Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Fifteen-Year Lease with One Five-Year Option to Extend, Substantially in the Form of the Attached Lease, with Nautilus Data Technologies, Inc. for Building 530, an 82,251-Square Foot Building Located at 120 West Oriskany Avenue, 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)
Introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a 15 year lease with one five year option to extend substantially in the form of the attached lease with Non-Listed Technologies for building 530 an eight 82,251 square foot building located at 120 West ORANSKY Avenue Building 529 a 3200 square foot building and Building 608 330 343 square foot building at Alameda Point. This requires four affirmative votes and we have 12 speakers. So just for clarification, we have that many speakers. Each one will have 2 minutes. And Kelly. Evening, Miss Mercado. Hi. Good evening. I'm Ninette Mercado from the Community Development Department. This is not our first time with Natalie's, but I'll walk us through it again. Natalie's is a data center that uses innovative water cooling technology that reduces the cost of computing, cuts power usage, eliminates water consumption, decreases air pollution and lowers greenhouse gas emissions. NOVELIS has been interested in developing a data storage facility at Alameda Point for approximately two years. Initially, they were interested in the barge water cooling system they're implementing in the Delta. But after touring Alameda Point and seeing Building 530 with its proximity to the water, lack of windows and privacy, they thought the building would be perfect for a land based facility. A proposed lease was presented to the Council on April 2nd and May 7th. The Council continued its consideration of the lease on May 7th until after a special meeting and tour of Site B Enterprise District. At this special meeting, council toured Building 530 and reviewed the footprint which was reduced to accommodate the future development of Site B. At the May 7th meeting, the Council requested that Naa and Nautilus agreed to eliminate a five year option from the lease required third party environmental monitoring weekly established standards for monitoring at a public meeting with regulators and city biologist allowing public comment. Then the standards for measuring the monitoring will be developed by scientists and regulators. They agreed to report monitoring results to the city and the city would have the ability to terminate the lease should the shared materially adverse environmental impacts be identified. Not a Nautilus estimate said its investment of $6 million and improvements to the building, which includes a new roof facade improvement, environmental asbestos, mold remediation, landscaping, security and parking upgrades. Nautilus will have a significant impact on the Alameda Municipal Power's rate. The Cartwright Station at Island Alameda Point has space capacity to accommodate much of the project demand from Nautilus, but ample require Nautilus to make a contribution to the expansion and future replacement of the facility if Nautilus exceeds a certain capacity. At the May 7th meeting, council expressed concern about AMP staff and capacity to service a large new power user. AMP has confirmed that current staffing levels are adequate to accommodate the project through construction initial ramp up and to which is 2 to 3 years and then full operation at full buildout. AMP estimates there will be 20 to 25 million annual revenue generated from the Northwest project. The increased revenue puts downward pressure on future rates and rate increases for all AMP customers. Nautilus has worked an agreement with Building and Construction Trades Council to hire union workers during construction, which is estimated to be five years at buildout. Nautilus will have 30 full time data center jobs. Staff has followed up on many of the council inquiries, including reaching out to East Bay Regional Park District Environmental Services Manager. Regarding the opinion, getting an opinion on the technology, we were told by the the services manager that the Regional Water Quality Board will be equally, if not better qualified to evaluate the projects and that whatever they would tell us would be just as good as what East Bay Regional Park District would say. Council has asked that there are other tenants who have to go through such rigorous lease conditions. Other green tech companies like Makani, Google or Mattel Energy. Neither of those companies had had to go through a regulatory review. Nortel is a research and manufacturing company. Their operations are fully contained within their building. Mcconney Google did their tests outside, but they have only interfered with the California. They would have only interfered with the California leased turn. So we did not allow them to test within the leased turn season. Subsequently, they moved their testing outside of the lease term buffer zone, so there was no impact to the environment. We have had tenants who were required to secure separate stormwater permits because of the nature of their work and they were required to provide monitoring reports to regional agencies. One tenant was sued by beekeepers for their for their dirty runoff. The tenant paid fines and was under a multiyear consent decree. We have a tenant who wants to test their technology in the Northwest Territories. They've performed all kinds of sound