Final Comment Matrix2
85 Pages
English

Final Comment Matrix2

-

Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

Description

Greater LA IRWMP Comments on Public Review Draft and Responses # Section Comment Response and/or Disposition General 1 Develop a system for tracking response to comments. There is some concern that comments are not being This table tracks the disposition of comments. reflected in this draft. Comments to LC – Indicate whether public comments are accepted or not accepted by them and why. 2 Plan meant to show “Big Story” of Region. Comment noted. 3 Tone is all passive voice. Should be more authoritative. As the plan is not a regulatory document and compliance is voluntary, the passive voice is considered appropriate. 4 Throughout, this document is written in the passive voice to its detriment. It is a plan for action and Specific responsibility for action is not always clear, as invidiual collaboration and many people have participated. There is no reason to hide the “actors” in this plan by using the agencies will need to undertake actions to make progress. passive voice. This example from the preface provides one illustration: “In addition, water resources must be Identifying specific entities may not always be accurate and lead planned in concert with the other issues that make up the urban context.” Who is going to do the planning? This some to conclude that they have no responsibility to engage in language avoids responsibility for planning. “We must plan for water resources….” at least gives some action to integration or specific ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 53
Language English
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
11/29/06
Greater LA IRWMP Comments on Public Review Draft and Responses
Develop a system for tracking response to comments. There is some concern that comments are not being reflected in this draft. Comments to LC  Indicate whether public comments are accepted or not accepted by them and why. Plan meant to show Big Story of Region.
Tone is all passive voice. Should be more authoritative.
Throughout, this document is written in the passive voice to its detriment. It is a plan for action and collaboration and many people have participated. There is no reason to hide the actors in this plan by using the passive voice. This example from the preface provides one illustration: In addition, water resources must be planned in concert with the other issues that make up the urban context. Who is going to do the planning? This language avoids responsibility for planning. We must plan for water resources. at least gives some action to the sentence. Even better would be: The members of the Water Management Group (and all stakeholders) must continue to plan.
Plan isnt very useful in practical terms for project development. Only useful to refer to in funding applications
The process has been useful, but so far the plan hasnt been as useful as the process has been.
Recognize this IRWMP was just a start
See Plan as planning tool to incorporate in EIRs  How should it be done?
Some tasks identified as LA Countys are not accurate.
Who is the audience for this document?
Who is the audience for the document & what kind of info/explanation do they need.
Tech memos had lots of detail. Whats the relationship of those to this doc? Should they be appendices for more info?
This table tracks the disposition of comments.
Comment noted.
As the plan is not a regulatory document and compliance is voluntary, the passive voice is considered appropriate. Specific responsibility for action is not always clear, as invidiual agencies will need to undertake actions to make progress. Identifying specific entities may not always be accurate and lead some to conclude that they have no responsibility to engage in integration or specific actions.
Comment noted.
Comment noted.
Comment noted.
Jurisdictions may consider the IRWMP as reference document and may choose to consider consistency with the plan when reviewing project. No specific tasks identified.
The audience includes funding agencies, decision-makers, public agency staff and stakeholder organizations. See above response.
The Technical Memoranda were intended to provide an analysis of issues, inform the Leadership Committee, and support development of the Plan. They were not intended for wide distribution to the general public.
Greater LA IRWMP  Comments on Public Review Draft Page 2 of 85
 
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
There are planning implications. Cities need to get this plan to their Planning Departments. Not just public works. SCAG can help create consistency with regional efforts.
Sun Valley should be a photo. Use historic LA River photos. Jessica Hall has photos. Need east valley photos too. SE Hollywood Bimmany Slough Project. Check w MRCA for photos. Recycled projects in Burbank. MWD has photos.
LA River Revitalization Master Plan will be out soon. Check it out.
Regional meeting should be at 10:00. Not 9. Because people have to deal with traffic and taking their kids to school.
The process has been useful, but so far the plan hasnt been as useful as the process has been.
Subregional meetings are more valuable for discussions and ideas
Good start  more details needed on projects development will need/want more time. Greater focus during meetings on specifics
Clear simple messages and marketing to achieve goal, people need to understand what we are doing and why.
This plan should more fully integrate Orange County efforts and stakeholders as well as acknowledge the leading edge efforts with watershed management and the stormwater program This plan should include a clear implementation strategy, including how to organize, fund and manage water resources cross-jurisdictionally The County sees this plan in two distinct parts, a proposal for Proposition 50-Chapter 8 funding and a long term Management Plan for water resources. The County appreciates the effort it took to prioritize the key projects for the initial round of Proposition 50 funds. We especially applaud the foresight to take this opportunity to look long-term at water resources. We support the concept of continuing with the current organizational structure and will participate more in 2007.
The County of Orange would like to see further integration of efforts and stakeholders from our county. Permittees have been coordinating extensively on implementation of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The County is adopting watershed-based governance models called Watershed Management Areas (WMA), which are implemented by MOUs. Specific agencies that should be a part of this process are listed in the comments below. For the LA Area IRWMP to be successful, Orange County efforts need to be more fully integrated with Los Angeles County efforts, since we all flow to the San Gabriel River and the coast.
Comment noted.
Comment noted.
Comment noted.
Comment noted.
Comment noted.
Comment noted.
Comment noted.
Comment noted.
Comment noted. The proposed subregional plan for the Lower SG/LA subregion should specifically address improved integration with Orange County agencies and stakeholders.
Greater LA IRWMP  Comments on Public Review Draft Page 3 of 85
 
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Add and Steering to Prepared By: Leadership Committer of Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.
The Steering Committees and stakeholders also helped prepare the Plan, and that should be mentioned wherever the Leadership Committee is given credit for having prepared the Plan.
The inside cover page should say Prepared by: Leadership Committee, the Subregional Steering Committees and the many agencies, organizations, cities, and other entities of the Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Region
Get rid of County
The name of the region should be the Greater Los Angeles Region, rather than the Greater Los Angeles County Region because there are areas of the County that are not included in this region (Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys), and are developing separate IRWMPs.
ACRONYMS. There are some acronyms that I recommend adding to the list. Some relate to organizations mentioned that do not appear, some are suggestions for Items that the group may want to add because to standardize project success in the future. SMMC Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy CRAM California Rapid Assessment Method UTAP Universal Trail Assesment Program UTAP is the trail assessment program already adopted by the United States Forest and National Park Service. It includes a run-time version of Adobe Filemaker and is standardized to upload to a national trail database.
MWD interchanges between "Metropolitan" and "Metropolitan Water District." There should be consistency throughout the document.
Fully justify document (format)
Most GIS maps and/or its legends are unreadable. The resolution and/or graphical presentation need to be improved
No revision proposed. As the Leadership Cmte has final editorial control, the attribution is considered correct. See response above.
Already reflected in the "Acknowledgements" page
Greater Los Angeles County is an appropriate title for the Region, as Greater Los Angeles is not defined. See response above.
SMMC has been added to the list of acronyms. CRAM and UTAP are not specifically referenced in the document and thus not included in the list.
Text revised accordingly (GLOBAL).
Left justified format, particulary in the final two-column format are generally considered easier to read. All of the maps have been revised to improve legibility
Greater LA IRWMP  Comments on Public Review Draft Page 4 of 85
 
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Plan should be capitalized when referring to the IRWMP.
Replace the term treated wastewater wherever it appears throughout the document with reclaimed or recycled water, and be careful using the terms recycled water and reclaimed water interchangeably, because the definitions are different. Please follow this general guideline: 1) if the reference is to treated water that is being beneficially reused, please use the term recycled water; 2) if the reference is to treated water that is being discharged, please use the term reclaimed water. For example, on Page 4-7, the term treated wastewater should be replaced with recycled water, because the treated water is being beneficially reused in a seawater intrusion barrier. If you need help figuring out which term to use, please call Mary Zauner.
The text is too small to read comfortably. The final plan should use larger font.
See my comments on the maps. They are hard to read. Make them larger.
Check for erroneously underlined text
Paragraph 3, remove the first "continue" in the line "As regulatory pressures"
Paragraph 3-The stakeholders. Addressing of flood control is the key objective in the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed especially to those areas downtown, near the LA River. The floods of the past are still part of conversations of those who resided in the region. In my neighborhood of Lincoln Heights, the floods reached Lincoln Park, quite a distance from the LA River. Foundations are still soft in the area. Relatives alive at that time still do not talk about the deaths incurred. Though plans worked in that day, visions are needed for todays world with development plans abounding an already dense area. Regional plans should be the guides to City Land Use Planning and the Community Plans and Specific Plans that a City adopts. Now, there are plans to build a Biomedical Park next door. There is no mention of the floods and the former reservoir at Hazard Park in their Environmental Impact Report. Hazard Park was a former reservoir with current plans for wetlands restoration. On old maps, a river can be seen headed in that direction. That river may be running underground in todays world.
The Preface provides a good overview of the process, but the writing style obscures the nature of the process. The authors style suggests that the Leadership Committee is a formal body but uses an informal style of
Text revised accordingly (GLOBAL).
Text revised accordingly (GLOBAL).
The final document will be reformatted to improve legibility.
The maps have been revised to make them more legible.
Text revised accordingly (GLOBAL).
Text edited accordingly.
Comment noted.
Text edited accordingly.
Greater LA IRWMP  Comments on Public Review Draft Page 5 of 85
 
