two of the two of you can? Sure. I'm also the applicant if you. Want to nap. Yes, ma'am. Sure. Come on. Up. I was going to clarify, was that the $100,000 was during the first 12 months of the lease term. And then there was the six plus million dollars that would be put in in the next few following years. Right. But now that you see the building first, as I mentioned, you know, the high the high intermediate price will be the fiber because 5 million for high performance Internet fiber. Do you. Want to offer a breakdown. Of where the applicant will come and give a breakdown of the the 6 million estimate? So the 100,000 is merely to fix up the place so we can all access it better and better lighting for just working in and out of the space. The main money comes after our permit approvals and almost all of it goes to the building and will be part of the what's left for the city when we depart . You know, there may be some small things that come with us in the 6 million. We'll be putting in tens of millions of dollars of overall improvements in equipment and fiber and other infrastructure. I mean, the whole project initially will be about $100 million project and we'll be employing a lot of craft labor in doing that work . So but the 6 million at least is what the city will inherit. You'll get a class industrial building as a result of what we're doing. And so. But what are the other outside improvements? I can't remember. Like, just one more thing before I let him answer that. What I can tell you is this when we have had other tenants interested in building 530, we require them. Some of them you heard from tonight. We require them to do extensive work on what it would take to bring the building up to occupancy standards. And that number is about $2 million because they've got to put in a completely new electrical system and it's required by app. So just just for the building alone. So if you want to enter the offsite improvements that you're that she's asking about. Yes. In addition, on the building there'll be water as well and other associated infrastructure of the building. We'll also be improving the offsite. We'll be improving the exterior areas including landscaping and parking lots and other components and fencing that will go immediately offsite will be bringing two loops of backbone Internet fiber, immensely valuable because once you bring that fiber through and it's in two loops, which means it's redundant inside, highly reliable, and others can access it. So it will be. And that's you know, it's a huge benefit. We did that in Stockton. We ran 20 miles of brand new backbone fiber. And the community is going to be able to access it, especially the least advantaged part of the community. So that's that's a big deal. And then we will be depending on the sequencing of your other infrastructure work, we will pay if it can coincide with our work, laying our pipes. There's other infrastructure that can be put on top of it. And so there'll be a net savings to the city, modest net savings the city, if it were to come in on top of what we're what we're doing and then we'll be repaving the roads and other infrastructure related the roads. In addition, they'll be a substantial upgrade of the electrical infrastructure to that zone because Alameda will be installing and giving us also dual feed. So it'll be good back up. It'll enhance the reliability of the electrical area, not just our area, but the area around us that's fed from the two substations. So those would be the core benefits that that we would see. So that's going to be one's first requirement. But that will be some contribution to the expansion. You know. The facility is amazing, but there's only if it is divided. The problem with that is that your usage is going to be high. You think something like that might indicate that the amplifier is only if you're reading this? We expect the project to go in two phases. One is with respect, we'll take advantage of existing spare capacity from AMP, which will be beneficial to everybody. And then in the event we choose to expand further inside of the building, then there would be a follow on upgrade in the addition of new facilities and new capacity by AMP. But that would be, you know, that's several years down the road. Okay. She did the right thing for developing the funding for the. And as we understand, it's negotiated directly with AMP in accordance with their rules and procedures, and they've got a set schedule and methodology by which they do that work. And I will note the amp is governed by the Public Utilities Board in our city. Manager is a member of that board. And not him. And so we have been performing that work so that while performing that work. Yes. Ample perform the work. They'll enter into an agreement with the applicant and perform the work. At the applicant's cost. Okay. The power a 1.5 to $2.5 million for you. I've been talking for. The number in the Senate report, the 1.5 to $2 million is what AMP estimates will be the revenue generated from the project at Build. I do not know what that translates in. As for usage. Do I have a representative from AMP who wants to address that? Once might not be the term. He would have. Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Council. Do you want to introduce yourself? Baba Beetham, the AGM of Administration for AMP. And then that's right. As to initially after about a year of the fall or some roll out, it's about 1.9 million in revenue for the year. You know, depending, as the gentleman said, on the full roll out, it would be about, you know, 40% of what we currently use today . So. Thank you. 40% of what? The current load of the city of Alameda. If the if there's a full roll out of the data center, you know, down the road and we're talking like five years or so down the road is our understanding that's that's the type of usage we're talking about. Then 40% of the correct. Roughly. And if the Nautilus representative wants to comment. Yeah. So the initial ramp, so let's assume it's 18 months from now, will be about a million or more. The phase one of the plan is for ten megawatts of use. AMP has 30 megawatts of available capacity, ten megawatts of use. That'll be about 10 million annually to AMP. So we'll grow as we go to 20 megawatts, it'll be roughly $20 million to AMP. Okay. Um. One more. Councilman Rudy. Is there a project labor agreement on the construction work for this? That was in Luis agreement? No. Okay. Um. Okay. Ah. So what we are looking at is, um. There is a we have an ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a 15 year lease with two five year options to extend substantially in the form of the attach. I know the contract has been being updated almost daily and for the you've read the staff report, you know, the buildings we're talking about and the location. So do I have a motion to approve this ordinance? Well. Councilmember de. So do I have a question? No. Frankly, I am happy to move the approval of the ordinance, recognizing all the time that went into this by our city staff and also our colleagues here on the dais. I think we've all asked really probing questions. You know, I'm satisfied that that regulations are in place to address the concerns that people have raised. And I've got to believe that the regulators and the people who attend the water quality meetings or any of those are even much more vigilant than we are, as well as being expert. And so I've got to believe that if they don't think that, if they think that this project puts at risk or any part of our bay, especially where the water or the water from this project meets the bay, I've got to believe that they will take the steps internally. I am hearing the what staff has to say as well as our legal staff. It seems as though we're being vigilant and making sure to include controls within our lease agreement. So in terms of how this is unwinding in the past few weeks, I believe that procedures are in place, regulations, regulators are in place. And in terms of moving forward, are that part of of what used to be NASA Alameda? I think this fulfills the process that we put in place to to spur economic development there. This has taken a little bit more time than I would have thought. But but I think it's been well worth it. Will there be four votes? I don't know, but I am certainly supportive of it. Much for the same reason I was supportive of it several weeks ago. But but. But I'm ready to to to move forward. And if there are four votes, that would be that would be great. And if there is not, then. And I would. Yeah, that would be. Thank you. And do I have a second? Okay. So what I would want to see actually, I mean a second because then we can do discussion. So I will, I will second the motion that's been made. Um, I think that it is appropriate for us to move forward to allow Nautilus to go through the regulatory process. I would want to see the lease conditioned on what was discussed earlier by the acting city attorney. If. Um. If, um, to add a condition to the lease that if serious environmental impacts were discovered, the project would shut down. Um. Which might be redundant to the. Um. To the regulatory process. But I would just want that, that safeguard because this would be assuming that the approvals were obtained. And then as the project went forward. Um. Some serious environmental impact or condition was discovered. So I would want that in there. But with that, I would. I mean, so you would you would accept an amendment to the motion. Okay, so we have a motion, a second further amended. Sorry. So I. Give. I appreciate that when I hear you say this is the and with all apologies, the poison pill, just because we all well, we all know it. We all know it. Okay. Take us to questions. Are we asking for it to come back with new language so that we are approving the new language? Are we asking are we are you is what's being proposed a approval of the lease with staff executing the following recommendations? Because those are two things. The latter. The latter. Okay. Because because I just answered your question. I think we've given sufficient direction to the city attorney. And I think. His his. Assurances were. Complete, at least to me. It's going to play out in a couple. So I have a couple of other I think I think other things I heard was that I would like to see in this something that requests that the water that that as a part of the state water board analysis that we are specifically asking them if we were going to move this forward that we specifically asked them to include, not limit their analysis to algae blooms and long term multi year impacts of warmth to the water. Yeah. So then the next one is going to be weekly ongoing monitoring and reporting. I think, you know, we are I guess what I want to what I have heard from the applicant is that they are very concerned about the environment and that is a core value of their endeavor and whatever from the council is. We do not want to be the council that develops the killer algae bloom of the you know, the great killer al the algae bloom of the 2020. And so I think, you know, at least for the first five years, there needs to be some sort of weekly ongoing monitoring because we don't know what the long term you know, I think we can model what we think the long term impacts are, but there needs to be. The reason I ask the question of whether we're giving staff direction or not is to the Councilmember Village Point. It probably would make sense for us to be a little bit. I guess. I don't know if staff