monitoring, reporting, which the city's biologists will bring to consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to see if that's the location, if the location works. Those are the only similar situations that we have to Nautilus. If not all this is approved and receives all its permits. They have agreed to come back to the City Council with a report out on on the conditions of approvals and requirements from regulatory agencies. So the city and the residents will know what would be required of their tenancy if the city council approves this lease tonight. It does not comment to the tenants occupancy approval tonight, approves the lease, but more importantly commences the 15 month due diligence period for the tenant. Nautilus must immediately begin its secure process through the city as well as secure permits through regional water quality Control Board Bccdc. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, California State Lands and a variety of other regulatory agencies. If the tenant is unable to secure a permit, the lease term terminates and the city retains the security deposit and collects an early termination fee of approximately $50,000. Tonight, we hope the Council will make a decision on the lease, approve the lease to start the environmental evaluation process so the city and the tenant can understand what will be required to implement and monitor this new technology or reject the lease, allowing the tenant to quickly identify another land location that could work for them after their focus on Alameda Point for several years. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Mercado, are there any questions of staff before we go to public comment? Councilmember Desai Yeah, just one clarifying question. I couldn't quite recall. You said AMP expects revenues from this project. Was that 2.5 million or 25 million. As 20 to 25 million at full buildout? And that's over X number of years. Yes, about six years. They expect to be at full buildout. So that's 20 to $25 million that would go to AMP's bottom line. Okay. All right. Thank you. QUESTION Councilmember Odie. Thank you, Madam Chair. So on that issue, I mean, have we evaluated if AMP will need additional headcount to manage that extra load? Because I believe that's pretty, isn't it, 40% of our current load. That's a number I heard batted around. I don't know how much it is of the current load. Okay. Sorry. Well, if it is 40%, I mean, is that your contention then that we would be able to manage that workload with our existing employees? So we check with AMP to see because it came up at the last meeting and they said that they would be able to ramp up over the 3 to 5 year period to handle the operations and maintenance. And I believe you're correct. I think I believe it is about 40%. Okay. So by ramp up, does that mean no headcount or additional headcount? I believe it's additional headcount. Okay. So then the reality is it's not 22, 25, because you'd have to deduct the cost of of of the employees. And we don't have an idea of what that number is. Yeah, it'd be 20, 25 million in revenue. But you're right, there would be increased expenses also. But we don't know what those are. I don't have that right. The top. Yes, there there would be increased expenses. Thank you. Any further clarifying questions? Councilmember Villa. I'm going to take that. I hear that. So no no questions. Okay. So with that, let's go to public speakers, please. And the council, the clerk will call three names in just a word. We'll get out of here earlier if you all hear your name and move toward the aisle. Thank you. Okay. Who's up. First? Jim Cornette and Mark Klein and Lisa Baker. Not American Council members. Good to see you again. We're really pleased to be here and really pleased to have so many now interested people from the environmental community. When I was in earlier my career, I had the great privilege of working with thousands of people to get the first federal mandate, phasing out incandescent light bulbs, cutting energy efficiency out of light bulbs by more than 70%. Our project is that big. I mean, the success of our project just from energy efficiency, will drive more than 70% improvement in data center performance. And if adopted widely, it can have as big an impact as incandescent bulbs. But I was also fortunate in my career to work on marine conservation issues. I was part of a large group of people to get unanimous legislation at the federal level to end overfishing in America. I had the privilege of working on the earliest programs to tackle marine debris in the marine environment. And I worked hard with many, many people and many from the environmental community to establish four of the largest marine protected areas in the world, inspiring 14 other nations to do the same heroic effort by thousands of people. And I just want to underline the environmental conservation benefits of what we are seeking to do here, not only to showcase now the media are that big and our commitment to protecting the environment to be sure that we'd have negative consequences of that strike. So the only thing we're asking today is the approval of a lease that's conditioned on us going through the gantlet of regulatory processes, including the biggest one led by the city itself on Sequa. We just want the fair chance to teach people about our technology and show that we will 100% comply with the law. There's only two outcomes of this process. Either we pass