📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
• 2016-2017
Make Invsetments that Transform Lives
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 6 findings
F1
Examples of Los Angeles County Sustainability Successes and Need for Coordination There are many examples within Los Angeles County of the successful adoption of the sustainability principle in governance. For this report we examined the plans of four cities. Each has formal plan documents that define the areas of sustainability they address and provide measurable goals. These goals are regularly evaluated to determine progress and allow corrective action. The goals of sustainability plans are applied to other government plans and actions for implementation. The CGJ endorses the current plans of Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Glendale. Other governmental entities may also have plans. Because of the disparate paths to sustainability followed by the cities, there are some inconsistencies in these plans (Appendix 1).
F2
Sustainability Encouragement from the State The State of California has offered significant support for sustainability.38 Prime examples are in the state’s legislation encouraging the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and increasing renewable energy sources. There are many more specific cases in which the state has acted to facilitate sustainability practices.
F3
Foundation for Sustainability Principle is Not Firm The CGJ found that the plans are not built upon a strong foundation. We believe this exposes the plans to legal and political challenges that otherwise could be avoided. Lacking a strong foundation limits how enforcement can be performed. An example demonstrating this is that the City of Los Angeles’ pLAn relies on Mayor Garcetti’s intention to include sustainability goal performance in the personnel evaluations of his managers. While this can be effective for the City of Los Angeles and its current mayor, there is no assurance that the next mayor will be as active in favor of sustainability.
F4
Differences between Federal and California Sustainability Policies The Federal government is in the process of changing its policies regarding sustainability. A recent example is the setting aside of the Clean Power Plan executive order.39 40 The County of Los Angeles’ support for sustainability may be challenged where it depends upon Federal collaboration. 38 https://www.kcet.org/redefine/lots-of-new-environmental-laws-in-california 39 “Will sustainability survive a Trump presidency” - http://www.tgdaily.com/science/will-sustainability-survive- a-trump-presidency 40 https://www.theguardian.com › Environment › Trump administration 178 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F5
The Climate Change Threat Has Not Caused “Emergency” Action in the County of Los Angeles The warnings on the results of humankind-caused climate change are daunting.41 “Emergency” local programs that deal specifically with reducing greenhouse gases may be appropriate even while complete sustainability plans are in development.
F6
Successful Drought Response but Needs Follow Up As discussed in Section II, the recent drought in California has caused a set of emergency response programs to reduce water consumption throughout Los Angeles County. This is a positive example of emergency actions taken on a sustainability issue. However, because Southern California has a persistent semi-arid climate, the temporary drought actions taken are appropriate as long-term policies. In addition, because of the large amounts of energy required to import or desalinize water, their extensive use may not be sustainable. V
Recommendations 17
-
R1Page 199The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly should continue to build upon sustainability success examples by creating and leading a countywide Sustainability Working Group (SWG) including all governing entities of the County.
-
R2Page 199The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly leading the SWG should complete the set of governing entity-specific sustainability plans covering the entire County.
-
R3Page 199The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly leading the SWG should identify interdependencies between plan elements and working group member entities.
-
R4Page 199The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly leading the SWG should use existing plans to create reusable plan templates.
-
R5Page 199The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly leading the SWG should create a public awareness campaign demonstrating the practical value of the sustainability principle in governance.
-
R6Page 199The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should fully exploit California state resources supporting sustainability by coordinating their sustainability plans with State guidance. Climate Change: What Everyone Should Know. Joseph Romm, Oxford University Press, 2016 178 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
-
R7Page 199The City of Los Angeles Mayor and City Council should fully exploit California state resources supporting sustainability by coordinating their sustainability plans with State guidance.
-
R8Page 199The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should lobby the State for additional sustainability support.
-
R9Page 199The City of Los Angeles Mayor and City Council should lobby the State for additional sustainability support.
-
R10Page 199The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should strengthen the sustainability principle in governance in law, standards, and policies and with suitable enforcement mechanisms.
-
R11Page 199The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should adopt strategies in combination with the State and other agreeable governing entities to ensure sustainable practices despite uncertainties in sustainability support from the Federal government.
-
R12Page 200The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should pursue policies that reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions in the County given the global climate change risks. For example, specify electric vehicles and renewable-based charging infrastructure whenever feasible and require renewable energy sources for government consumption.
-
R13Page 200The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power should pursue policies that reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions in the City given the global climate change risks. For example, specify electric vehicles and renewable-based charging infrastructure whenever feasible and require renewable energy sources for government consumption.
-
R14Page 200The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should continue water conservation measures put in place for recent drought as a sustainable long term policy for the semi- arid Southern California climate.
-
R15Page 200The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power should continue water conservation measures put in place for recent drought as a sustainable long term policy for the semi-arid Southern California climate.
-
R16Page 200The County of Los Angeles Board of should minimize dependence on imported and/or desalinized water because of the large amounts of energy they require.
-
R17Page 201The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power should minimize dependence on imported and/or desalinized water of the large amounts of energy they require. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 179 VI REQUIRED RESPONSES California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Responses shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report and files it with the Clerk of the Court. Responses shall be made in accord with Penal Code Sections 933.05 (a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2017, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Responding Agency Recommendations County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5 City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5 County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors 15.6, 15.8, 15.10, 15.11, 15.12, 15.14, 15.16 City of Los Angeles Mayor 15.7, 15.9 Los Angeles City Council 15.7, 15.9 City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 15.13, 15.15, 15.17 VII ACRONYMS CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy CGJ 2016-2017 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury BOS Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors CSO Chief Sustainability Officer EV Electric Vehicle GHG Greenhouse Gases LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design PACE Property Assessed Clean Energy SWG Sustainability Working Group VII COMMITTEE MEMBERS Douglas Benedict Chair Gerard Duiker Henry C. Guerrero 180 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT