📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado
Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
• 2016-2017
Make Invsetments that Transform Lives
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 7 findings
F1
Page 159
Flood control is imperative. The importance of absolutely preventing floods from the Los Angeles River persists to this day. Nothing should be done that compromises this function, which is well-served by the current River configuration.
F2
Page 159
There have been many disparate plans and planning efforts. Since the idea of Los Angeles River revitalization was launched by Lewis MacAdams and his Friends of the Los Angeles River (FOLAR) Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in 1986, there have been recurrences of planning efforts aimed at making concepts into reality. Some small, disparate projects may have resulted from these plans. However, no plan has reached full implementation. This is due to high cost and competing non-river interests.
F3
Page 159
There have been multiple independent actions. Even now River revitalization efforts are fragmented and not well coordinated. This is true for both planning efforts and actual small-scale implementations.
F4
Page 159
There is a move to integrated, systematic planning. There are calls for a systematic, integrated approach in River revitalization coming from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the RiverLA Non-Governmental Organization.
F5
Page 159
Progress has been limited by the high costs and limited resources. Planning has not been converted to implementation because of the extremely high cost of doing something significant to the River. As usual, high costs are met with limited (public) resources. 140 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F6
Page 160
Lewis MacAdams, Founder of Friends of the Los Angeles River (FOLAR), has referred to the Los Angeles River as his “50 year artwork”. Since a comprehensive implementation is too expensive, attention has turned to subsets of the plans which may be opportunistically affordable. Waiting for the pieces to be assembled into the whole greatly slows completion. When MacAdams referenced his “50 year artwork” with respect to river revitalization he seems to have gotten it right. Working on sections of the river at a time also risks not achieving a satisfying unified whole.
F7
Page 160
What are the public’s interests in the Los Angeles River? The plans we have reviewed seem to have posited the public interests and their priorities. There may have been efforts that we are unaware of to solicit these from the actual public. The posited public interests may turn out to be the actual public interest. We are not able to assert either of these possibilities as true based on our investigation. V
Recommendations 9
-
R1Page 146The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should publicly develop and periodically review a catalog of public interests and priorities for the overall (51 mile) Los Angeles River revitalization. These should be widely published. The following are likely to be amongst the most supported interests: Flood Control Public Safety Water Quality Water Conservation Ecological Recovery Recreational Opportunities Impacts on Existing Adjoining Communities Long-term Economic Development
-
R2Page 147The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works while collaboratively revising the Master Plan for Los Angeles River Revitalization should include support the catalog of public interests, once it is created. The resulting Master Plan should govern any River sub-developments.
-
R3Page 147The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, working with the Lower Los Angeles River Working Group and the City of Los Angeles, should identify priorities and funding opportunities for river development for incremental River revitalization within the overall plan developed in 2 above.
-
R4Page 147The Lower Los Angeles River Working Group, working with the County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles should identify priorities and funding opportunities for river development for incremental River revitalization within the overall plan developed in 2 above.
-
R5Page 147The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, working with the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works and the Lower Los Angeles River Working Group should 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 141 identify priorities and funding opportunities for river development for incremental River revitalization within the overall plan developed in 2 above.
-
R6Page 147The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should include the agreed upon public interest catalog as a requirement for revitalization plans.
-
R7Page 147The Lower Los Angeles River Working Group should include the agreed upon public interest catalog as a requirement for revitalization plans.
-
R8Page 147The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles should include the agreed upon public interest catalog as a requirement for revitalization plans.
-
R9Page 147The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles should include a specifically-native flora and fauna riparian experience section within its “Alternative 20” implementation emulating the original Los Angeles River ecology. VI
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Los Angeles
City
Los Angeles County
County