muster and we have no environmental impact or we don't pass muster and we have no environmental impact because our project will not proceed. And so all we're asking is just to get to the next step. We welcome the conversation with the environmental community. We welcome their engagement. We're going to be 100% transparent. We want to share the hearing. And the speaker is. Thank you. Thank you. Mark Klein, then Lisa Baker, then Lynne O'Connor. Okay, remember everyone, you've got 2 minutes. Okay. I'm with the Harvard SEAL Group. Originally, I was neutral on this lease. You get a little close to the microphone. We can all. Hear. We always neutral, but now I'm against it. The company has brushed off too many key questions by just by just saying wait to the permit process. Specifically, for instance, of course, I'm concerned about the Harvard SEAL flute. And we figured out that there's no room under the float for a five foot wide pipe. So I sent an email to Mr. Kirwan. How are you going to deal with this? The flute will crash against the pipe, and it'll be destroyed in rough weather. And he answered, Don't worry. We'll look into that later. Well, that's not good enough. What's going to happen on the. What? I'm trying to get my thoughts together. When I asked when I asked for that and that that question and I got a brave, vague answer. We'll look into it later. Well, that that worried me. I suspect that he didn't give me a specific answer of how to do with that, because the only way I can imagine they'll deal with it is is to dredge the whole area all the way to the rock wall, and that would destroy the entire habitat. And he didn't want to see that because it would be politically unpopular. So he just pushed me off with a well, look into it. Well, there's no way to fit a five foot wide pipe under that float without dredging, as far as I can see. And dredging would wreck the habitat. So that's why I'm against this. Thank you, Mr. Klein. Our next speaker. Lisa Baker, then Lynne O'Connor, then Jeffrey Byrne offered. Hello. Hello. So I'm Lisa Baker. I'm an Alameda resident, and I've been one of the harbor seal monitors for almost the past three years. And it's been a labor of love. A huge number of people involved with it was amazing to get it together, to have the float made for the SEALs and then to learn that this five foot wide pipe with warm water is that's coming out of a highly estimable environmental conscious group. It just I just don't see how that could be allowed to happen. I mean, if the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society and San Francisco Baykeeper all have serious concerns about this, and apparently the technology of this five foot wide pipe that will drain warm water out into the bay is actually mandated by the state of California to be phased out. So why is that technology being used for this project particularly? Is it supposed to be cutting edge and wonderfully environmentally sensitive? Obviously, I'm very concerned about the harbor seals, but my dad was an eminent marine biologist and he told me years ago about the effect of heat on marine organisms and how small differences of temperature in marine water can cause devastating effects to habitats. And so I don't want that to happen. I think I think building the facility might be fine, but find another way to get rid of your warm water. That's it. Thank you. Next speaker Lynne O'Connor, then Jeffrey Brentford, then Linda Kurland. Hello, Mayor and City Council. As a lifelong Bay Area resident and a 30 year old Alameda resident, I am extremely aware of how essential a healthy bay is to the livability and quality of life. To quote something that was said earlier that we enjoy in Alameda and throughout the Bay Area, I have memories of living next to a bay that was less healthy than it is now. And I'm aware of how very small changes can create large environmental consequences for the better or the worse. As a registered nurse, I am a bit of a science geek, so I was extremely concerned when I read the article in the paper about the notably static technologies use proposed use of cool bay water to cool their towers and then pushing out warmer water into the bay. I did a bit of research on this technology and discovered that it's already been banned by the state of California for use in cooling power plants, and the technology would cause warmer water than it's a norm for the bay to be discharged into a fairly placid section of the bay. Even water that is slightly warmer than the norm has potential to cause algae bloom, which decreases oxygen in her bay and can sometimes cause toxic algae blooms, which are toxic to aquatic life. Water that's been discharged at such a high rate, 10,000 gallons per minute will also cause a great deal of sediment. There's evidently a herring spawning ground near that area. I did some research on that. This was all in the last day or two. Herring spawning grounds do not move and they are very adversely affected by sediment. They don't live. Herring is essential to the ecology of our bay, sierra club baykeeper, etc. are against it. So am I. Good job the next speaker and we don't applaud because it'll just get us out of here later. So yeah. Jeffrey Bernard Ford, then Linda Colony and then Burkett Evans. Good evening, everyone. $25 million gross charges of electricity. That's a really big toaster that they're running over there. Heat. Heat is amazing. And people these people have to dissipate