 |  |
News of the Arroyo
Title: | City Council Agrees Not to Build Field in Lake! |
Subtitle: | |
Date: | 2010-07-13 |
Author: | Laura Garrett |
Publication: | Audubon News |
Content: | City Council Agrees Not to Build Field in Lake! This was the headline suggested to me by Tim Brick for last night’s City Council meeting. At issue was whether or not the City Council should revisit its plan to build two new multi-purpose athletic fields in Hahamongna, one of them right where a lake is now. In July. (Warning: the tone of this email will be more gossipy and snarky than professional and journalistic. Think Rona Barrett. It’s hard not to get cynical when attending these City Council meetings.) Some background: Last March, the Hahamongna Watershed Park Advisory Committee asked the City Council if it should reconsider the seven-year-old plan to build two athletic fields and a new parking lot in Hahamongna Watershed Park. Building these fields is a way to use up the thousands of cubic yards of sediment they need to dredge from the debris basin behind Devil’s Gate Dam because they will have to raise the ground under the new fields by 14 feet to avoid future flooding (though we all know how much Mother Nature likes to play games with us when we think we can outsmart Her.) This was an agenda item at last night’s meeting. City staff made it clear in their presentation that they really really really want these fields built. They see no other way to accommodate the (apparently) millions of kids who are desperate to play soccer in Hahamongna. They say they have looked at every possible site in the City, and that NO OTHER POSSIBLE SITES EXIST (You’ll see my reason for the caps at the end of this email). They see this plan as a boon to water conservation and to bringing more people to Hahamongna. Really. Over 40 members of the public spoke out, many very eloquently, in favor of reconsidering this plan, including heroes like students from PCC, Tim Brick, Nina Chomsky, Lori Paul, and Jeff Chapman, Director of the Audubon Center at Debs Park. NOT ONE PERSON SPOKE AGAINST RECONSIDERATION OF THIS PLAN. Not one member of the public defended building these fields and the parking lot in Hahamongna. So much for the alleged millions. Here are some reasons why the public opposed the new fields: It’s a watershed that should be protected, not filled with chemicals; kids learn from nature just as much or more than they learn form playing sports; we’re smarter now, let’s make smarter choices; we need to protect this last little piece of our Arroyo; it’s historically important for a variety of reasons; the land has changed drastically (Station Fire, flooding) since the last EIR (Environmental Impact Report) was done, so it should be done again; Hahamongna has changed people’s lives; it’s not empty space waiting to be used—people already use it recreationally and critters live there; to build fields there would violate the City’s Green City Action Plan; demand for new fields will always outpace supply, so just because we need new fields does not mean we should destroy critical habitat to build them; using pesticides to kill the rodents is not “protection of the animals that live in these habitats” (City Action Plan #12); just because a lot of people worked on it doesn’t make it good; over 50 species of birds have been seen at the spot where the new parking lot will go; you can’t “compromise” nature—building a field is destruction of nature, pure and simple; the people of Pasadena want more Open Space and places to hike and walk their dogs; the area will flood again, despite building a 14 foot high field; the traffic and trash will further degrade the area. . . You get the idea. Then we got to listen to the City Council debate what we had said and we learned who had been listening and who had not. Who had an open mind and who did not. Who is thinking long-term and who is not. Is never fails to astonish me how some people can sit through hours of testimony and not hear it. Four Council members clearly do not see this land as habitat. They don’t seem to understand concepts like “watershed” and “ecosystem.” They did not hear that we only have one Hahamongna. They did not hear that a lot of people already use Hahamongna. They did not hear that the land has fundamentally changed since their plan seven years ago. All they are thinking about is getting that field built. At least the City’s photo of site for Field #3, which is a photo of a lake, got their attention, and they admitted that this field, which they themselves had snuck into the plan seven years ago, after the public had left the meeting, was a foolish idea. Hm... Then doesn’t that mean that just perhaps they should revisit Field #2 as well? Chris Holden spoke beautifully about the need to reassess this, to bring a new paradigm to the table, to consider protecting all of Hahamongna. Hooray! Margaret McAustin said the public comments were compelling in their range and diversity, that it was the Hahamongna Watershed Advisory Committee who had requested this reconsideration, and that (HELLO!) IT’S A WATERSHED! Hooray! Terry Tornek said,” I don’t know what more it would take for us to conclude that we need to take another look.” He also bravely and correctly questioned the ethical validity of the EIR process in the City. Hooray! Margaret McAustin moved to reconsider both fields. Chris Holden, Terry Tornek, and Mayor Bogaard voted Yes. Madison, Robinson, Haderlein, and Gordo voted No. The motion did not carry. Boo. A second motion, one to reconsider only Field #3 (the one in the lake), passed with two objections (McAustin and Tornek). So why the cautious optimism? Because the Field #2 still has to go through a regular EIR process. Because the costs of completing this field and parking lot have probably risen considerably since the City won its grant to build them. Because they have to use all the money by the end of 2012 (2013 if they can get the State Legislature to pass a bill for them). Because three members of the City Council clearly get it. And because a lot of us are going to make this as slow and painful for them as we possibly can. One moment that caused my heart to race for hours after the meeting at 12:20 came when the City Manager admitted that another site for fields does in fact exist. WHAT? After we had repeatedly been assured (somewhat patronizingly, I might add), that the City had exhausted EVERY possible site for fields, and had been working diligently (without sleep, it sounded like), for YEARS? Huh? Yes, this site is ready to go as an alternate to Field #3. The one in the lake. Not Field #2, the one that they assume will get built because it’s funded. There is no other possible site, I repeat, no other possible site for Field #2. Really? I even heard the City Manager jokingly and laughingly say (off-mike, but I have sharp mom-teacher ears) to Council-member Haderlein that Field #3 will get built before Field #2!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They knew all along. They gave us #3 to appease us. So what can you do? You can write to Council-members Holden, McAustin and Tornek to thank them for their vision and wisdom, and for listening to us. You can write to Haderlein, Robinson, Madison, and Gordo to chastise them for the narrowness of their vision, for their unwillingness to see the light. And you can stay tuned, ‘cause this fight ain’t over. We’re just getting warmed up! Email me if you have any questions or want more information. Thanks for all that you do, Laura Garrett Conservation Chair Pasadena Audubon Society |