feels they have the. Sense of the council in terms of what we want monitored. Exactly right. And and the reason I say that is because I'm not sure I could tell you right now. So it might be that we need to come in without apologies, come back with with with something. And then the last one is that we definitely talked about and it may be in here and I missed it, but it report back to the council after the state water board gives the clearance before the end. You're off. Right. So there's there's a check in here to make sure that there is agreement. So you I think those are the four conditions I've heard related to the environment, that that if something was going to go forward, I think it's probably the only way that it would be able to go forward and. Mr. O'Connor So what I think I understand and what I might suggest is that the items that you identified are the things that you definitely want us to monitor. But I also think that we're going to learn a lot from the state water board about what their concerns would be and to be able to identify what things we're going to be monitoring in addition to the items that you listed. And then I think that we could also add another layer of protection for us by consulting with our environmental consultant who helps us with bass cleanup on what he might suggest that we monitor or test based on the operations. And then we have yet another layer that we could add on. And we have a biologist that helps us with some projects with the endangered species. And so we have we have some resources. We could put together a list of of what we would be monitoring so that you could get a pretty extensive report on on what's happening out there. So so for me, we're monitoring with the idea that if something is found that that water is shut off, not we're going to spend another couple of months trying to figure this out. Right. We find my assumption is we're going forward with the idea that everybody is feeling very confident there will not be bad out. You know, I'm going to call it bad algae, but algae, you know, toxic, toxic algae. Something shows up and, hey, there's toxic algae, boom, we're shutting it off. We're not going to spend another three months saying, don't worry, we're tweaking the pipes and whatever else and the toxic algae is growing and whatever else. So my my question with what you just said sounds fantastic. Is the applicant sitting there going great? Well, Senator, you know, we're ready to move forward with the least developed list in the future. And whatever you put on the list is just fine and that will be acceptable to shut. Ah, you know, like shut it, you know, throw the kill. Switch. All of that is perfectly fine with us because that's what the regulators would require us in any event and to have you include in all of that. The only thing I would note that we work together. It needs to be standards based. Yes. We just can't shut down because somebody thinks there's something going on. And so whatever language you're working on, I just hope we can all appreciate. Let's agree that there's a standard behind it, otherwise. Otherwise we could, you know, we're just in an unmanageable situation. Absolutely. Thank you. And Mr. McCann, I just want to comment. I, I did. I did. I, I, I really like your suggestion of consulting with both the environmental consultant we've used around me the point and also the biologist, because they may see this and come up with things that we hadn't even contemplated tonight. So I think that's good since, you know, the question was asked, could we have the Sierra Club do this? My problem with that is the Sierra Club is an organization of individuals. I think we need to have measurable standards. I understand Bccdc and the State Water Control Board, when it comes to the secret process, there's certainly the opportunity or at any time they can comment. But I, I don't I don't think I can support adding the Sierra Club as a list of entities to to check this off. I mean, I guess for me, I don't necessarily mean that they're going to rate our things. But I think as the the one organization that's written in with concerns, if they were able to speak, say, to the biologists and say here are concerns, the biologists might be able to help find some standards to make sure that we're not going towards those things. Well, certainly their correspondence can be shared. I'm assuming they raise their concerns and they're certainly can do do that. Mr. McConnell, share their correspondence. Yes. And I also would just like to add that I think that once I think we all have a lot of education to raise around this issue because of all of the anxiety that we feel about it. And so I believe that the communication that about standards, about monitoring and everything that we learn can come back to the council via the city manager to city manager communication. I'm happy to just give you more than you ever want to know about inflow and outflow and what the regulators say about it so that we can kind of feel good about this as we're moving forward. Okay. Can I ask one last. One last question related to that. Will there be an opportunity within that communication if the council says, ooh, I've got a problem with that, I guess, right? That's only meaningful if the council can say I have a problem with that, add this or change this, or we've got to stop this project. This isn't working. Out. So okay. I think the. Fact that you guys are having to say and I want to be clear, the project applicant and the city are arguing over what what objective standards are and can't come to an agreement. There might be a point in time. That's where I'm just a little worried about having this, like, yeah, just create a list and whatever is on the list. I want to make sure that the end of the day is the leaseholders who are raising the concern that we have the. Ability to say, yes, that's the right list or no, that's not the right list and it's not moving forward until this thing is on the list. I would say that if we're arguing over the standard of the list, that and we have the recommendations from our biologist and our environmental consultant that there shouldn't be any argument. It should be the cities cities requirements. But but just be. Clear, Mr. Leavitt. Just to be clear. Vice Mayor Knox Why? You're just saying that you want to believe that if we're going back and forth on the standards, on the standard objective criteria, that if there's disagreement that there is ability to move that. Back to the council. Oh yeah. If if there's at that at that point. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We can definitely do that. We can make sure that's in there. Okay. And I would envision that this is going to be a process. So you'll be getting information as we move along and and happy to get feedback and questions and and to to craft it in a way that that works for us. I mean, this is our property. And you said, Councilman Brody, you had your hand up. Thank you. I was going to just get my comments. So to me, this is a risk versus reward type of analysis. And to me, the risks still totally outweigh the rewards. So I'm not going to support it. We're talking about the environmental risks, so I'm not going to rehash those. But it all the remedy seems to be trust us, we won't let that happen. And if it does, trust the agencies. Yet at the same time, you know, in one presentation today, one presentation last time, and in the letter to the Sierra Club, there's name dropping of Gavin Newsom and Betty. So, I mean, I'm not saying there's any problem with the state regulators, but, you know, the name dropping is a little off putting to me as someone who worked in the state. So and then, you know, some of the regulatory agencies miss it and we still do something bad to the environment, then we'll shut down. It just seems like the risk on that is, well, one, the risk that the environmental problem happens and then too, that it's going to be extremely costly either in litigation or clean up or undoing this lease. That that to me is just not that's not an accept amount of risk I'm willing to take. So and then the other, you know, reward I hear is will we get to, you know, lease a property in in the middle of the enterprise zone? But then the risk on that is that and as staff has been telling us that, you know, long term leases or options to buy of that property are not in the vision or not in the plan yet. This one basically, you know, by the time this lease expires, I'll be 80 years old if I'm still here. So I don't look that old now, but that's a long time. So we're basically tying up the prime property right in the middle of the enterprise zone for 25 years. And to me, the risk on that is that we're going to lose the opportunity to develop something even better there. And everyone's been saying, well, this is, you know, we don't want this type of use. We don't want that type of use. We don't want, you know, minimal job creators. We want maximum job creators. We want a campus. We want tech. We want something shiny, something glass. Well, we're not going to get that if we tie up this building for 25 years. So then the the analysis is, well, okay, but we're going to benefit AMP. Well, and I appreciate that we had the the comments from Mr. Bang are put it in the agenda because I think he kind of debunked a lot of those those myths. I mean the purpose of Alameda point and and our leasing structure shouldn't be to increase revenue for rent for AMP it should be to increase or take care of the well one create jobs and to take care of the infrastructure. And I guess we have the dif but you know, we're not going to see hardly any of it in the first 25 years and then we're not going to see the other of it unless there's two extensions. So when you look at it in the big picture, it's really not a lot of money we're going to see . And then the idea that somehow this is going to create a greener, you know, amp by 2020, as Mr. Banger points out, all of AMP is going to be green, all of it's going to be renewable. So we're not going to create a better source of renewable energy on the island. And I just I'm just not there. And, you know, there's the reward that the trades are going to be able to, you know, do this construction, but the trade to be able to build whatever is built out there. I mean, I personally think that building needs to be torn down after going through that tour and seeing the shape of that building and seeing the position of it in the middle of the enterprise zone. You know, I don't really think we should be spending our time trying to lease that. We should be trying to sell that property and develop something, you know, pardon the trite word at 11:30 p.m.. Something nice. And I don't know how a building with no walls that needs a new roof, $6 million worth of work really is going to be the catalyst to that to that side beat that enterprise zone because we didn't see any market case studies or market reports or analysis that says data centers. Suddenly you put a data center in and all of a sudden all this tech sprouts out around it. I mean, this is the cloud now. You know, we don't need to have people right next to each other. So I didn't even see that it was a, you know, hypothetical was a hope. Maybe it was a business model from 15, 20 years ago, I'm not sure. But I'm just not here on this and I'm not going to be supporting it. And, you know, I think we can do a lot better. Thank you. Ms.. Feller, did you wish to comment? Yeah. There's a lot of things that I'm not okay with