Monterey County Grand Jury
2017-2018
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (5)
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Student achievement suffers when school districts are unproductive or dysfunctional. It can be very costly and take years to address problems if the Monterey County Office of 10 What do School Boards do? The National School Board Association. http://www.nsba.org/about-us/what-school- boards-do%20 14 Education and/or California Department of Education have to step in to support or save a school district.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
School Boards should adopt a policy to commit to all National School Board Association best practices.
F2:
There are proactive steps that can be taken by the Monterey County Office of Education in collaboration with school boards to prevent many pitfalls of poor governance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
School Boards should adopt a bylaw to make initial training and ongoing workshops mandatory.
F3:
The Monterey County Office of Education and local school boards can do more to promote effective local governance that is accountable to the community and produces better district outcomes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
School Boards along with their superintendent and teacher union representatives should make annual public presentations on school district goals and student achievement.
F4:
Promoting effective local governance requires better public information, communication, and a strong commitment to board development.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
School Boards should provide clear, concise, and easy to find communications on their district’s goals and outcomes on their district’s website.
F5:
Although each school district has individual priorities, school boards can each make a commitment to adhering to best practices, training, and ongoing professional development when it comes to school board governance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
School Boards should provide information on their district’s website about the role and responsibilities of school board members to educate parents, the public and potential school board candidates. 15
F6:
While the Monterey County Office of Education cannot dictate how school boards govern, they can provide stronger leadership in promoting a culture of effective school board governance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
School Boards should provide access to informational sessions to educate potential school board candidates on the duties and commitment associated with serving on a local school board.
F7:
Information posted on Monterey County Office of Education and school district websites is insufficient and not user-friendly. It does not provide the public with adequate information about what school boards do, how to evaluate school board performance, or how assess school district outcomes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Monterey County Office of Education should provide information sessions regarding the depth and breadth of school board service to people running for school board positions.
F8:
School boards can do better in fulfilling their responsibility to communicate with school district stakeholders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Monterey County Office of Education and the Monterey County School Board Association should actively promote and provide the California School Board Association Masters of Governance training in Monterey County.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R9:
The Monterey County Office of Education and the Monterey County School Board Association should adopt options for school board training to increase attendance and engagement in school board training. For example, offer training throughout the county, webinars, or onsite training.
R10:
The Monterey County Office of Education should revamp its website in an effort to present useable information that is relevant for a public audience.
R11:
The Monterey County Office of Education and the Monterey County School Board Association should provide information about school board best practices on their website
R12:
The Monterey County Office of Education and the Monterey County School Board Association should provide information on their website about the role and responsibilities of school board members to educate parents, the public and potential school board candidates.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
Large tracts of land are needed for developing the proposed law enforcement training applications, especially for constructing a full-scale EVOC and a firing range.
F2:
The 535 acres being transferred to MPC should be sufficient land to complete the proposed public safety training facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
If the MPC Board of Trustees does not proceed on one or more of these projects, MPC should give up their claim, so the land can be transferred for other allowed and desirable purposes.
F3:
An EVOC would be highly beneficial for training police recruits, existing law enforcement personnel, firefighters, and other emergency responders throughout the County and region.
F4:
A MOUT facility would be useful for training SWAT and other law enforcement personnel throughout the County. It could also provide a useful training ground for firefighters and other first responder personnel.
F5:
Continuing to use MOUT for its original military purpose is consistent with the 2003 facility use agreement regarding public safety officer training facilities at the former Fort Ord.
F6:
The upgrades and safety features needed for the MOUT facility will be costly.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The MPC Board of Trustees should determine whether or not they want to move ahead with the MOUT project.
F7:
Many law enforcement departments in the County would benefit from lower costs and travel time by creating a rifle range at the former Fort Ord.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The MPC Board of Trustees should determine whether or not they want to move ahead with establishing a long-rifle range at Parker Flats.
F8:
Constructing a full-scale EVOC would be expensive. Additional funding may be needed to cover those costs.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The MPC Board of Trustees should determine whether or not they want to move ahead with the EVOC project.
R4:
A current financial plan detailing the feasibility of these projects should be developed by MPC.
R5:
If the decision is to proceed on one or more projects (i.e., R1, R2, and/or R3), the President/Superintendent of MPC should appoint or hire a program manager. The Program Manager’s responsibilities should include overseeing the transfer of land, acquisition of additional funding and the construction, maintenance, and operation of those facilities.