enormous amounts of heat. So they're using they're using the electricity to create data. And who are they, by the way? What is Nautilus data? Titan Technologies? What organizations are they affiliated with? Who? What and how will it benefit the Bay Area? Rent will be collected by the city, so there is some money in the coffers for the city. And aluminum usable power will also get a fairly large chunk of money out of these guys if they're allowed to do this. The companies that were developing the hotel projects on Bay Farm Island and Park Street in particular were really scrutinized and they were put through a number of ringers in their process for acceptance. I'm hoping that this project will get similar scrutiny, or much more so because of the just the very much unknown. You know, this project is it's unknown. And Lynn was just talking about them not being this technology being, you know, phased out. I think they should build a 5 million square foot barge, take it out in the middle of the ocean and let the ocean dissipate the heat. I think the Bay Area, the bay itself is much too sensitive an environment to allow these people to heat up. Thank you. Thank you. Linda Colony, Denberg Evans and Jill Sexy. Hi. I'm speaking tonight as a concerned Alameda resident, but also as the president of the board of Golden Gate, Audubon Society, and co-chair of its local conservation committee, which is the Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve. We urge the Council to vote against the proposals to Nautilus. The proposed cooling system will cause water turbulence at the point of discharge will tend to trap aquatic life at the intake point and will discharge water into the bay. The temperature warmer than when it is drawn in this part of the bay and which will occur is critical environment for the SEALs, as you've heard for our least terns, who fish in that part of the bay for brown pelicans, which there's a huge roost on Breakwater Island just past where this discharge would be. They also need to fish and water. Warmer water temperature is known to adversely impact fish at certain stages, certain species, particularly vulnerable parts of their lifecycle. In addition, warm water cause holds less dissolved oxygen than cooler water, and dissolved oxygen is a critical component of a healthy bay. So if we reduce fish, we're going to reduce the food available for the pelicans, the terns and lots of other birds that eat our fish. So the bay is an important part of what makes Alameda special. We've worked very hard to protect the environment as the council has, and the city as a whole has worked really hard to protect the environment. We can't afford the risks that are posed by this project. Thank you. Thank you. Speakers. You're all doing extremely well. Evans then Jill Sachs and Marjorie Powell. Mayor and city council. I want to speak in opposition to the 15 year lease with Nautilus Data Technologies. Our bay is a delicate ecosystem already badly impacted by human activities. The proposed project would pull 14.4 million gallons of water per day from the bay. That 5,256,000,000 gallons per year from the bay hit it and discharge it into another part of the bay. Even with the best possible fish screens, Nautilus will be pulling in countless aquatic organisms every day, hitting and probably killing them. It will then dump the heated water into the bay, changing the overall temperature of the bay and without doubt affecting the natural processes in a complex ecosystem. In the past, communities across America have allowed corporations to come in, exploit natural resources and extract profit. Those companies often closed down after doing incalculable environmental harm, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab. You have only to look at countless mining towns that have been left with toxic tailing ponds. And when one of those ponds fails, destroying life and rivers for miles around, we ask ourselves, How did this happen? This is how that happened. Please deny this lease. Thank you. Next speaker Jill suggested that Marjorie Powell, then Richard Baker. Hi, Madam Mayor. And council members. First of all, I want to thank you, Mayor, for supporting electric vehicles. Keep on doing that. And also, I hope all of you will support the Climate Action Resiliency Plan when it comes before you. On that note, I'm baffled as to why we didn't hear much about the Nautilus Data Technologies project before it became publicized in the paper. I think it's not appropriate for Alameda unless it completely revamped its cooling systems and its energy usage. They proposed dumping 10,000 gallons of warm water per minute. Unbelievable in sensitive wildlife areas, raising the water temperature in those areas for up to four degrees. This is where, as other speakers have said, spill seals, hollow out fish spawn and lease terns who are endangers feed. Even even switching the discharge to the estuary side would still impact wildlife. This is in addition to the vast amount of energy needed to run this facility and its impacts on. Where is AMP going to get this extra energy? Not to mention the higher costs related to that. So I just urge you not to approve this lease. Thank you. Thank you. Next, speaker. Marjorie Powell, then Richard Bangert, then Pat Lamborn. Thank you. Members of the city council. I'm an Alameda resident and I'm also a member of Golden Gate Audubon and the committee that is working on conservation and protection