Compromise Can Fulfill Needs of Man and Beast

In the midst of debates on development and environmental issues, it is easy to fall into stereotyped labels of “greedy” developers and “radical” environmentalists.

Too often, these debates and attendant media coverage focus more on conflicts than on opportunities for compromise or consensus.

However, the public wants both affordable housing and effective environmental protection, including the prevention of extinctions and the maintenance of bio-diversity. The challenge becomes how to reconcile development and environmental needs.

To explore paths for reconciliation, it is important to understand the political and biological context.

Politically, an overwhelming majority of Californians want better environmental protection programs and effective wildlife preservation measures. This has been shown through polling, market trends and passage of environmental initiatives.

Biologically, California is both blessed and burdened by its bio-diversity.

Blessed, because California possesses more natural communities of species than the rest of North America, north of Mexico, combined. This bio-diversity treasure trove should be considered a major natural asset for California, and indeed the world.

Burdened, because California has already paid a high biological “price” for its rapid population growth and accelerating development.

For example, California has more species listed as endangered and threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act than any other state.

California also has more people than any other state, and gains a new resident every 50 seconds. California reached its first million residents at the turn of this century, and is now nearing its 30 millionth resident.

With this background in mind, California is either entering an era of massive extinctions and loss of bio-diversity or is poised to initiate innovative strategies for reconciling housing and habitat needs.

Consider the following suggestions:

First, it is imperative that we have the will and discipline to shift from traditionally reactive 11th-hour environmental crises to proactive, cooperative environmental programs.

For example, endangered species laws require that the listing of species be based on the best available scientific data. Listing is not a balancing of biological and economic considerations, but rather a reflection of the biological reality for a given species.

However, politics often supersedes biology, and development and other interests have delayed listings that were biologically warranted.

The recent federal listings of the Mojave desert tortoise population, northern spotted owl, and Sacramento River winter run salmon were delayed and eventually prompted by environmental litigation.

During the delays, these species’ populations continued to decline. Had the listings occurred expeditiously, as intended by law, there would have been greater flexibility in fashioning recovery measures.

Another major obstacle to cooperation has been the political “gridlock” in the state Capitol, and Gov. Deukmejian’s propensity to veto most environmental measures.

Development interests decry environmental initiatives and litigation, but these have generally been the only avenues available to environmentalists.

For example, the State Chamber of Commerce, Farm Bureau and other interests have opposed funding for willing-seller habitat acquisition programs, even though these programs could enhance the recovery of listed species and legitimately reduce future listings.

Enlightened development interests should see that voluntary habitat acquisition programs paid through public funds could tend to reduce land-use conflicts.

Moreover, developers and planners should know that critical habitats for federal- and state-listed species, along with other unique or sensitive habitats, are maintained on both topographic maps and computer data bases in the Department Fish and Game’s natural heritage division.

It is accepted that houses should not be built on earthquake faults, landslide-prone slopes, flood plains or in high-danger fire zones.

Critical habitats should be added tothe locations where development is improper. For those landowners affected, the remedies could be either willing-seller acquisitions or development rights transfers by government.

In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state’s most comprehensive environmental law affecting housing developments, encourages the pursuit of less environmentally damaging alternatives wherever feasible. It also provides mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts.

But CEQA is activated by a proposed project, rather than by environmental needs. It is a reactive process.

And mitigation is suspiciously viewed as speculative, illusory or experimental. If mitigation “credits” could be combined over a large region--the “mitigation banking” concept--the benefits should be more reliable, comprehensive and effective.

But continued reliance on ad hoc mitigation measures applied on a case-by-case basis will not reverse the overall declines of California’s bio-diversity.

There is another dimension to habitat protection. It is increasingly apparent that the indirect impacts from projects that cause the additional fragmentation or isolation of habitats may be much more severe than the direct impacts from habitat actually destroyed or degraded.

This is because the natural mosaic of habitats that once existed in California is now replaced by an artificial grid of highways, reservoirs, utility corridors and other developments that block necessary movement of species.

As habitats become smaller “islands,” species can become extirpated or extinct.

Environmentalists should be more practical in setting their priorities to reflect the need for maintaining larger habitats and those of highest bio-diversity. The real goal should be to expand and connect habitats so that viable populations of species in a healthy natural community can be maintained.

Developers should work with environmentalists in promoting recovery of listed species and maintaining bio-diversity on public lands, because this will lessen the conflict over development on private lands.

If healthy species and habitats are viewed as an amenity in enhancing the quality of life, then perhaps developers can market nearby protected areas or mitigation banks as a benefit for home buyers.

And those developments that are beneficial for quality-of-life values may appreciate faster and ultimately be worth more than comparable developments in disputed locales or absent such amenities.

California is at a bio-political crossroads.

The Deukmejian Administration’s era of conflict and stalemate may continue, or a wiser era may begin of cooperation and innovation on environmental protection. Since no one appears satisfied with the status quo, the time is ripe for positive change.

READER IDEAS FOR SPEAKING OUT Readers wishing to express their views on topics of interest should send queries or manuscripts to Real Estate Editor, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, 90053.