F9:
Designating large areas within the 535 acres being transferred to MPC as greenbelts, and/or as areas to be used for solar farming, could help ensure the project has a net positive impact on the environment.
F10:
The operation and maintenance of the public safety officer training facilities would require additional expenditures.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
A current financial plan detailing the feasibility of these projects should be developed by MPC.
R5:
If the decision is to proceed on one or more projects (i.e., R1, R2, and/or R3), the President/Superintendent of MPC should appoint or hire a program manager. The Program Manager’s responsibilities should include overseeing the transfer of land, acquisition of additional funding and the construction, maintenance, and operation of those facilities.
F11:
The MPC Police Officer Training Academy is currently functioning without the use of the MOUT facility, a full-scale dedicated EVOC, or a firing range due to the use of temporary facilities at other locations.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The MPC Board of Trustees should determine whether or not they want to move ahead with the MOUT project.
R2:
The MPC Board of Trustees should determine whether or not they want to move ahead with the EVOC project.
F12:
An EVOC facility and trainers near to the MPC Police Officer Training Academy, where driving-related training and remediation would occur, could reduce training expenses. 9
F13:
The development of the EVOC and MOUT MPC training facilities at the former Fort Ord has been under consideration for more than 20 years.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Homelessness is a bigger problem in the County than the biennial homeless census would suggest.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Elected County and City officials should provide government leadership to address homelessness.
F2:
The County’s homeless problem has the potential to get worse if we do not invest in accessible housing solutions. Growing housing insecurity will only increase demand on our underfunded, over-stressed public services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County and its Cities should form an accountable leadership body that has the power to oversee a regional approach to ending homelessness and address housing insecurity in Monterey County.
F3:
The County’s strategy for addressing homelessness needs a clearer focus, accountable leadership, and enhanced capacity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County and its Cities should enter into a binding, enforceable agreement, such as a Memorandum of Agreement, to secure commitment to the plan and ensure responsibilities of each jurisdiction.
F4:
Structuring the Continuum of Care administrator as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization is conducive to securing funding and coordinating homeless services. However, a nonprofit organization cannot establish public policy and planning needed to end homelessness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Lead Me Home Leadership council should clearly define its purpose and goals.
F5:
The County has unofficially established the Coalition of Homeless Service Providers as the central organization for addressing homelessness. Making any non-profit the center of homeless solutions effectively creates the perception there is governmental leadership when there is, in fact, no formal political leadership. This arrangement provides elected officials with a way to avoid accepting political responsibility for addressing homelessness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
There should be a clear distinction between governance of the Continuum of Care—as an integral part of the broader strategic plan— and the leadership body charged with implementing a regional strategic plan to end homelessness.
F6:
The Coalition of Homeless Service Providers is a small nonprofit that does not have sufficient capacity to administer the County’s strategic plan to end homelessness and its continuum of care for both Monterey and San Benito counties. It does not provide political leadership to coalesce public support and government commitments around a concrete action-plan to end homelessness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
If the County effectively exerts control of Coalition for Homeless Service Providers through the Leadership Council, then the County should clearly define the purpose and role of the Coalition for Homeless Service Providers. It also follows that the Coalition for Homeless Service Providers should be adequately funded and staffed in proportion to its level of responsibilities with respect to securing resources and performing services for the county.
F7:
The composition of the Leadership Council and its location within the Coalition of Homeless Service Providers has affected the focus of the leadership council. The Leadership Council’s critical opportunity of generating and executing a strategic plan to end homelessness has narrowed to providing oversight of the Continuum of Care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The newly created regional leadership body (see R2) should update and implement a regional strategic plan to end homelessness by defining its purpose, goals and assessments to measure and track progress.
F8:
The structure of the Leadership Council does not provide authority to design and execute a regional plan to end homelessness, and it does not support full public accountability for meeting stated targets.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The strategic plan should be revisited annually using outcome measurements to evaluate and adjust strategies for meeting goals. 16
F9:
Political leadership is necessary to secure public support, enact policy and planning decisions that capitalize on state legislation, and execute a regional homeless plan. 15
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Reports that assess which goals are, or are not, being met should be generated and made publicly available.
F10:
Government decision-making is essential for making choices about resource commitments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The new regional leadership body should produce a transparent consolidated budget to maximize resources and identify expenditures. All municipalities should demonstrate their commitment to the regional plan to end homelessness in an equitable, or proportionate, manner. 17
F11:
To meaningfully change the course of homelessness and housing insecurity, there must be a regional approach to homelessness and the creation of a new governing body with the power to oversee implementation of the plan.
