Reducing Environmental Impacts

Dated: 18 Nov 2008

Posted by admin

Reducing The Environmental Impacts of Development

By Frank Schiavone

The State Legislature passed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1970. The legislation was enacted to provide public agencies with the tools they need to regulate development, minimize environmental damage, and provide each of us “a decent home and satisfying living environment”. The law explicitly states that “major consideration” should be given to the environment and seeks to promote “conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations”. A major goal (intent) is to “prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities”.

CEQA recognizes that there is a connection between healthy ecosystems and our own welfare; that the carrying capacity of our natural world is finite; and that we all have a responsibility in preserving and enhancing our environment

Repeated efforts to weaken and undermine the law have been unsuccessful.

Both local agencies and developers view CEQA as an obstacle that has to be overcome. This is especially true here in the Inland Empire where growth is rampant and open spaces are viewed as an economic liability.

A critical concept in the application of CEQA is something called “mitigation”. In plain language, it simply means that a developer must take concrete steps to reduce the environmentally destructive aspects of their project. Most of the time, mitigation is relatively ineffectual with only marginal value. (Relocate a road, move some trees, plant some seeds, don’t grade during nesting seasons). There are all kinds of creative ways to “mitigate” a project.

My favorite is setting aside land within a project area that cannot be conceivably built upon – acreage on near vertical hillsides, in washes, or in canyons.

In the pro-growth West Valley, environmental mitigation is designed to cost developers almost nothing in relation to the overall value of their projects. Here, open space has a higher use, serves no public purpose, and cuts deeply into potential tax rolls.

Now, when I speak about the environment I am referring to our natural heritage and its many complexities. Local agencies and developers take a broader view and place considerably more emphasis on our physical surroundings – streets, traffic, lighting, views, noise, parks, landscaping, etc. All are important, but have little to do with the perpetuation of nature and the conditions necessary to allow man and nature to “exist in productive harmony”.

The natural plant and animal communities that our region has been blessed with are in deep trouble. Unquestionably, each new project development that takes yet another piece of these living systems severely impacts their ability to sustain and perpetuate the complex fabric of life they support.

Unfortunately for our region, efforts have failed miserably to establish a binding framework that would promote the conservation of our remaining natural communities. Moreover, there is no governmental instrument or authority that targets and banks land worthy of conservation.

“Conservation banking” is not a new strategy for conserving land. A conservation bank is a parcel, or a series of contiguous parcels of land that have significant natural resource values. Conservation banking allows developers to purchase “credits” in the bank to compensate for the resource impacts of their projects.

In the absence of a comprehensive approach to land conservation, the only real and meaningful way to “mitigate” the environmental damage project developments cause is to set aside land elsewhere in something called a “mitigation bank”. The West Valley already has such a bank in the form of the North Etiwanda Preserve. The Preserve was originally purchased by Cal Trans as “mitigation” for the 210 Freeway. The Preserve Commission may accept additional lands with the Board of Supervisor’s permission.

This tool is scarcely used, however. In recent years, only 104 acres have been added to the preserve by developers, the result of two County approved projects.

As most of us who have lived here for a while know all too well, the West Valley has changed dramatically. We cannot stop growth. But we need to manage it better. Developers must recognize that there is an increasing price to pay for their projects, especially those that have severe impacts on our remaining natural heritage. Cities and the County must also acknowledge that impact compensation in the form offsetting land donations is not only permissible, it is necessary and justifiable.

Let us not forget that developers receive a valuable government benefit when they are authorized to subdivide their land.

Frank Schiavone
fschiavone@verizon.net