of the least tern reserve. As you've heard, there are concerns about both water intake and expulsion of heated water into areas. That have. Fish that are needed not only by the list terns and the harbor seals, but by the great blue heron and the osprey, that nest around Seaplane Lagoon by the black oystercatchers that nest and raise their young on both sides of Alameda and the estuary and in Ballina Bay by the Caspian Terns that are now nesting at the Alameda Reserve by any number of other birds that nest in. The area, in particular. The least terns because they are so small and their chicks are so small, they need the very small fish that are most sensitive to the temperature concerns with the water. And while we heard from the first speaker that this is innovative technology, we at this point have no information about the technology except that according to some documents I've seen, it's an old once true calling system, and that is going to raise the temperature in the bay that will have harmful impacts on the fish that all of our birds need. There have been examples around the world, in particular this year, of bird colonies having abandoning their young because there are no fish because of increases in the water temperature. And this has happened in South Africa with the flamingos. It's been happening with the pelicans. I'm sorry, the Galapagos. Penguins in the Galapagos and. We urge you not to approve. Thank you, Mr. Bangert. And Express. And then Pat Lamborn. And then Mary Spicer. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council, I'd like to speak just briefly about the permitting process and your role in in this approving or not approving this project. Yes, there's a there's a rigorous permitting process that would take place if you were to move forward tonight. But the fact that there's a rigorous permitting process does not mean that there will be no impacts. The threshold for getting a permit is not zero impact. Quite frequently, there are mitigation measures that are required as as a condition of a permit. Sometimes it's simply paying money into a fund that will later be used for some other worthy project, restoration project around the bay. And given the size of the bay, what are what are the chances that that money will end up back here in Alameda? So you could say that one scenario here is that that you go forward with this project and you're trading away part of our environment for short term economic gain here. I'd say that besides besides the regulatory process, there's your role. Regulators are the ones who work in the permitting section of various agencies are there to issue permits. But you were elected to manage our public property here on Alameda, and it's your decision as to how we use that property and whether it's proper to have this system with its impacts be authorized here in Alameda. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Lambert. Good evening. So many speakers have mentioned my points. I'll get to to the asks in reading through the beekeeper and everything that people have said. I have three asks of you tonight. One ask is that you did not sign the lease with Nautilus. It means that you're giving your stamp of approval to the once through cooling system using the bay. That that is what that signifies to all the regulatory agencies that were mentioned, too. If you wanted to delay a vote and consider Nautilus or any other data center there, there are other cooling systems. I shared with all of you an article. It's how do we use waste heat from data centers intelligently, the closed systems and people around the world are figuring out ways to take the waste heat and then use it as renewable energy for homes and businesses. Notley's come back and give you a truly green alternative. Dumping warm water into the bay isn't one of those. Number three, you can convene a study session with scientists, and I want to just share my concern with you. Mr. Cunnington is the CEO of Nautilus. He's not a marine biologist. He's not an and he's not a engineer or a marine engineer. He's a CEO. He's a masterful lobbyist. You say yes tonight. He has access to all of those bureaucracies. He has a long reputation, folks. He was a corporate lawyer for all the major polluters in the nineties who had Superfund sites that earned him a seat as the chair on the Council on Environmental Quality for George Bush and Dick Cheney. We don't have time to talk about their impact on climate change in 24 minutes, but they manipulate science. So I'm going to leave with you in the last 19 seconds, an article that I got. It's from a true scientist. It describes all the current science about the concern for algae blooms in the bay. It is the opposite of the memo that was submitted to you by the kind of experts who hire, which said there was no danger at all. Thank you, Ms.. Lambert. And if you present that material to the clerk, they will give it to us and our next speaker. Hi. Yes, I love speakers. Mary Spicer. Hi, I'm Mary Spicer. Nice to see you all in person. I sent you a letter today. I'm a recreational athlete and I spend probably 10 to 12 hours a week on the water. I'm on an outrigger team and we leave from in a small beach. Go out, paddle out the bushes out in the center of the bay, come back through the hole. Exactly. The area where we're talking about building that technology. I spend so much time out there with the harbor seals recently, with the whale, with the two dolphins, two