F12:
The strategic plan to end homelessness serves as an informal guide rather than a definitive regional plan. It needs to be updated and fully implemented.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
Inspired by the prospect of significant revenue for the City, the project was pursued without due diligence.
F2:
Committing City funds without having done an investigation of the developer, without adequate deposits and without a firm contract for reimbursement, exposed the City to a potential liability of several hundred thousand dollars.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City of Pacific Grove should hold “lessons learned” sessions with a facilitator skilled in municipal operations, to critique the Project Bella experience in order to avoid making the same mistakes in future developments.
F3:
A lack of transparency contributed to the public criticisms and allegations of financial malfeasance. 16
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The City of Pacific Grove should hold “lessons learned” sessions with a facilitator skilled in municipal operations, to critique the Project Bella experience in order to avoid making the same mistakes in future developments.
R8:
The City of Pacific Grove should develop a policy to improve the transparency of its communication with its citizens.
F4:
The lack of clearly defined systems and procedures that were consistently followed contributed to public criticism of the City administration.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The City of Pacific Grove should hold “lessons learned” sessions with a facilitator skilled in municipal operations, to critique the Project Bella experience in order to avoid making the same mistakes in future developments.
R7:
The City of Pacific Grove should develop a comprehensive policies and procedures manual that clearly describes the duties of all employees.
F5:
The allegation that $50,000 of City funds had been misappropriated resulted from the City’s failure to correctly record a check for that amount that was paid for Project Bella by David Armanasco. This allegation was shown to be incorrect.
F6:
The City lacked adequate procedures to account for employee time by project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The City of Pacific Grove should develop procedures that would track employee time by project.
F7:
The City lacked adequate procedures to track documents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The City of Pacific Grove should develop procedures that would enable document tracking.
F8:
A lack of appropriate controls on the part of the City administration contributed to unreimbursed costs of more than $101,402.47 to the City.
F9:
In the Jury’s opinion, it appears that Mr. Harvey had an advantage in competing for the position of City Manager.
F10:
In the Jury’s opinion, the City Manager, Mr. Harvey, displayed a lack of sensitivity to the appearance of a conflict of interest created by joining Jared Ficker’s group membership in Surf Air.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The City Council should review and revise Mr. Harvey’s employment contract to clearly spell out the limits of his travel allowance. 17
R3:
There should be a sunset date for the reimbursement for Mr. Harvey’s personal travel to Southern California.
F11:
Mr. Harvey’s relationship with members of the Domaine organization resulted in an allegation that he was receiving gifts from Domaine.
F12:
Mr. Harvey did not receive the membership in Surf Air from Domaine, as was alleged in a citizen complaint.
F13:
Mr. Harvey did not pay for Surf Air for two separate three-month periods.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The City Council should review and revise Mr. Harvey’s employment contract to clearly spell out the limits of his travel allowance. 17
R3:
There should be a sunset date for the reimbursement for Mr. Harvey’s personal travel to Southern California.
F14:
The cost of Mr. Harvey’s flights to Southern California on Surf Air was substantially greater than the average cost would have been for commercial flights.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The City Council should review and revise Mr. Harvey’s employment contract to clearly spell out the limits of his travel allowance. 17
R3:
There should be a sunset date for the reimbursement for Mr. Harvey’s personal travel to Southern California.
R4:
Travel of City of Pacific Grove employees should be reimbursed at the lowest practical cost.
F15:
The April 19, 2016 re-zoning allows for hotel use at the American Tin Cannery site in the future.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The “gap-in-service” nature of this cell tower Use Permit request meant that a facility in some location in this South County area was required to be approved in order to comply with 47 U.S. Code §332. (c)(7)(b)(ii)). 38
F2:
The difference between the Board of Supervisors’ Resolution 15-043 No.7 April 28, 2015 use of the name “Bradley-Parkfield LUAC” and the Monterey County official Website use of the name “South County LUAC” for the same LUAC, created confusion that contributed to an RMA planner’s misunderstanding about the South County LUAC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should revise the Resolution that establishes and provides guidance to the County Land Use Advisory Committees (LUAC), the “LUAC Guidelines,” to update Exhibit B. Stop using the “Bradley-Parkfield” LUAC name and start using the “South County” LUAC name. This will accurately reflect the change that was made to that LUAC in August 2008 and implemented in January 2009. (F2, F3) This revision should be completed no later than six months after the publication of this report.