currently in the first place, so all kind of started. I think that the concept of monitoring is completely unacceptable to me. So if there were any monitoring going on, I don't think it's for the first five years. And frankly, I think the build up over time, if it weren't, I think that the monitoring needs to continue throughout the duration of the lease, not just for a short period of time. I think that much like with other projects, the applicant should be paying for monitoring, but somebody else should be in charge of it. Um, insofar as we talked about standard and 20 to 7 standard, but I'm, you know, it may see our problem is there have been other questions raised. I think that, you know, we need to have a fair conversation about what the standards are, because I think what we're concerned about and what other entities may be concerned about , maybe different things that are and I think biased. So I would actually want to have, you know, a community discussion about what the standards are. I think it's great that we can consult the specialists that we work with and get their input, perhaps setting up a meeting with the interested community members and groups and the people that we already work with to see what standards might make sense for me if something I'd be interested in and support and frankly, that I would want to have for coordination here. I'm very concerned. Not one little thing. And actually three five 3529 is the climate. So he's talking about one building, not three buildings, and we're talking about roughly 85,000 square feet in the enterprise zone. And that's creating very little jobs long term. So we've talked about this before. I'm actually not okay with the the lease option, the renewal option. I don't think we're getting 7.5% death rate in the workplace because we're tying the property for, you know, a quarter century. So, Mr. Keller, if I if I could just make an inquiry of you because it's almost 1130 and I'm also mindful of not giving you out too late. But I think I'm hearing that you're a no vote and that Councilmember Ody is a no vote as well. So if I'm laying out what I would want if I'm not saying no, I'm saying these are the things that I want. I heard everybody else kind of go through what they want and believe. These are the things that I find like. Okay, I'm in the I believe Mr. McConnell said that it would be the state water board that would do the monitoring. And the Nautilus representatives said they're happy to bear that cost. You want it to be more than five years? I think that's a reasonable suggestion. But but if you're saying we can't go forward until we'd had the community conversation, I don't know how we can move forward tonight unless you're saying that in some particular standard. But people are doing something. I think that there can be a compensation of what many are not. Right. And secondly, we're talking about perhaps consulting with our biologists and. Our other folks. Oh, okay. Got it. And then you have a conversation on this as part okay. As part of that community conversation. That's what you were referring to that with. Okay. Got it. It's it's it's hard not having you in the room. There's something about being able to see somebody, but. Okay. I'm understanding. Go ahead. You know, my concern is the usage of I guess it by my name, you know, these green goals. I am concerned about the amount of consumption and pressure being put on our overall system. One of the things that we've heard is about the impacts where system operators that monitor these lines are line workers and everything else. I think it's great that AMP management is fully on board for for having this happen. But I also, if you're talking about 40% of the current load, that's substantial. And you know, I don't know that we want our staff to handle that kind of increase and to tell you about your plan for it and whether or not we actually have the ability to staff up to meet those needs. So I do have concerns about that and partially why that and the fact that we're talking about so much square footage in the enterprise councilmember only point I'd be fine to initially, but two options I want to support two options. So to expand, I don't think that there's enough there for us. And just looking at development timelines and things like that, I wouldn't want to hold the property up for that long. So you wouldn't support or you wouldn't support two options to extend, but you would support one. One five year option is on the park. So the 15 year lease plus five years. So 20 total. Yeah. And we're talking about I mean some of the technology, you know, the technology is constantly evolving from the start. Before not even know you 15 or 20 years, you're going to need to a program that size we're running that level you know. Okay. So I am seeing a thumbs up from the Nautilus representative. Was that the thumbs up to the wench? Come on up to the microphone. So all of that is perfectly acceptable. I would just note that in terms of the consultation, that's exactly what the secret process will do. And so if we are able to move forward to the secret process, that is where all the regulatory requirements are discussed and all the requirements that aren't focused on by the regulators. And so and so for us, we need the approval of the conditional lease in order to initiate all those processes where we're in a catch 22. And so and so I really, you know, we would appreciate just the first step of getting the conversation initiated in the forms that are designed to do exactly what it is that everyone's been discussing. Because I would note, again, we share we are 100% aligned as to as to the end outcome of this. So thank you. Okay. Um. Can I ask? So the vice mayor. I just want to clarify that what Councilmember