So grossed out by Pasadena’s plans to develop Hahamongna

And, I am weary of cracked satirical Twitter accounts: @CalTranz, @PasaCityCouncil

 

What gives?

 

After trying two times to post here and thwarted by WordPress’s weird updated interface, I almost gave up.

This is what I wrote based on viewing the current proposal Power Point: http://www.savehahamongna.org/documents/MBMU_Scope_Meeting_20120711.pdf

And, studying all of the documentation located here: http://www.savehahamongna.org/hahaeirtoolkit.htm

—gaining inspiration from Pasadena Adjacent:  http://pasadenaadjacent.com/2012/08/15/no-on-the-710-extension-pasadena-city-council-forum/

With direction from Pasadena Daily Photo: http://pasadenadailyphoto.blogspot.com/2012/08/beating-live-horse.html

 

This is what I submitted:

TO: Rosa Laveaga <mbmuproject@cityofpasadena.net>

 

In Re: Public Comment EIR Scoping “Multi-Benefit/Multi-Use” in Hahamongna Watershed Park, Presented July 12 & July 14, 2012 by City of Pasadena, Department of Public Works and Wildan Engineering

 

As requested, I have provided the following responses to two questions and one demand for intellectual product from me for free*, as follows. 

<name of project>

1.  What should be considered?

2.  What are your environmental concerns?

a.)  Identify alternatives and mitigation measures

 

HAHAMONGNA WATERSHED PARK MASTER PLAN – 2003 (“HWPMP2003”)

1.  An update, a name change, a complete overhaul is needed. It is OUT OF DATE. The City of Pasadena has maintained denial of changes in circumstance since HWPMP2003 was published. That is obviously untrue. Update needs to be integrated and congruent with General Plan: Open Space Addendum recently completed and published.

2.  By strategic vagary this document opens the door to development mistakes in an environmentally sensitive area. It sets precedent without addressing limits. The HWPMP2003 is outdated and inaccurate in establishing a community vision for the park; it misidentifies projects for the restoration and enhancement of the park, it does not provide project-level detail,  it is not clear what the implications are of the Master EIR analyzing entire Master Plan on the program level. 

a.)  Abandon the plan, stop all projects. Update the HWPMP2003

 

SYCAMORE GROVE FIELD

1.  Inventory complete detail of animals, plants including microbial and migratory life at the site and currently existing in the surrounding area. Include in cost estimate the loss of life, loss of cultural and scientific educational resources, and detail how each animal will be exterminated at the time of construction and during the maintenance of the field. Provide compete detail size, rarity, of each plant removed or buried. Provide accurate ingredient list of the sediment mound foundation of the field, and fully disclose what type of turf including all ingredients and additives. Provide a statement from a representative of Native American leaders that acknowledges the loss of the sacred ceremonial plant, Datura, and other medicinal resources used culturally by Native Americans. Obtain a detailed description and location from JPL/NASA of the historic area in which they researched and educated themselves for the Mars rover expeditions. Include all data and photographs of the areas current condition.

 

In what is now described as “overflow parking” what would be displaced? Identify it’s specific location and elevation, state if it has been eliminated from the location or will be.

 

2.  The construction of the New multi-purpose sports field is based on a precedent assumed by the outdated HWPMP2003. It is obviously environmentally damaging. It was approved by the Pasadena City Council relying on a cursory examination of the site and not by a bio-indicator scientist, environmental scientist, or other competent and expert in this particular geology, of which many are available in our area and are familiar.

 

The addition of ancillary park furnishings (e.g., picnic tables, barbecues, benches) has no specific placement plotted and is based on a precedent assumed by the outdated HWPMP2003.

Improvements to existing 50 person amphitheater are not fully examined, described or understood.

 

Conflation of this project for the purposes of obtaining financing do not inspire confidence in the City of Pasadena’s stewardship of this land.

 

a.) Photograph what exists there now to document the loss. Make a brochure to explain to school children and future generations what is there today. Adopt a NO BUILD alternative. Recommend NO BUILD as a mitigation to the continuing disturbance to the natural environment by human intervention and by the existing sports field and parking lots. 

 

WESTSIDE PERIMETER TRAIL

1. Provide an adequate description and GPS coordinates. Establish more precise location and what will be done. Explain and document why the improvement is needed and what impact it has on the environment now, and in the predictable future based on the improvement. If one element is deleted from the plan, analyze how or if it affects by conflation of this trail.

 

2. It is a guessing game as to what or why this improvement is needed, and that its implementation is based on outdated descriptions and incomplete, incompetent information. My greatest concern is reverence to Nature being priority one. Conflation of this project for the purposes of obtaining financing do not inspire and confidence in the City of Pasadena’s stewardship of this land.

a.) Base the plan on an updated, and revised HWPMP2003 or adopt a NO BUILD alternative. Recommend NO BUILD as a mitigation to the continuing disturbance to the natural environment by human intervention and by the adjoining sports field and parking lots (development).