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
1
1.1
1.1
1.1
reference, using they to refer to intentions and opinions of the members of the Leadership Committee. The Leadership Committee up to this point is anad hocthus it would be more proper to use a differentgroup, and writing style that acknowledges that the Leadership Committee has members and is not (yet) formally constituted. The appropriate writing style would be to refer to the members, as in the members decided, the members acknowledged, etc. This will be especially important for the final draft, when the document must distinguish between thead hocLeadership Committee and the formally constituted Water Management Group. In the third paragraph, you introduce a seemingly monolithic stakeholder group that seems to have been surveyed to determine what challenges they face and why. Since this is not actually true, and there is no homogenous body of stakeholders that all hold one opinion, this needs to be rewritten. The diversity of the group of stakeholders is important to emphasize, not its uniformity.
4thparagraph  SCAG's Compass 2020 densify on only two percent of the Region's land area. The can be misleading because the number is quire approximate in the SCAG plan and because the SCAG plan includes 6 counties with wast amount of mountain and desert in the 98%. 2% would not reflect SCAG's (or any else's) growth vision for "greater LA county." At a minimum, all "6-county SCAG regsion's land area."
Ignores steering committees
IRWMP started in Mid 2005 not Early 2006
The flood control systems historically single-purpose persepective.
Add a sentence near the end about how the state will benefit  something like Richs comment about a gallon of water saved in one subregion/region is a gallon of water saved for the whole region/State.
The theme of the introduction should be a greater emphasis on the collaborative nature of the exercise and the partnerships that have been forged. We should emphasize the fragile nature of the collaboration, and the need for work to continue to make the bonds that have developed stronger.
The flood protection system quickly transports runoff to the ocean, however it provides little opportunity for natural percolation of runoff natural or for riparian processes reduce not true for San Gabriel River - DC
Mention Groundwater basins
Mention Habitat Restoration
Text edited accordingly.
Text edited accordingly.
Text edited accordingly.
Comment noted.
Text edited accordingly.
The preface addresses partnerships and the need to maintain and forge new partnerships.
Text revised accordingly.
Text revised accordingly.
Text revised accordingly.
Greater LA IRWMP  Comments on Public Review Draft Page 6 of 85
 
