Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Consultant Study to Determine the Feasibility for a Wetland Mitigation Bank at Alameda Point.  (Councilmember Oddie)  [Continued from January 20, 2015]
Considered directing staff to conduct a consultant study to determine the feasibility for a wetland mitigation bank at Alameda Point. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Odie. Member OTI. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So now switching over to the other side of the island. We talked about this in the earlier session of today's meeting or last night's meeting when we talked about South32 and the Northwest Territories. I mean, there's there's two spaces on on the base where there's wetlands, natural wetlands, as well as. Seasonal wetlands over there by the marina area, which is kind of to the to the west of the seaplane lagoon and using wetlands mitigation bank as a possible tool to to generate revenue for the city and generate revenue for Alameda Point. Some estimates say these credits could be worth up to $500,000 an acre and we could have up to 50 acres if the maximum available are the maximum number of acreages available for wetlands mitigation. And that could pay for a lot of what we want to do. I mean, we have a community vision that that includes a park in the Northwest Territories. You know, we've we've heard at least during there in the fall about how much that park is going to cost. Whether or not it's going to go to the East Bay Regional Park District at no cost or whether we're going to be able to get any money from them out of it. And then the measure. WW money that needs to be paid to maintain it. So I think this is not an opportunity that we can explore more in depth and see if if this can generate funds needed to create the park line and create the wetlands that we want out there. I also understand the VA is going to have to buy some credits because they do need to do some mitigation. So, you know, we have a unique opportunity where, you know, we can exchange wetlands mitigation credits with with the VA right there on that spot. So I think it's something that it's worth looking into. And the referral is to have staff look into the feasibility of creating a wetlands mitigation bank. And we do have two speakers on this item. We're going to go ahead and proceed with our speakers, Richard Banger and then Irene Dieter. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Excuse me. And elsewhere. Moroney. Wetlands at the top of the agenda. It's good. There are at least four things that are known about this, and one that's not one. One thing that's known is that wetland mitigation banks are highly regulated entity use for mitigating loss of wetlands. They're also from an environmental standpoint. They are they produce a better outcome than if, say, 12 developers in this watershed had to go chase down three or four acres by it and turn it into wetland to mitigate their project. In the case of Wetland Mitigation Bank, that that mitigation money is all aggregated at one site and so you actually produce a better environmental income outcome. But in our case, we're not really concerned about helping developers in the in the watershed. We're interested in accomplishing a goal. And by creating wetland mitigation bank, essentially we offer a business deal. We're not going to sell them land, but we would sell them a credit. That they could buy to mitigate for their project could even be a Caltrans project that has to impact wetlands somewhere. Second thing that we know is that Alameda Point is surrounded by water and in some cases has water in it. Another thing that we know is that the area encompassed by Alameda point used to be wetland. The last thing that we know is that the areas that Councilmember Odie referenced and the Northwest Territories and the west side of the Sea Point Lagoon are under our approved infrastructure plan, will not be protected from sea level rise. However, when those areas become inundated, just because they have water in them doesn't make them wetlands, makes them land that is wet and has about the same environmental value as a flooded basement. So now the one thing that we don't know for certain is if a wetland mitigation bank is a good idea for Alameda Point. We just don't know that. And I would like to offer for discussion at least a a preliminary step before we hire a consultant to provide a report on forming a wetland mitigation bank. And that would be that we contact our own California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which is one of the regulatory agencies that oversees wetland mitigation banks in California, and ask them to come down and just have a walk through like a lot of people with expertize in a certain field. You can pretty much walk a site and, you know, whether it's a candidate or not. So perhaps we could get some free advice before we take the next step of spending money. Thank you, Irene. I mayor and council. I'm here to support Councilman Otis referral. I know that the. On the city books on the plan everyone. All the boards and commissions and the former city council passed a plan to actually have wetlands. Out at Alameda Point. The only thing. That was lacking was a plan to move forward to achieve that goal, and we were assured that that would happen in due course. And I think this is a perfect. Opportunity to move forward in that regard. Because obtaining. Information can never hurt. So I don't see any. Harm in trying to gain information. And we may think that something is out. Of reach when in reality it's right at our fingertips. So I would encourage you to support this referral. So at least we can make decisions based on real information as opposed to what we think can or cannot go forward with. So please do the right thing and. Support this referral. Thank you. Thank you. You may proceed to make. A couple of quick comments. Yes. And there's also a portion of the of the referral talking about consultants to estimate the cost of removing the concrete over by the west side of Seaplane Lagoon. So that was one of the things I didn't cover earlier. I want to thank Richard and Irene for supporting this and speaking on this. And thank you also for staying late last night and staying late on the sixth and not getting a chance to to speak. So I'm glad to see you up and around, Irene, and and thank you for coming out and talking about this. You know, if if Richard's idea of, you know, an interim step of having somebody come would be helpful. You know, I'm all for that. You know, we're moving on on site A, you know, we're moving maybe not so fast on site B, and I'd like to see us get moving on the wetlands portion in the park portion of the of Alameda Point as well. So would you like to amend your referral to include this intermediate step? Yes. I met a married. Yes. That we just clarify and say an appropriate agency so we don't restricted to just that one body because it may be another body that we would like to talk to. Thank you. So with those amendments, are there any comments from council members? At this point. I'd like to. To move with the amendment if it's in order. I don't need to make every motion. I'll second. So we have a motion that by vice mayor and a second by member. Brody. And then any discussion. Yes. I'll just add that I think it is a good idea. I believe I heard Vice Mayor Madras, he discussed this on the campaign trail, too. And I know I've heard I do appreciate Richard Baron, Irene Deeter keeping us informed about these ideas. It sounds very intriguing. I also heard Mr. Banger say it might not be right for Alameda, and while gaining information never hurts, it does cost money when you're using consultants and as we know, it doesn't grow on trees. So I would favor the just the the cautious route of let's have whatever appropriate state agency come out, take a look, get the information and then go from there in an incremental process. But I think that's what the amended language encompasses. So let me confirm member Odie. That's my understanding also that we would hear back and then pending upon what that person says, then we would review the next step or staff would review the next step. But. You're not at work yet. That's fine. All right. So we have a motion. Second of all, those in favor. I oppose their motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next item is three C. Consider directing staff to install flashing pedestrian crosswalk signals at two locations, Maitland Drive in McCartney Road and McCartney Road and Belmont Place. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Odie.