Category Archives: Preservation District

Let’s Keep the Bluebird of Happiness

Posted on 07/19/2015 by admin

Cavity-nesting birds in East Portal Park

The drought has killed several trees in East Portal Park and I now see that many of them have been marked with an orange ring, presumably so that they can be taken down. While I recognize the need to remove any which pose a safety risk, it is also important for the city to consider the wildlife value of these very trees.

Unknown Unknown-1 Unknown-2 Unknown-3 CWH Sign_DeborahHefner_275x190

Our city is home to a wide variety of bird species, many of which breed right in town. Among those birds, some nest only in cavities in trees. For the most part the trees, which provide the best cavities for these birds, are ones which are dead or dying. I walk East Portal Park nearly every morning and have noted that at least three bird species have nested each year in cavities in trees in this park: Nuttall’s Woodpecker (a woodpecker found only along the west coast in California and Oregon), Western Bluebird, and Oak Titmouse. In particular, all three species are using cavities in some of the marked trees. (Zelkova species, I believe.) I am hopeful that the city will consider saving at least one or two of these trees.

I also understand that, besides safety issues, there is an aesthetic reason for taking down dead or dying trees. Few people actually understand that, from a wildlife perspective, these are often the most valuable trees in a forests (urban OR native forests). Many other communities have recognized this and have implemented programs to try to save some of these trees, marking them with “Wildlife Tree” signage so that the public understands why they have been saved. One example is a program in place in Orange County (http://cavityconservation.com/). An example of the type of signage used is shown below.

I have included a few photos showing cavities which have been used by nesting birds in recent years in East Portal Park. One tree in particular has been very productive and I am hopeful that this tree, at least, can be retained. It is along M Street, just where 51st intersects.

Contributed by Ed Pandolfino, Ph.D. (former president of Western Field Ornithologists, co-author of Birds of the Sierra Nevada)

 

Posted in East Portal, Ed Pandolfino, Essays, Parks, Preservation District, Trees, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Let’s Keep the Bluebird of Happiness

McKinley Village Update

Posted on 04/27/2015 by admin

On April 9, 2015, the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, denied a petition challenging the city’s approval of the McKinley Village housing project as violating the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and simultaneously expressed concern about environmental hazards that may impact future residents at the development.

As the court described it, the McKinley Village project “will place 336 new residential units on land encircled by a major freeway to the north and railroad tracks to the south, and adjacent to a former landfill. Residential units will be sited as close as 250 feet from the landfill, less than 60 feet from the freeway, and less than 90 feet from the railroad tracks.” Although the court denied the petition, the court acknowledged that ESPLC had “raised serious concerns about the wisdom of approving a residential development sandwiched between an active railroad, a former landfill, and a congested freeway.” Nonetheless, the court explained that it was constrained, in light of prior court decisions, to conclude that CEQA only requires the city “to identify the significant effects of a proposed project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on a proposed project.” The court, however, agreed with ESPLC that there “may be sound policy reasons why agencies should be required to analyze how the existing environment may adversely affect the future occupants of a project,” as “it may make little sense to require analysis of the health risks to residents when a freeway is built next to them, but not to require analysis of the exact same risks when new homes are built next to an existing freeway.”

Thus, although the court determined that, based on the law as it currently stands, the city did not violate CEQA by approving the project without considering the impacts of certain significant environmental hazards, serious questions remain about the impacts those hazards may have on the health and safety of future residents of McKinley Village.

Posted in McKinley Village | Comments Off on McKinley Village Update