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Strategic Goals for Ch 8?
The Document should include a discussion on how this IRWMP is consistent with the California Water Plan strategies and proposed framework. Currently, the document only mentions the California Water Plan.
The high cost of remediation is another key in planning. Proposition funding should NOT be an alternative to poor land use planning and non-participation in infrastructure needs by both large and small developers. In other words, the taxpayer SHOULD NOT be the conduit for footing the bill of NO or LACK OVERSIGHT.
Consistent with the requirements of Proposition 50 is this needed? TG,
Collaboration should be imposed by State legislation, not just volunteerism by Cities and Unincorporated County Regions. This plan SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS LAW and part of CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA) COMPLIANCE standards.
Start of this sections seems a bit awkward  not a big issue though - TG
The population of the Region should be cited consistently as approximately 10.2 million. Also, this significant fact should be called out in the introduction (currently, the first place it is mentioned is on page 2-22).
Additionally, the number of cities in the Region has been cited as 92, but in the stakeholder workshops, and the Regional workshop, the number cited was 94. The correct number should be verified, and changed wherever appropriate (Regional flyer,www.lawaterplan.org, this document, etc.).
Comment unclear, as there is no Chapter 8.
No modification needed. The reference to the Water Plan include all elements of that document.
Comment noted.
Reference deleted.
The legistlature has the option to make participation in the IRWMP a mandatory process, or to require a specific CEQA compliance strategy.
First paragraph deleted.
The population of the region is first cited in Section 1.4. References to population have been revised.
The correct number of cities in the Region is 92, as noted on Page 1-4.
To provide opportunities for direct input by the entire range of stakeholders in the Region, the IRWMP process Text revised accordingly. also includes six workshops at the Subregional level and four workshops at the Regional level. Workshops focus on specific topics (e.g., objectives, project integration, and plan implementation). In addition, this public draft of the IRWMP is being made available for review and comment. Use past tense - DC
The text describing the planning grant process is different than DWRs understanding. Please revise the text as follows: Existing text: Based on review of the applications, DWR recommended funding only one application, the Watershed Conservation Authoritys. In response, representatives of the Regional groups worked together with DWR and the SWRCB to expand the funding pool and provide funds for additional applications. DWR expanded the funding pool and proposed a single grant of $1.5 million, on the condition that the six original applicants prepare a single consolidated plan for the Region. Suggested revision:Based on review of the applications, DWR recommended funding three applications, the
Text editied similarly,
60
1.5
The city of LA, LA River Revitalization Master Plan team met with the IRWMP team and discussed cross-referencing eachothers plan in their documents. I do not see the LARRMP mentioned here or in the Implementation Section 7.3.4 Relationship of Other Planning Documents to IRWMP Objectives.
The LA River Revitalization Master Plan is noted an example of ecosystem restoration in Section 4.2.3. An additional reference will be added to Section 7.3.4 as well.
67
68
1.4
Last paragraph: Change tense in final to were included and adopted
Last sentence in paragraph deleted.
59
1.5
The California Public Records Act and the Brown Act and/or Bagley Keene Act needs to be part of this process. The intent of the process to date, and as the Plan proceeds, is for Posted meetings only occur if a legislative body forms IRWMP and its committees. We recommend that an open and collaborative process. All meetings are open to the legislative process take place to ensure the PUBLIC access to it future and responsibility in long term water public. planning and strategies.
 
58
Watershed Conservation Authority, Santa Monica Bay, and City of Los Angeles. In response, representatives of the Regional groups worked together and offered to prepare a single consolidated regional plan inclusive of the six original applicants. DWR proposed a single grant award of $1.5 million for preparation of the plan.
1.5.1
Text revised accordingly.
Page 1-6, first paragraph: Based on the current MOU, the terms in the MOU will not supersede the interim guidelines. Please modify text to reflect current situation.
66
1.5.1
Los Angeles County Flood Control District.Something better in the FCD Act. TG LACFCD provides for the control and conservation of the flood, storm, and other waste waters of the District ? DC.It also conserves such waters for beneficial and useful purposes by spreading, storing, retaining or causing them
Text revised accordingly.
1.5.1
The wording needs to be carefully crafted to distinguish between the different ad hoc groups, i.e., the Leadership See response above. Committee and Steering Committees, and the formally constituted Regional Water Management Group.
64
1.5.1
At such time as the MOU is finalized and adopted, the terms of that document will supersede the interim Text revised accordingly. guidelines. Not true. The LC will continue to operate under the interim guidelines since the MOU does not talk about governance and operations. [HJB]
65
1.5.1
61
Be careful with using RWMG use Leadership Committee
1.5.1
63
The term Regional Water Management Group, or the acronym RWMG should not be used interchangably with Text in Section 1 has been revised accordingly. the term Leadership Committee.
62
Text revised accordingly.
1.5.1
1.5.1
See response above
Update: Ar such time as the MOU is finalized and adopted.
Greater LA IRWMP  Comments on Public Review Draft Page 7 of 85
The Leadership Committee guiding development and implementation of the Plan serves as the RWMG should we mention minimum of 3 to form the group? - FK
A separate section on the Regional Water Management Group, distinct from the Leadership Committee, has been added.
In the section titled Los Angeles County Flood Control District note waste water typically refers to sewage, sugges using surface runoff waters instead.
The authorizing legislation specifically references "waste waters."
1.5.1
With regard to the description of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments could you amend as follows: The Text revised accordingly. Council serves as an advocate in representingthe 27 member cities and two million residents
1.5.1
72
within West Basin's paragraph, remove "mutual water companies" in first line
1.5.1
73
 