F3:
The RMA Planning draft resolution and briefing for the Application both inaccurately asserted that (1) South County had no LUAC, and (2) that the Application did not need to be sent to the LUAC for review. These errors denied a required hearing and stifled public voice on design and local considerations for a large, visible project.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The RMA Services Manager should review and improve the RMA Current Planning division’s work practices for RMA planners and Planning managers. Critical thinking, attention to detail, and higher professional standards must be imbued into the RMA Planning process. When County Code directs higher levels of decision making, RMA Planning should require assigning higher level, more experienced planners and higher-level supervisors to prepare and review those applications. (F3, F7) This review should be completed no later than 90 days after the publication of this report. 41
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should revise the Resolution that establishes and provides guidance to the County Land Use Advisory Committees (LUAC), the “LUAC Guidelines,” to update Exhibit B. Stop using the “Bradley-Parkfield” LUAC name and start using the “South County” LUAC name. This will accurately reflect the change that was made to that LUAC in August 2008 and implemented in January 2009. (F2, F3) This revision should be completed no later than six months after the publication of this report.
F4:
The Application’s one-sentence dismissal of the alternative site, “Unfortunately, due to the mountainous terrain access and road constraints the proposed site was not physically feasible for the construction of the proposed tower” was incorrect. As a result, a constrained and inappropriate site selection was approved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Director of RMA should investigate whether the erroneous description of PLN 180317 alternative site’s conditions, as provided to RMA Planning in support of that application, constituted “false material information,” as the term is used in Monterey County Code 21.70.070 (Revocation). Director RMA should then determine if action in accordance with that code is appropriate or necessary for PLN 180317. (F4) This investigation and determination should be completed no later than 90 days after the publication of this report.
F5:
The RMA Planning public hearing notices for this project complied with State and County code, but were structurally ineffective in providing the local community with reasonable awareness of the significant project being proposed for their South County community.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
The RMA Services Manager should develop explicit guidance to ensure public hearing noticing for significant projects in Monterey County’s rural environments include other means in addition to those listed in Monterey County Code 21.70.040.A (Public Notice Required). This guidance should identify the 42 appropriate social media and local micro-resources that are active in the rural community where a significant project is planned. (F5) This guidance should be completed and operational no later than 90 days after the publication of this report.
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should revise Monterey County Code 21.70.040.A (Public Notice Required) to include the following provision from California Government Code Section 65091(A)(5)(c): "In addition to the notice required by this section, a local agency may give notice of the hearing in any other manner it deems necessary or desirable." (F5) This revision should be completed no later than 24 months after the publication of this report.
R7:
The RMA Services Manager should develop explicit guidance to encourage and support applicant-sponsored town halls or orientations for rural communities where significant projects are planned. These events should be in advance of, or early into the application process. (F5) This guidance should be completed and operational no later than 60 days after the publication of this report.
F6:
The approved cell tower failed to meet multiple site and design conditions of MCC 21.64.310 including: E.2 (has local citizen input on impact and alternative sites), H.1a (preserve visual character, aesthetic value of parcel and surrounding land), H.1c (not sited to create clutter & negatively affect specific views), H.1d (designed to minimize visual impact), H.1e (screened from any public viewing areas), H.2d (designed to mitigate potentially significant adverse visual impacts), and J.3 (complies with all applicable requirements of 21.64.310). As a result of these multiple failures, this application did not meet a required finding for Use Permits as listed in MCC 21.74.050.B.1 (will not be…detrimental or injurious to property and improvement in the neighborhood.) and should not have been approved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should revise Monterey County Code, to include a set of Design Guidelines that empower planners and decision makers to make land use decisions that comply with federal and state regulations, meet applicant needs, yet can still preserve Monterey County’s character in rural and suburban environments. Design Guidelines should be both developmental standards and criteria for character and aesthetics. The Design Guidelines should be applicable to both wireless communications facilities and a wide range of other infrastructure developments. The Design Guidelines should augment existing Monterey County code, including Monterey County Code 21.64.310 (Wireless Communication Facilities). (F6) This revision should be completed no later than 24 months after the publication of this report.