Vela is asking and what I was talking about, as well as a community, is a city led community discussion with the consultant and biologist or whatnot, not giving the community an opportunity to write letters to a secure process. I just what I heard at the diocese or at the podium and I think what was requested, I just want to make sure that there was clarity on that. Can I ask Councilmember Vella it? I've written down all the different conditions. I'm not clear how to write a condition related to your AMP concern. It was that just a statement or was that a we have to do X in the in the lease. So that's it. I mean, I have a concern about that legislation that wouldn't be negotiated with the Raiders and come here. You know, one of the things that we talked about was the increase in policing that we needed. And I don't I don't think we've had that conversation with AMP about how they actually plan on drafting up. You're talking about 40% of our current load. I mean, that's right. So I guess the question I'm asking is, if we're if we're talking about. You said you were. With the right conditions, ready to approve the lease. But that sounds like there's a conversation that before we could we could make that. I would just I would add that. So I was in Washington, D.C. last week with Nick Operacoes and two members of the Public Utility Board for the Northern California Power Association Conference and some lobbying on the Hill. And he is very supportive of this. And he and the PBE have given lots of thought to this. They this is not something that is an afterthought. And so, I mean, we certainly want to know that our other aid, other departments are, you know, well-run. I, I do think that the due diligence has been done. And we. Think. That, yeah, we know that our system operators are currently understaffed. They're currently working on significant amount of overtime, and we're talking about ramping up. They're the ones that monitor the system. 24 seven So if a power outage or a disruption program that we do rely on. I also know that we've been having a hard time maintaining apprentices and getting them up to the journeyman position. Um. With regard to the Green Line, we're talking about adding in a significant amount of, you know, lines out there and everything else. I want to know what the plan is, but I think the vice mayor is going to find at the end of the night considerable amount of. But what I. Actually I'm the mayor. The vice mayor was asking, what did I what would my thoughts on, you know, how to try to get there? You know, I do want to get a report back from and at some point I then, you know, to say that he put a lot of thought into this, I would like to know what the actual rollout plan is, how we plan on standing up for a 40% increase. And I'm I'm sorry. I'm sorry we weren't able to address that question when we were in closed session with Mr. Perot, cos he's not here tonight. But if that's a question that your vote hinges on, then I'm afraid we can't answer you tonight if it's something you want consultation with as part of this community conversation. I heard her say that she wanted a request. She went to request a report back from Apple on how they're going to handle it, but not necessarily contingent on moving forward with this. Is that correct? Councilmember Bell? Correct. Sorry. Sorry. I must have missed that. Yeah. And then the other thing, the second option I'm not supportive of. And the second option? Only do one five year option, not two. Yeah, we already got. We got agreement on that. Okay. Are we ready to take a vote? Because we've got three more items to cover. But I think we've also covered this extensively. Okay. Can I ask one last question? You can. And I think we may actually have a. Okay. Before you ask questions, let's hear from the the legal team here. The the question and it was raised and I'm not sure that we got a clear answer if the council moves ahead with approving tonight is staff directed to include in the lease the comments which have been made and then we will just go forward based on that? Or does the council want to see that language before the sort of final vote on the lease is taken? I think we need that. Okay. I and I thought that I heard Mr. Makana read back to us, which she understood, and that that was sufficient to you. Is that your. Understanding? I mean, I think that's a part of the question is, is the motion to give. What I heard was the motion was to give direction to address these and that it didn't need to come back. Yeah, that's what I heard, too, so. Okay, but now. Well. Jody. I have a. Question. I mean, is it going to come back in second reading on modified or come back modified? And I still get to ask questions, even though I'm not going to support it. I mean, I know what you were going to say. You do so. And I think, you know, I have still 2 minutes left. So it's it is an ordinance which needs a second read. And what what I'm I guess what what I'm asking is if there's if there's four votes to sort of move ahead with this, I think the the better course of action would then would be to bring the ordinance back with these revisions for the first reading. The first reading. Okay. I mean, I think we need to do whatever is most legally correct. But but it will be it will come back and it will be. I mean, does it open it up to something? Is it going to be on consent? It will be it will be a regular agenda item, because we will need to have the council introduce the ordinance. So there will be a chance for the people to speak about the lease again, just like we did a couple or three weeks ago now or something. But that will give the council the opportunity then to see what language has been drafted. Okay. My concern is that given the time frame, we may not get