Text revised accordingly.
Text revised accordingly.
1.5.1
Use LACFCD instead of District
70
1.5.1
Mention the Watershed Conservation authority is a state agency in the summary of responsibilities for the leadership committee
74
1.5.1
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County: Change 530 million gallons per day to 500 million gallons per day.
Text revised accordingly.
71
As a JPA, between a state agency and county, it is not clear that the WCA is a state authority.
76
As member of the Board have not participated in Leadership or Steering Committee meetings, no edit proposed.
1.5.2
Los Angeles County Departments.Public Works, Regional Park and Open Space District, Parks and Recreation, Regional Planning, Beaches and Harbors, Chief Administrative Office Do we need to include the participation of the Board of Supervisors?
75
77
1.5.2
The County appreciates being included in the Steering Committee for the Lower San Gabriel & Los Angeles Rivers Watersheds sub-region. In general, we would like to have seen more outreach to Orange County agencies
1.5.2 
Lists the cities in LA and Orange counties, but not the other 2 counties that it overlaps, San Bernardino and Ventura
Ventura County Watershed Protection District has been added to the list of agencies. No agencies from San Bernadino County have participated. As the plan proceeds, outreach to those entities should be addressed, in articular for the Lower San Gabriel and Los
69
Text edited based LACFCD input.
1.5.1
to percolate into the soil within the district. The District also protects the harbors, waterways, public highways and property in the district from damage from such waters and may provide for recreational use of district facilities. The District was created in 1915 and now operates and owns 14 major dams, 115 debris basins, 26 groundwater recharge facilities, 524 miles of major channels, 29 pump stations, 77,990 catch basins and 2,800 miles of storm drains.verify numbers, seen different from FMD & PRG DCIt also operates 14 rubber dams and three seawater intrusion barrier systems. In January 1985, the District consolidated with the County Engineer and the County Road Department to form theBe consistent District vs district -- DC
Change: The District was created in 1915 and now operates 14 major dams, 115 debris basins, 26 groundwater  .. To: The District was created in 1915 and now operates 14 major dams, over 160 debris basins...
78
Greater LA IRWMP  Comments on Public Review Draft Page 8 of 85
Greater LA IRWMP  Comments on Public Review Draft Page 9 of 85
 
79
1.5.2
and Cities. The following organizations have interest in this plan: Orange County Council of Governments, Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District. How can the gap in participation by these key entities be addressed?
Federal Agencies and State Departments and Agencies omit the citizen from its process. Here advocate groups (non-profits) do play a role. The STATE CONSERVANCIES are more restrictive in compliance with the PUBLIC. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) serves in our area despite that the Santa Monica Mountains are not part of our geographical area. In our experience with SMMC, their meetings occur in various locations, not always accessible by public transit or ADA compliant. Since the body is appointed and not elected, our 2-3 minutes Public Comment falls on deaf ears. The Executive Director of the organization answers to that body. There is no opportunity for the Citizen to VOTE THEM OUT. Their perspective of our DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY is from an ADVANTAGED position thus INEQUITIES CONTINUE. If the disadvantaged community is part of this plan, then changes in governance need to take place on all levels of already legislated government. In other words, we need amendments to governance structure and the publics accessibility to speak or access that structure. There is absolutely no responsibility to the citizen public in the current system and, naturally, CUTS THEM OUT OF THE PROCESS. The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) has no members from even Los Angeles and makes decisions for our DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES IN LOS ANGELES OUTSIDE THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS. Their authority is threw the SMMC, Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District and the Conejo Recreation and Park District. CITIES IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY (INCLUDING CITY MANAGERS AND DEPARTMENTS OF PLANNING, PUBLIC WORKS, and PARKS AND RECREATION) This is a long-term problem area. The City Managers and the Departments of Planning and Public works for the CITY OF LOS ANGELES answer to the Mayor and Councilmembers. They do not care to address the public in their concerns. Where they may be a partner here in a regional capacity, they are an obstacle in disadvantaged areas. Recreation and Parks DO have an opportunity for public inputbut there is much needed room for improvement. The Park Advisory Boards (PABs) were de-funded a few years ago. Some still exist. Unfortunately, they are not an elected position, but an appointed position by the District Councilmember. The Recreation and Parks Commission is appointed by the Mayor, with gender composition being important. There are no elected positions.
Angeles subregion.
Comment noted. As noted previously, the IRWMP process is intended to solicit and encourage public input and all meetings are open to the public.
Greater LA IRWMP  Comments on Public Review Draft Page 10 of 85
 