F7:
RMA planners were not diligent or accurate in how they determined, validated, and used certain facts, descriptive information, and technical data in the Application. This damaged the credibility of the Application and undermined local trust in the competence and the fairness of RMA Planning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The RMA Services Manager should review and improve the RMA Current Planning division’s work practices for RMA planners and Planning managers. Critical thinking, attention to detail, and higher professional standards must be imbued into the RMA Planning process. When County Code directs higher levels of decision making, RMA Planning should require assigning higher level, more experienced planners and higher-level supervisors to prepare and review those applications. (F3, F7) This review should be completed no later than 90 days after the publication of this report. 41
F8:
RMA Planning staff’s limited expertise in wireless communications facilities’ policies, regulations, and rules, plus RMA planner confusion on the applicability of County standards for aesthetics and visual character, were contributing factors to the siting and design of the cell tower in a manner unacceptable to the Bryson Hesperia Community.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
The Board of Supervisors should revise Monterey County Code 21.64.310 (Wireless Communication Facilities) to include a provision that permits County staff to secure outside experts, at applicant expense, to support technical considerations or issues attendant to processing of wireless communications facilities when required. (F8, F9) This revision should be completed no later than 24 months after the publication of this report. 43
R10:
The Board of Supervisors should revise Monterey County Code 21.64.310 (Wireless Communication Facilities) to include a provision that requires a post- operational RF-EME survey to be conducted by a certified RF engineer selected by the County but at applicant expense, when any wireless communications facility first becomes operational or has its Use Permit renewed. (F8, F9) This revision should be completed no later than 24 months after the publication of this report.
F9:
Monterey County wireless communications code (MCC 21.64.310) lacks provisions to permit staff to secure outside experts, at applicant expense, when needed. This code omission limited planner resources and flexibility to overcome the technical challenges with this application. It reduced RMA Planning staff’s ability to process the Application in a thorough, professional manner.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
The Board of Supervisors should revise Monterey County Code 21.64.310 (Wireless Communication Facilities) to include a provision that permits County staff to secure outside experts, at applicant expense, to support technical considerations or issues attendant to processing of wireless communications facilities when required. (F8, F9) This revision should be completed no later than 24 months after the publication of this report. 43
R10:
The Board of Supervisors should revise Monterey County Code 21.64.310 (Wireless Communication Facilities) to include a provision that requires a post- operational RF-EME survey to be conducted by a certified RF engineer selected by the County but at applicant expense, when any wireless communications facility first becomes operational or has its Use Permit renewed. (F8, F9) This revision should be completed no later than 24 months after the publication of this report.
F10:
RMA Planning’s site visit procedures for planners did not adequately account for area and community differences in the County. They also were not formalized. Planner site visits at the time of this application did not require any pre- orientation to highlight area-specific factors. These shortfalls reduced RMA planners’ ability to understand actual conditions, effects, and the significance of the Application on the South County community.
F11:
RMA Planners’ high work volume, plus the complex nature of processing a cell tower application, also were significant contributing factors to the siting and design of the cell tower in a manner unacceptable to the Bryson Hesperia Community. 40
F12:
The wireless communications facility supplemental add-on portions to RMA Planning’s land use development application form were out of date. These add- ons lacked essential, contemporary elements to account for current wireless communications facility types, new FCC application handling requirements, FCC shot clocks, and FCC shot clock tracking/ tolling methods. This increased planner confusion and created a lack of information needed to facilitate planner processing of the Application in a thorough and professional manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The RMA Services Manager should revise the RMA land use request application supplemental add-on for wireless communications facilities. The revision should account for the different types of facilities, the current rules for accepting and correcting incomplete applications, and add provisions to identify and track the appropriate shot clock in the application --as an automated ongoing function. (F12) This guidance should be completed and operational no later than 12 months after the publication of this report.
F13:
RMA Planning managers displayed a high degree of internal responsiveness in reaction to the August 28, 2019 meeting in South County about the cell tower. Their subsequent actions were not visible to the community, but represented a quiet, positive example of professional and effective responsiveness to the community’s concerns.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R11:
The RMA Services Manager should develop a planners’ training and operations standard operating procedure (SOP) for RMA Current Planning division, supplemental to any County or RMA employee handbook. This SOP should articulate (1) required planner and staff tasks and coordination, (2) required standards of performance, (3) division routines and site visit procedures, (4) planner-specific professional knowledge goals, and (5) note funded and optional planner-specific training and professional development opportunities. (F7, F10,