to 1 to 5 dolphins that live on the other side of the wall. There's art in me and the Golden Gate Cetacean Institute has been researching them for years, using the outrigger team to give them data points on what's happening with the pod that's living out there. If you need more information on that, I'm happy to send that to you. But it's directly in the area that will be impacted by this this technology. I think that is our media citizen. And as comedians, we have a real responsibility to the nature and to the water and to the shoreline and to the wildlife that inhabit our area. And I think that there's so much amazing, true, innovative technology in the Bay Area. And I would love to see Alameda really targeting new technology that really is innovative and really does actually help with what's happening with climate change and with the global issue issues that we're having. I think if we came up with the type of plan that we can actually find those right type of companies and invite them here and create a hub for true innovation, that would be amazing. My father owned a company in Oakland that was a that helped retrofit energy savings for industrial light fixtures that PGE ended up giving a discount for because it was such a great invention. I would love to see people like that coming in here and taking over the base. And I. I also do cleanups with the city of Oakland. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Nevertheless, speaker. Okay. At this time I am closing public speaking and the public comment period and I am going to take the unusual step of going first in my comments. So please indulge me. Counsel, I can't support this project and I'll tell you why. We have met with Mr. Connaughton and his team for quite a few months now, even going back to last year. And we have met in closed session because when an item involves a lease or sale of property in price in terms of the transit. Action that is rightfully held in an closed session. We don't do our negotiating in public. But without disclosing specifics, this council has certainly and the council before this, too, had heard this has certainly had a lot of questions that they asked of the Nautilus team. And I am largely persuaded by the letter we got from Baykeeper a couple of weeks ago. And I also think all of the members of the public who wrote me letters, but I was what I paid attention to most in the Baykeeper letter was that the this went through cooling, which is a system, is an antiquated technological approach. And the system proposed here could harm San Francisco Bay in a number in a variety of ways. And in fact, these negative environmental impacts have led the state of California to phase out the use of this ecologically detrimental cooling process by 2024. And the Baykeeper report goes on to talk about the large volume of water that will be processed in in a minute. And they and they they cited some studies, some recent studies from 2019, from 2018 about how waste, heat innovators, things like energy hogs, can the world's huge datacenters be made more efficient? But this is not the way to do it. And then there is that information, science based information from Bay Keepers. And on the other hand, just this week, maybe yesterday, we received from Nautilus a report from Anchor QCA, which is their environmental engineering group that is based in San Francisco. And they, you know, pointed out that, you know, not us would need to get all these environmental approvals and permits. But what I haven't seen from Nautilus in all the months that I've been dealing with this, this outfit is any change in the approach. And so even the Anchor QCA report that seeks to assure us about what Nautilus wants to do says that, you know, San Francisco Bay is still relatively turbid and historically considered a light limited estuary where growth of algae is hindered because of high turbidity in the water. And the U.S. Geological Survey researchers studying first harmful algae bloom in the bay stated that the bloom occurred in the South Bay quotes during a coincidence of unusually weak neap tides. But if you look at the footnote, the studies were both dated 2005. It's 2019 now. And I would submit that climate science has changed a great deal in the intervening years. And but the fact that that was the most relevant data report that could be submitted, I think speaks volumes in itself. I also listened carefully to Mr. Norton in his report remarks, because I'm always willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt. But when you spoke to us this evening, you talked about past projects working on phasing out incandescent light bulbs, previously working on marine environmental issues, inspiring 14 other nations to do the same. And that's certainly laudable. But what I care about and what I'm responsible for is what happens in my city. Money isn't everything. I mean, as much as I hate to say no to millions and millions of dollars. I also very much agree with the last speaker, Miss Spicer, who said there's so much true innovative technology in the Bay Area. Find it, bring it here. And I think that's also been a desire of this council with the loss of the Navy and those 18,000 jobs. We've looked to backfill those lost jobs, but not just any jobs. And Nautilus in particular wasn't going to create a lot of jobs and certainly not a lot of high quality jobs on its own. Certainly it had benefits. I'm not saying this is all one sided, but I am saying that on balance, I cannot find sufficient reason to support moving forward. And I think that at the end of the day, that's actually more considerate of both the Nautilus and the city. So and again, I'm one vote but if the majority of the council. Feels that way as well. It leaves Nautilus to go on and look for other areas to locate. And I will just add that there is talk in the staff report about the project that is being done by Nautilus in Stockton out of a barge in the river. There's a little difference there, a barge in the river. It's also a five year lease. The one we're considering is much longer. And finally, I'm just going to close and say that I was really taken by the saga of Ali, you know, the the whale who found her way into Seaplane Lagoon. And I think she was a it was a she bet. But it was noted that her her color, her sheen wasn't what it should be. She was malnourished. There's a number of reasons that could be, but a large factor has to do with the quality of the waters and what's happening to is and much of it manmade . And so I cannot in good conscience support moving forward with something and taking time and effort to go through the environmental process. When nothing I've seen to this point makes me think that Nautilus is aligned with my values for what I want to see around me to point. So with that, I will call on the next speaker. Councilmember Odie. Can I speak? Should we let Councilmember Vella go? Yeah, she's she doesn't get to wave her hand at me. So, yes. Councilmember Vella, you're next. So I think that we we've spent a lot of time and all of that, spent a lot of time looking at this project and looking at the cultural uses in this building and also this area. Um, you know, I had reservations before regarding the total number of jobs created by whether an office of the refuge for this building and also environmental concerns relative to the marine wildlife and to the nearby sanctuary. And I do think members of the public that have come up to speak on this, as well as the various groups that have come and said that, I think that for many of the reasons that the mayor stated and the other ones that I just stated regarding the earlier to the area, I urge you to count on support of the project. And I think that at this point, you know, especially in light of the fact that we have gone over to this area, that I want out that equal opportunity and to me to see the harbor seals, I think that , you know, in many ways we look at projects, even if we were to take the applicant at their word, that this is environmentally better than, you know, air cooling, these impacts to our marine, local marine life and to the overall bay, I don't think make it worth it. And so I won't be voting in support of this project. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Avella Councilmember Odie. Okay, well, thank you, Madam Mayor. I also want to thank everyone for coming out. This has been on the agenda a few times and you know, we haven't had a lot of people come out. So I think it's true testament to our council that we listen to the public when they come out and they present arguments to us. So I'll try to get through this with not too much emotion, even though I think to me this is an emotional issue. I mean, it's rare that we see all of these groups together aligned. And I think the mayor alluded to a lot of what I'm going to say, and I think a lot of the speakers did. But it bears repeating, you know, the Sierra Club, the San Francisco Baykeeper, the Golden Gate, Audubon Society and the Harbor SEAL Group who originally was neutral. And another person who sent in an email, a person who's actually their main focus when they sat on this dais, was the creation of jobs at Alameda Point. And that's my former colleague, Frank Madras. He opposed it and said it's not going to bring the jobs to Alameda Point that he thought it should. So, I mean, those are five very respective names in in my book. So I respect a lot of what they have to say. I look at the I think one of the speakers might have been Pat or Marjorie said, you know, the bay is a fragile ecosystem. Right? So that's something we have to we have to be cognizant of. I mean, that is one of our city council key priorities supporting enhanced living. Stability, livability and quality of life. So if we're going to stay true to that priority, then I think we have to protect our wildlife. And I, I think protecting it means that we don't open up that fragile ecosystem to a laboratory experiment on whether this this technology is going to work and or whether it's going to harm the environment. So, I mean, to me, the best way to avoid adverse environmental impacts is to reject this lease altogether. So I had that opinion last time we had this discussion. My opinion has solidified hearing the public comments and reading the experts. And I think, you know, just real brief, some of you all have touched on it, but, you know, the lease turns. We spent a lot of energy and a lot of time and it's our value to protect them. You know, the spawning grounds, if they're gone, they're gone. And every other ecosystem and species that relies on them will be gone. The SEALs and I was in San Diego last week and we went to lunch one afternoon in La Hoya, and we walked down to the beach because we had an hour to kill. And I saw the I don't know if you've been there, but there's a bunch of seals there on the rocks on the beach. And I thought to