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
Table 1-1
Table 1-1
Table 1-1
Table 1-1
Table 1-1
1.5.3
1.5.3
1.5.3
The General Manager is hired by the City Council and approved by the Mayor. The City Council Committees allow for PUBLIC COMMENT input at one-two minutes. The City council does NOT allow input if heard in a committee or commission meeting. If the Council meeting is deemed the public hearing, the Council has imposed limitations of ONE MINUTE, up to six items per Council meeting-a clear violation of the BROWN ACT. Our option, as citizens, is to SUE. That puts the DISADVANTED COMMUNITY OUT OF A VOICE. In this close knit warlord system, there is not an opportunity for public input. When the public is discontented, the only elected positions are Mayor and District Councilmember. How does a citizen in another district know about the discontent of another Council District? The Mayor remains in control, as the system is set up to fail the Citizen.
AddMalibou Lake Mountain Club to the North Santa Monica Bay Watersheds
under South Bay Watersheds column, Remove "Central/West Basin MWD" and add "Westside Cities COG"
under LASG Watersheds column, alphabetize list
Alphabetize the whole list
Can you list all the participating entities in alphabetical order?
E-Mail Communications.the main tool used to maintain a high level of stakeholderElectronic mail was communication and engagement. All meetings and workshop announcements were sent as far in advance as possible to the latest list of stakeholders. In addition, various stakeholder groups (e.g., the Ballona Creek Watershed Task Force) forwarded IRWMP messages to their constituencies, thereby extending the reach to additional stakeholders. Public Works also sent letters of invitation and status to all cities and elected officials (city councils, state senate and congressional, etc.) We also prepared press releases. We also did presentations to SCAG, various COG groups, various cities and water organizations.
Page 1-13, first bullet: This text does not match the text on page 1-4 paragraph just above figure 1-2.
The TMs may contain valuable information and a level of detail that would be appropriate as appendices to the IRWMP. However, since the TMs were never finalized, and many stakeholders may have comments on them, it may be premature to incorporate them into the IRWMP. The current description leads the reader to wonder where they are and how they relate to the IRWMP. We recommend that the Leadership Committee discuss the status of the Technical Memoranda (TMs), how they should be referred to in the IRWMP, and what, if anything, should be done with them in the future.
Table edited accordingly.
Table edited accordingly.
Table edited accordingly.
Table edited accordingly.
Table edited accordingly.
Text revised accordingly.
Text revised accordingly.
The Technical Memoranda were intended to provide an analysis of issues, inform the Leadership Committee, and support development of the Plan. They were not intended for wide distribution to the general public.
Greater LA IRWMP  Comments on Public Review Draft Page 11 of 85
 
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
1.5.3
1.5.3
1.5.3
1.5.3
Table 1-2
1.5.4
1.5.4
(Also applies to Section 6.2, Section 6.4.2.2.4)
Include website url. www.lawaterplan.org
Page 1-13: Subregional Stakeholder workshops, 1stparagraph of pg 1-4 says six subregional workshops were held.
Say Technical Memorandums (TMs) instead fo just TMs
Replace Strategy Integration with Integrated Water Management Strategy.
For San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, list city names like all other categories
Add to the second-to-last bullet, IRWMP team members have provided 2 updates to the Coyote Creek Watershed Council, in February 2006 and October 2006.
A gap analysis was conducted of the stakeholder invitation lists to determine which disadvantaged communities in the plan area are not represented or underrepresented. A strategy was developed to increase participation from each of these communities by reaching out to selected agencies in those communities, including public works, community development, and parks and recreation. Those agencies in the CITY OF LOS ANGELES do not interface with the resident public. Public works can only send out literature. Recreation and parks was explained in 1.5.2 Agency and Stakeholder Participation above. Community development in the form of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT is more hopeful due to enforcement by the DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) on their requirements of Community Development Block Grant funds. HUD now requires that 51% of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of a COMMUNITY BASED DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (CBDO) be comprised of those community members living in the CBDO area. In other words, the Board is not stacked with Directors who are there to fundraise. This changes the participant level of most non-profit corporations. Many will not change their board, and consequently, do not qualify for HUD funding. Conversations with organizers of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative (LANI) program, which serves 17 diverse underserved neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles that are economically-challenged, have a declining, blighted neighborhood main street, and are predominantly comprised of transit-dependant populations. The LANI program is known by few in my community and surrounding communities: http://www.lani.org/index.htm
The URL was already included in the text related to the website.
Text revised accordingly.
Text revised accordingly.
Text revised accordingly.
Table revised accordingly.
Text revised accordingly.
The Plan describes the steps and methods used to encourage participation from Disadvantaged Communities and notes that additional efforts are required. As part of the Plan implementation, additional efforts will be required to assure that disadvantage communities are included in the process.