 

BERKSHIRE CREEK RESTORATION

1.  Include what is being destroyed that is in need of restoration and why it is being destroyed. Provide explanation if this is mitigation for other areas within this scope that is being destroyed. Identify what area and resource is being destroyed and in need of this restoration.

Provide description of drainage replacement/installation and the track of where the drainage is coming from, where it is going to, size mapping, the content of the drain material, how often this is monitored and what maintenance is required. What safety measures are in place for animals, plants and humans?

Provide description of how water quality is measured and what agency will provide this reading. Explain the procedure used in determining the measurement. Provide a description and specific placement of all “enhancements” to the neighboring trail and habitat in Sunset Overlook. Provide explanation of why enhancements are needed. Explain what the “Improvements are to facilities at the neighboring picnic area in specific terms. Describe what materials these improvements are made of. Prepare a content list and manufacturer list for each improvement. Explain the justification for improvements to the park road. Be more clear on what park road? Does it currently exist or is it a reused road of historic significance? What is the purpose of the road? Include traffic analysis and AQMD report, as required.

 

2. Conflation of this project for the purposes of obtaining financing do not inspire confidence in the City of Pasadena’s stewardship of this land. 

 

a.) Abandon this plan. Adopt NO BUILD option to mitigate all human intervention and damages created by continual use by humans in this watershed. 

 

HABITAT RESTORATION

1. Include explanation of what areas have been damaged or destroyed, what wildlife, what plants, have been disturbed or destroyed that require the restoration. Name who is responsible for the destruction. Explain why those responsible are or are not charged with restoration. Define if you mean ‘non-native and invasive’ or just ‘non-native’ plants, or just ‘invasive’ plants. Provide analysis performed by expert in bio-indicators and include what native, non-native, invasive or noninvasive species depend on those proposed to be removed. Provide detailed analysis and estimates as to how long (years) it will take for the restoration to be complete and the damage or loss to be made whole and the associated economic, cultural, and educational costs.

 

2. Conflation of this project for the purposes of obtaining financing does not inspire confidence in the City of Pasadena’s stewardship of this land.

 

a.) Abandon this plan. Adopt NO BUILD option to mitigate all human intervention and damages created by continual use by humans in this watershed and to mitigate the project being based on the outdated inaccurate HWPMP2003.

 

OAK GROVE FIELD RESTROOM

1. Provide description, detailed dimensions, material composition and specific placement of the “burnt-down” restroom. Was it a wooden outhouse? Was it a temporary structure, as described in the historical record. Provide photos of it. Provide justification for replacement with upgraded restroom, the reason it must be “upgraded” rather than replaced, the purpose for the upgrade, the material used in the upgrade, the cost estimate of the difference between replacement and the upgrade. If insurance money is involved, list details and approvals. Provide explanation of “sewage lift station.” Provide material contents and mapping of where the  sewage goes, type of storage. Provide explanation of what type of storage is being added and why. Whom will be using this storage? How will this facility be maintained?

 

2. Conflation of this project for the purposes of obtaining financing does not inspire confidence in the City of Pasadena’s stewardship of this land. Anything based on HWPMP2003 is an error, as it is grossly out of date and inaccurate. The development mistakes that currently exist have set a precedent for expansion of these types of projects. We are building upon previous environmental damage with continued ignorance. 

 

a.) Abandon this plan. Adopt NO BUILD option to mitigate all human intervention and damages created by continual use of humans in this watershed.

 

FOOTHILL DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS

1. Provide detailed explanation of drain pipe, size, manufacturer, mapping, direction of drain, filtration system, environmental testing schedule, damage or disturbance to wildlife including composting microorganisms or if microorganisms are to be introduced. Give results of testing done on the water to be piped and where this water is piped to and why. Provide volume reports that are in common language and can be understood by most people. Explain what is causing the erosion problem or if the pipe will cause an erosion problem that is the purpose of improvement. Explain any addition habitat destruction and restoration that will be employed here or adjoining area because of this activity. State how many drain pipes will be used in total and their locations throughout the watershed.

 

2. Conflation of this project for the purposes of obtaining financing does not inspire confidence in the City of Pasadena’s stewardship of this land. Anything based on HWPMP2003 is an error, as it is grossly out of date and inaccurate. Throughout the park there is currently a proliferation of bio-indicator species that come when there is particular pollutants such as oil, radiation, and/or certain chemicals are present, my concern is that this appears to be meaningless to the developers and implementors, and “decision-makers” of this project.

 

a.) Abandon this plan. Adopt NO BUILD option to mitigate all human intervention and damages created by continual use of humans in this watershed.

 

EXPANDED PARKING AREA

1.Define and specify what existing parking lot, for what purpose, who are its users, if any promises or statements or previous agreements counter the current planned use, please provide the explanation of why the intentions have changed. If Sycamore Grove Field is not built will this plan be implemented? Include your answer. Provide description of what material the parking surface will be resurfaced in. What materials will it be repaired  with? Provide material ingredients, manufacture, and method of installation.