myself, isn't it great that these seals don't have to worry about a five foot pipe being stuck underneath their habitat? Like like we're having to deal with here in Alameda. But it sounds like there's not the votes to go forward. So I'm grateful for that. The toxic algae, again, you know, once it's there, it's too late. You know, I don't think we can afford to be an experiment and I'd prefer to avoid that adverse impact. And lastly, no one's really touched on it, but, you know, the impact of a five foot hole on on the sea wall, I think I mean, you mentioned that to me on the phone either yesterday or today, and no one's really talked about that. So this is just too risky for me. I'm also not convinced that it's best in our economic interest. That's our fourth priority, encouraging economic development. I think by tying up an old building in the middle of site B I think actually diminishes the value. And I think our citizens and our residents will suffer long term by not maximizing the value of site B. And I also I'm not sure of the total impact on EMP because while we have a revenue number, we don't have a corresponding expense number. And to me, if you're going to increase load 40%, that's 40% more than we're doing today. I don't know how you do it with without increasing your headcount tremendously and no one's accounted for that. So I appreciate everybody's time and effort and letters and on this and I thank you all for speaking and protecting people that can't do things that can't speak for themselves in seals and fish and and so on. Thank you. Thank you. Who's Councilmember de SAC? Well, great. Well, thank you very much. I am of the opinion that the regional and state regulations that are in place are strong enough to make make sure that this project does right by the environment. But it's not to the to the regional state organizations that I am accountable. I am accountable to the residents of Alameda. And in this case, I mean, it was overwhelmingly a lot of people were opposed to it. I didn't get one email, frankly, from an Alameda residents indicating that they are supportive of this. I don't think that the project proponent did their own cause any good either, because, frankly, the message really hasn't changed over the over them. Over the past several months. I was hoping to see better examples of why this is good for Alameda or maybe even YouTube videos or something indicating how it is indeed could be safe for the environment. But you know, all we we we didn't really get that kind of information. So, you know, absent a case made by the proponent myself, I think I think the the. Words of caution that the residents are encouraging of us is something that we need to listen to. And in terms of the benefits to AMP, $25 million is a lot of money. But I think one way to think about it is that the load that is the the Marriott the Marriott ships may already constitutes roughly 10 to 11% of our electric load. And in order to get that to accommodate that 10 to 11% electric load, I believe it was back in 1988 that the city of Alameda had expanded our infrastructure in order to accommodate 10 to 11%. I kind of wonder I don't think the issue really is manpower. I think that the issue would be accommodate having the infrastructure to accommodate an additional 40%. But the story about the accommodating the Navy was that in 1988, 1987, the Navy asked Alameda to accommodate them by improving the load capabilities to to handle what were at the time, you know, naval warships. But we all know what had happened was that the at the Navy left and we we still had to pay off the bonds for those for the infrastructure to accommodate. Fortunately married came in in that and married is helping pay for that. But imagine if we had gone into debt in order to to accommodate the 40% increased load and then suddenly, for whatever reason, they weren't here, we'd be up creek. So so that was you know, that's certainly an issue, too, to think about. I still am confident, frankly speaking, that that the regional state entities would have provided us guidance as to whether or not this this project would have been environmentally sound. And so I'm not going to change on that. But I do believe that the residents have clearly spoken that this is not a project that they that they want to see happen here. Thank you. And vice mayor. Next, what. I will just more or less echo what would I've heard earlier today or earlier in the in the meeting? I think I've told almost everybody who emailed me and including the project manager or project applicant today that I did not expect to vote to approve the project, the lease this this evening. And I'm going to just. Call for the vote. At this point, I don't think I need to add on to anything anybody out of June thinks. I appreciate that. And so what we have is an ordinance, uh, authorizing city manager to execute this lease. So let's have a. A move approved, a move rejection of the staff recommendation to approve this. Lease. Okay. Second. Okay. It's a move by the vice mayor, seconded by Councilmember Odie. May we have a voice vote, please? Councilmember decide. Yes on the motion. Not slate. Yes. Vote yes on the motion, Vela. Some emotion. May be. Ashraf also. Yes, on the motion. That carries five, five eyes as well, you know. All right. Thank you very much. This project will not go forward. Okay, we are. Thank you, everyone, for coming out. We now move to item seven City Manager Communications.