this back to you on the 21st. But that's I mean, that's yeah. That's just the turnaround time. Right. And plus, your May 21st agenda has rent control on it, which may take some time. Yeah. So we, you know, we're just sort of how we will bring this back as quickly as we can. But obviously, there has to be some drafting. Certainly the applicant is going to want to have some input in terms of what the language says, but we will get it back to you as quickly as we can. Well, and I think for a number of reason that that works out, because then you'll also have an opportunity to address some of the questions that have been raised tonight in this draft. And try to translate what's in the leaked document itself. Your next. Just a minute. Okay. Yes. As we put that plan in action, I just want to point out, we have somebody on the phone right now who is going to this requires four votes. Yeah. We currently if I were to read the votes have four votes plus Mr. Odey. Yeah. It's about to go over. One of the four votes is about to leave. So I just want to write to you. Yeah. This could become a. Am I putting. Yeah, I got it. And so can I, if I could just ask. So hearing that as a good reminder, is there any way you could see the structure that so that this is a first reading? I mean, I don't I well. Okay. And there's a. The if I. Misspell it. I didn't plan on not being up at the meeting and what I mean and one final the really going into labor and you plan on calling the upcoming meeting. So I, I want to make that clear. I'm fine with this coming back after first reading, I, I think that some of we've given them a lot to put into at least. Yeah. And I think it's that we certainly rather than draft or. You know we. That we're talking about a 78 pages so I'm a little hesitant to find a draft or find a way to make it fit within the first reading. And I think that gives us the opportunity also to have Nico come back and be present to collect a little bit on the plan. Yeah, I don't know Mr. Bercow's schedule, but I will say, and by the way, the 78 pages of the list are not all necessary to. I've gone through that. A lot of that is boilerplate language that's in every release. But I you know, it's probably a stretch to make this a first reading with staff direction. I can just read your face, Mr. Roush. It's okay. I would not. I would not recommend it. I got you. I Mr. Levitt, did you want to comment? No, I would agree. Yes. Okay, Attorney. We have a person in the second. All right. Okay. So in that case, we have, um. Do we need a further motion at this time? Let's. Well, I think we would like to. I think from staff's point of view that, I mean, maybe there is a consensus there's for the time. And if that's the case, then we will proceed accordingly without necessarily a vote. If that's if that's a fair characterization of a fair. Fair point. Because we don't want to put everyone through this excruciating exercise only to come back and have it fail. So it's. So do you want a vote to approve us going forward with a modified ordinance or. I'd like. I think it would be helpful for us if there was a vote to direct staff to return to the Council with a revised list that encompasses the discussion that the council has made tonight, I think. Thank you. As a for one, I think that will be okay. Okay. Got it. Do I have such a motion? Actually, I could second that one because it's just to bring back revised lease. I have a second. All in favor. I missed it. Oh, I. That's five, right. Okay. Technically, four other actions will roll. Oh, I'm sorry. You know what? In the clinic, this is what happened to me late at night. Because we have a member who's not in the room. We actually have to go by a roll call vote. So we had a motion by Councilmember de Saka, second by Councilmember O.D. and now we're going to vote out, start wherever you want. Councilmember said. I'm not. Quite. I yes. La Bella. Yes. Yes. Mia as. I. Then. All right. All right. Thank you, everybody. So now we are moving on. Does anybody need a break? We need a five minute break. Okay, but really, 5 minutes. We are keeping people up way past their bedtime. Okay. Why don't any of them are here any more? Because this. Okay. So we are. We have a couple more items to here. My suggestion is we're now on six C and this is adoption of the fiscal year Community Development BLOCK Grant Partnership Investment Action Plan, etc.. I am going to respectfully suggest that we dispense with this staff report. I understand that we do have speaker slips and I understand that they have committed to speaking really fast. And and I first of all, I apologize for keeping you out this late. Sometimes, you know, you can look an agenda and go, oh, how long could you know? It's mostly just regular agenda items. How long would it take? Well, you never know is the answer, but you do. This is a very important program and you do important work. So let's call you up. You've got 3 minutes, but don't feel that you have to take your full 3 minutes. But you have our rapt attention. Okay, Madam Clerk. There's five speakers and Stan Ashbrook, Alison, Diane, Aaron Scott, Liz Varella. And we think Catherine Schwartz left and Angie Larson has Watson. Okay? Yeah. Come on up. Sure. Hi. My name is Dan Ashbrook. I'm the development director for Legal Assistance for Seniors. And of course, I want to thank you for your support and ongoing support. And briefly, I just want to say the importance of this funding cannot be understated. Especially as we all. Know, more and more seniors are entering our social service systems, the increased senior population, as well as challenging socioeconomic conditions. I just want to say that this funding will help us address elder abuse involving financial exploitation, domestic violence, or