 

2. Conflation of this project for the purposes of obtaining financing does not inspire confidence in the City of Pasadena’s stewardship of this land. Anything based on HWPMP2003 is an error, as it is grossly out of date and inaccurate. Throughout the park there is currently a proliferation of bio-indicator species that come when there is particular pollutants such as oil and/or certain chemicals are present, my concern is that this appears to be meaningless to the developers, implementers, “decision-makers” of this project.

 

a.) Abandon this plan. Adopt NO BUILD option to mitigate all human intervention and damages created by continual use of humans in this watershed.

 

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

 

1. “Respect”  Identify who or what you are respecting. 

 

2.  Reverence for Nature and the environment is completely missing from this entire project, as is the competence, knowledge, and expertise of those creating and implementing it.

 

a.) YOUR PLANS ARE CURSED, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. There is no mitigation for intentional criminal acts once they have been committed against the innocent. One need only look at the grant applications to find the exploitation of a population of youth in Northwest Pasadena that does not have the economic resources nor the easy access to support the assertion that these sports fields are built to serve them. They are built to serve those in close proximity to use them, the youth of La Canada (not generally disadvantaged and heavily enriched by this), and the youth of Altadena, which if polled may tell you they find what you are doing here a crime.

 

How many other plans and developments have been financed by a false description of the users of the project? The youth in Northwest Pasadena have remained disadvantaged for over 25 years despite the many projects attributed to be for their benefit. Why then, is there no improvement? Where is that analysis?  Does this indicate a sick need to keep a certain population in the status quo? Is this a way to redirect public money to populations that demand to be served but are no longer in need? 

 

*You are paid handsomely to take up my time with this drivel and you will ignore it. It makes me sick that responding to you only seems to fulfill your legal obligation and not to actually assist you to coming to the only right recommendation of NO BUILD. My disgust at the perversion of this process is very real. Please, use your heads but do not forget your heart.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Dianne Patrizzi

A death row full of innocents

September 14, 2011   Pasadena, California  – Tonight 6pm at Jackie Robinson Center, 1020 N. Fair Oaks Ave., the Pasadena Urban Forest Advisory Committee will sign death warrants on 12 (that’s TWELVE) beautiful trees.  The Pasadena Public Works Dept. chainsaws are hot and ready to cut them down or pull them out violently by the roots and let them die a slow lingering death.

The twelve trees are located around Johnson Field in Hahamongna Watershed “Park” (an unprotected wildlife refuge in Pasadena).

Officials are reporting all the good reasons why the devil palms of Devil’s Gate need to die NOW:

1) Guilty of being non-native (although not invasive)

2) Accused of being in poor health. No trial (since facts support health)

3) Accused of disrupting water percolation (even though the 13,000 cubic yards of sediment dumped on them is the real culprit)

4) Indecently enjoy shedding frawns in public on a regular basis to make room for new growth. Disgusting and obscene! (see pornish palm photos below)

These non-natives are at best described as quirky and at worst ‘obscene harlots of the natural world.’ They have been sentenced to death for these and possibly many more unnamed offenses. This is where the denigration starts, folks.

WHO  WILL  ARGUE  THEIR  CASE?   WHO  WILL   SAVE   THEM?

Here are some mugshots of the trees scheduled for death:

Here is one of the arrest reports:

What’s goin’ on?

Monday at 6:30pm, the Pasadena City Council is scheduled to meet. Me and you you and me, or somebody, maybe anybody, should go to this thing. I know it’s boring, MIND-NUMBING, but there’s a few items listed on the Agenda (see below) that look kinda weird. That is to say, perplexing, possibly even…

suspect.

What do you think?

Source: http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/councilagendas/2011%20agendas/Sep_12_11/agenda.asp

And, here is a snippet from CEQA Section 15061 (b) 3 on this EXCEMPTION they proceed, however, it is arguable that common sense has anything to do with this:

[Subsection (b)(3) provides a short way for agencies to deal with discretionary activities which could arguably be subject to the CEQA process but which common sense provides should not be subject to the Act.

This section is based on the idea that CEQA applies jurisdictionally to activities which have the potential for causing environmental effects. Where an activity has no possibility of causing a significant effect, the activity will not be subject to CEQA. This approach has been noted with approval in a number of appellate court decisions including the State Supreme Court opinion in No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles.]

Source: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art5.html

So, what’s going on? First off, we know Los Angeles County Mayor Mike Antonovich ordered an EIR be performed by the Los Angeles County Public Works before undertaking the large sediment removal project in the works. That’s where the whole of Hahamonga gets leveled. Then amazingly, after it’s been completely decimated, the whole place gets landscaped with plastic grass and sports fields.

OKAY! Not the whole place. It’s a watershed, after all. There’s only so much one can do to destroy the City of Pasadena water retention. Personally speaking of water retention, lately, I feel like I am a walking water reservoir ( buried in Johnson “Field”) even though I have cut out the salt!

BEFORE

Or, get yourself a Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young Album-if you find it at Poobah Records, BUY IT.