PC recommends
policy on
mitigation of county-owned lands
By Joe
Naiman
The Alpine Sun
The county’s Planning Commission has recommended approval of
a proposed Board of Supervisors policy regarding mitigation of
county-owned land managed by the county’s Department of Parks
and Recreation.
The 5-1 vote Nov. 13 saw Planning Commissioners Michael
Beck, Leon Brooks, Peder Norby, David Pallinger, and Bryan Woods
support the recommendation while John Riess was opposed.
Commissioner Adam Day was not present at the meeting.
“I think it’s a terrific program,” Pallinger said.
While the Planning Commission provided a
recommendation, the actual decision to create the policy will
result from a vote of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.
The county supervisors are expected to consider the proposed
policy on Jan. 13.
The proposal for the new policy was a collaboration
between the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department
of Planning and Land Use, the Department of Public Works, and
the Department of General Services. The proposed policy will
create procedures to be followed when a request is made to
utilize county-owned land managed by the Department of Parks and
Recreation as mitigation for impacts associated with private or
public development projects.
Mitigation may include conservation or restoration of
land, and revenue obtained through the process will be used to
purchase additional preserve lands. “It allows us to build out
the areas in our regional programs that are the most
biologically important,” said Trish Boaz, the chief of the
Resource Management Division of the county’s Department of Parks
and Recreation.
The mitigation policy would also streamline the
planning and implementation of the mitigation phase of projects.
“It could also help applicants to meet other requirements,” said
Boaz, noting that wetland and permit issues could also be
accommodated through agreements between developers and the
Department of Parks and Recreation.
The program would be voluntary for developers. “The key
word here is option,” said Department of Planning and Land Use
director Eric Gibson.
If the developer chooses to participate in the program,
the choice also exists between an in-house determination of the
value or an independent appraisal. “Both options are available,”
Boaz said.
If the policy is approved by the county supervisors,
the Department of Parks and Recreation will maintain a list and
map of county land available to mitigate project impacts. The
list will only contain lands with biological preservation or
restoration value and which have not previously been used for
mitigation or counted towards Multiple Species Conservation
Program baseline levels. The list will also exclude lands which
are restricted in use by their funding source.
A county department or other public entity will be able
to contact the Department of Parks and Recreation directly to
determine if any county mitigation lands are available which
meet a project’s biological mitigation requirements. If a
private applicant makes a request to participate in the program,
the Department of Planning and Land Use will contact the
Department of Parks and Recreation to determine if suitable land
is available. DPLU will then determine whether that land is
adequate mitigation for the project’s biological impacts.
The county will determine the value of the mitigation
credits and the amount to be paid to the Department of Parks and
Recreation based on comparable market values. A deposit to
reserve mitigation credits for a certain period of time will be
required. The Department of Parks and Recreation will also
calculate the amount of endowment funding needed to cover
ongoing stewardship costs of the mitigation land, and the
developer will deposit that endowment into a separate trust
account to pay for those costs.
The Department of Parks and Recreation will review the
cost of mitigation credits on an annual or biannual basis to
determine if the costs should be adjusted.
Revenue generated through the policy will be deposited
into the Multiple Species Conservation Program acquisition
account. Land to be acquired from such revenue will be
determined from the criteria of contribution to the county’s
regional conservation program (including future MSCP plans),
connectivity to permanently-protected land, state or Federal
designation as priority acquisitions for habitat conservation,
promotion of watershed protection and water quality, and the
ability to restore the land for habitat purposes.
The account will not be used to purchase land which
does not meet the regional conservation needs forecast by the
county, land designated for a public purpose or use which is not
consistent with habitat or resource protection, or land already
encumbered by a conservation easement.
“This probably is a very good thing,” Beck said.
Beck expressed concern about the lack of outside input
for some steps. “The market really drives the process,” he said.
“I think it’s critical that the market stays open.”
“I see government getting in there where I don’t feel
government really belongs,” Riess said.
Boaz noted that eminent domain would not be used to
acquire land. Boaz also noted that the term “stewardship”
included trash removal and other maintenance.
The new Board of Supervisors policy is not expected to
alter current Department of Parks and Recreation practice of not
determining public access issues at the time of acquisition.
“The public access plans are put together at the time the
resource management plan is prepared,” Boaz said.
Boaz added that the development of the proposed board
policy has involved input from the U.S. Forest Service and the
California Department of Fish and Game. “We’re also working on a
conservation agreement with them,” she said.
 E-mail
the Editor
|
|