neglect. Health law. Advocacy for seniors falling through through the cracks of our Medicare and medical systems. Senior immigrant legal service services to assist in obtaining citizenship, public benefits. Protection to ensure our seniors have access to entitlements which keep them financially independent, legal guardianship advice, education and court representation for those caring for other other children. And also the launch of our Housing Legal Services to. Prevent senior evictions. And then finally, a series of community education. Programs and very. Importantly. Our Medicare counseling, as. We do our high cap counseling through the domestic senior center. Thank you. Thank you so much. Just over a minute. Okay. Next speaker. We have Alison and then Erin. Hi. Hi. Good evening. I'm Alison DeYoung. And I'm the. Executive director of even INR, which is the nonprofit that operates 211 Alameda. County. I've spoken before, mostly before. Just a quick. Reminder, 211 is the three digit dialing code available, 24 seven in multiple. Languages to connect people. To health, housing and human services. I'm going to dispense with a lot of stuff. I'm just going to also remind you just some updates from the past year. We are the county wide call center for the coordinated entry system, which the county rolled out about 18 months ago. To serve people in a housing crisis, literally homeless folks. 211 screens callers. To ensure that they meet HUD's. Definition of literal homelessness and then. Warm transfer them to one of the housing resource centers. Since we launched. We have screened and transferred a total of 383. Callers to the Mid County West Housing Resource. Center, which includes Alameda. The only other thing I'll just share updates. From the past year we've migrated to a new cloud based phone system that also has a number of enhancements. We've launched two way texting. I'm very happy to announce we're sort of in a pilot phase with that. And we're partnering with cities. As you saw in the letter, on a sort of. A. Different funding model, which comes with some enhancements, including data visualization. Disaster preparedness trainings and embedding. Our online resource. Directory on the city website. So thank you for your ongoing support. Thank you for your good work. Next speaker. Scott and then Liz. Brook. Good evening, I think. Yes, almost. Good morning. Aaron Scott, the executive director of the Family Violence Law Center. Thank you for your ongoing support. We provide legal services for domestic violence survivors, as all of you I know are aware. One new thing I just want to make you aware of is that we have recently received a grant from the state to provide more direct services around housing, keeping people stably housed. And so we have a new case manager position and an in-house attorney. So not only are we going to be able to provide help with restraining orders and other limited family law matters. But we now have an attorney in-house who specializes in housing and housing matters so she can help people with evictions, keeping people in subsidized housing, etc.. So thank you again for your ongoing support. Thank you so much. Under one minute now Liz, really top that. Thank you so much for your support of Midway Shelter once again this year. This funding is really core to keeping our shelter running and going. One thing that's new this year is us really connecting with our services to outreaching to folks on the street to are starting the warming shelter this year in our office on the base we've really made a connection between those three and we hope to do more this next year. So thank you. Thank you so much for all you do. And then I believe Kathryn's not here, so I think it's A.A.. I can make Liz take it away. So. Hello, I'm Angie Watson, Hugill, and I am the peer housing coordinator for Echo Housing. We are the young fair housing and today landlord program that serves the city of Alameda. We investigate discrimination complaints in housing, and we work with tenants in which they know what their rights are. And we. You really. Are about keeping people in their housing, making sure that they have their rights and that they. Have support to keep and build this place. And we thank you so much. For 11 years you supported. Echo Housing and thank you so much for your continued. Support. Thank you. And really to all of you, we can't thank you enough for all you do. And our community, we've seen it up close and personal and you're all awesome. All right. So what we're looking for is a motion to adopt the fiscal year 20 1920 CDBG Home Action Plan and authorize city manager to negotiate and execute grant agreements, grant modifications and other related documents at funding levels approved by Congress to have a motion. Is that a motion or comment? I want to make 10 seconds just to thank everyone for staying, and your dedication to this work is amazing. Also staying till midnight to speak about it and I wish we could do more, but I'd like to move approval of that item. I have a motion to have a second. I will second that and Councilmember Ortiz comments and also just apologize that you've had to rush through this. At the end of the day, it does. It's not a reflection of our appreciation for all the work you do. Thank you so much. Councilmember Vela. Do I hear you up there? Out there? I'm ready to support this. All right. So then we've got a motion in second. All in favor. I'm sorry. It's a roll call vote, Madam Clerk. Sorry. I'll get to say hi. Nice. Like I O.D.. Yes. That La. Mer as. I try to. Make a transcontinental phone call. Thank you, everyone. Okay, that motion passes now. The next. The next item is six D. And again, we're in a speed contest. Ma'am? Madam Clifford, do you want to introduce that one?