Beating a Live Horse

August 23rd marks the end of the period for public comment on the scope of the Environmental Impact Report on the Initial Study for the Multi-Benefit/Multi-Use Project at Hahamongna Watershed Park.

That's doublespeak for:

Pasadena proposes to build an athletic field at Hahamongna, which is currently mostly open space. The name of the proposed field is the Sycamore Grove athletic field. I'm not sure why, maybe because sycamore trees will be razed to build it, along with cottonwoods and willows.

The city also proposes "creek restoration" and "trail restoration." Some bad stuff and some potentially good stuff. They've bundled these things into one project with a confusing name.

It's easy to register your comments, and you don't have to be from Pasadena to do so. Here's the City's link to get you started. Also, the Arroyo Seco Foundation has provided you with a toolkit. At the most recent Hahamongna Watershed Park Advisory Committee meeting, Loren Pluth of the city staff said comments will be accepted until the close of business on thae 23rd.

Please send your comments regarding the scope of the EIR to:
Rosa Laveaga, City of Pasadena, Department of Public Works,
Phone: (626) 744-4321
E-mail: mbmuproject@cityofpasadena.net,
Mailing Address: City of Pasadena, Department of Public Works, Attn: Engineering Division, 100 N. Garfield Avenue, Pasadena, CA, 91101

Check out YouTube sensation Tim Martinez and his tour of the proposed site for the athletic field (shot by Jonathan of the Arroyo Seco Foundation).

To help get you started, here are the comments I submitted yesterday:

Dear Ms. Laveaga,

Herein are my comments on the Initial Study of the Multi-Benefit Multi-Use project for Hahamongna Watershed Park.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The description of the project is vague. Under the circumstances, it's difficult to make direct comments.

ATHLETIC FIELD

As a frequent Hahamongna user, I notice the athletic field that is already there is rarely used.

Why are we building a second field there when the first one gets so little use?

Are there records on the use of the first field?

If so, where can I see the records?

If not, how do we justify a second field at that location?

FLOODING

Because the athletic field is to be built in a flood plain, sooner or later all or part of the field will be affected by heavy rains. One possible result is that the field will be flooded and/or washed into the dam.

Does Pasadena have the funds to repair the field during flood years?

Does Pasadena have the funds to clean the remains of the field from the dam during flood years?

Another possibility is that the field will withstand heavy rains, and flood waters will back up north of the raised field. In a low rainfall year, this wouldn't be a problem. In a high rainfall year, this could affect Tom Sawyer Camp, Rose Bowl Riders, and NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab.

Is Pasadena prepared to repair those potential damages and/or respond to potential lawsuits?

Has the regularity and severity of flooding in Hahamongna been studied? Over how many years?

Where can I see the results of that study?

HABITAT RESTORATION

It seems we are destroying habitat only to "restore" it.

How are you defining "habitat?"

How are you defining "restore?"

WATER

Water shortages continue around the United States. The Colorado River is no longer a source for the Metropolitan Water District. Pasadena's watershed feeds the Raymond Basin. Building anything at all in our watershed, at this time in history, is, at best, idiocy, especially something that pollutes with pesticides, oils, gasoline runoff, asphalt, etc.

Can you guarantee 0% pollution of the Raymond Basin, a San Gabriel Valley water resource?

California's governor is proposing a $23.7 billion pipeline to transport water in California, while Pasadena proposes to destroy its own potentially lucrative water resource. Once we've done that, we will have to spend taxpayer money on water we would have already had if we hadn't ruined the watershed with construction, pesticides, gasoline runoff, trash, etc.

Is Pasadena prepared to pay more for water?

What water resources will Pasadena have when the Raymond Basin becomes polluted?

Now that the Colorado River is no longer a source, where will Pasadena get its water?

Can the Metropolitan Water District guarantee enough water to Pasadena in future decades, when we won't have use of our own watershed and/or the Raymond Basin?

Have the above questions been studied?

Where can I see the results of the study?

WILDLIFE

The Initial Study says there will be no impact on wildlife. I have seen a mountain lion within yards of where the proposed athletic field is to be built, not to mention rabbits, deer, squirrels, snakes, and toads.

How have the project's effects on each of these particular creatures been studied?

How are you defining "wildlife?"

How are you defining "impact?"

Have these potential effects been documented, per creature? Where can I see the documents?

Additional auto and foot traffic can't help but impact wildlife. Not to mention lights, which the city says it will not include but which the grant requires.

How does the city reconcile the fact that it does not allow lights in Hahamongna but the grant requires the field be lit until 7pm?

Rare black willow and cottonwood are rebounding in the Hahamongna basin.

How many of these rare trees will be impacted?

Will they be part of the restoration?

The federally listed endangered bird, the Bell's Vireo, has now been documented in the exact area where the athletic field is planned.

What are Pasadena's plans to protect this federally listed endangered bird?

Has this been studied?

Where can I see the study results?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Petrea Burchard Sandel