Gran Jurado del Condado de Monterey
2019-2020
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 (7)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
The California State Conservation Camp Program fire camps provide a significant service to California communities, to the local environment, and to the inmates who participate in that program.
F2:
Camp Gabilan’s ability to support local fire incidents has been reduced without sufficient substitute in Monterey County.
F3:
Camp Gabilan’s ability to provide local ecological conservation projects has been reduced by the reduction in Camp Gabilan’s operating capacity. Photo Credit. . Untitled. Use: 17 USC § 107 Fair Use Date: Tuesday May 1, 2012. Source: CAL FIRE Inyo-Mono-San Bernardino Unit Blog (discontinued) At: http://calfirebdu.blogspot.com/2012/05/fire-crews-participate-in-annual.html?m=1 Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Civil Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. 8
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
47 hallazgos
F1:
A November 2018 classroom training by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was not in compliance with AB 1825 and 2 CCR §11024: a) it was not undertaken within 24 months of the last training event for any of the attendees, b) insufficient time was allocated to the required subject matter, and c) written proof of attendance and/or course completion was not generated.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R16:
The city should diligently assess whether the AB 1825 training programs it uses, such as those offered by the federal EEOC, meet the training curriculum mandates outlined in AB 1825 and its amendments. This recommendation should be completed no later than 12 months after this report is published. Recommendations – City of Pacific Grove
F2:
A contributing factor to the city’s failure to meet the two-year timeframe for sexual harassment/abusive conduct re-training was the absence of city staff with the responsibility to oversee employee training.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2:
By September 30, 2020, Carmel-by-the-Sea should always have a staff member whose responsibility includes oversight of AB 1825 sexual harassment/abusive conduct workforce training. Recommendations – City of Del Rey Oaks
R27:
By September 30, 2020, the city of Seaside’s HR Director should assign one HR staff member to oversee AB 1825 training requirements and recordkeeping, so that all employees with training due in 2020 are trained by December 31, 2020.
F3:
The lack of attendance and completion of paperwork for the November 2018 EEOC classroom training was due in part to the city’s assumption that the trainer would be responsible for all such documentation, and in part to the EEOC’s practice of not generating certificates.
F4:
There were six people who the city either hired or promoted to supervisory positions at some point during the 2017/18 fiscal year, and who should have received AB 1825 training within six months of hire/promotion. The November 15, 2018 EEOC training could have afforded a timely compliance scenario only for those FY 17/18 employees that were hired/promoted during the six-week period between May 16 and June 30, 2018. There were no other AB 1825 trainings of city employees during the period May 16, 2017 to November 15, 2018. Findings – City of Del Rel Oaks
F5:
The city of Del Rey Oaks has not ensured that every employee who is required to take AB 1825 training, completes that training in a manner and at a time as required by law.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2020, those Del Rey Oaks supervisory employees who received AB 1825 training in 2018, should have completed the training again, as the law mandates the training must be completed every two calendar years or every 24 months, whichever method is chosen by the employer.
F6:
The city has not provided their employees with an updated and accurate Personnel Manual that includes all AB 1825 and related training requirements. Findings – City of Gonzales
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
By September 30, 2020, Del Rey Oaks should have published an updated Personnel Manual that
F7:
Gonzales currently has a viable dual approach toward of AB 1825 training through use of group-oriented classroom presentations and e-learning (i.e. computer-based training). Classroom presentations are preferred but E-learning is used for supervisorial promotions/new hires (e.g. where a classroom training is unavailable).
F8:
A December 6, 2016 classroom training by Concern-EAP, although deficient with reference to 2 CCR §11024, was sufficient to render the city of Gonzales compliant with the training mandate imposed by AB 1825.
F9:
Online AB 1825 training by EVERFI that was done in 2017 was not in compliance with AB 1825 and 2 CCR §11024: the Civil Grand Jury was provided with insufficient information upon which to make a determination whether or not the online supervisory employee training complied with 2 CCR §11024.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
By September 30, 2020, AB 1825 sexual harassment/abusive conduct training undertaken by and/or at the direction of the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea should follow the directives and protocols laid out in 2 CCR §11024, including but not limited to the following areas: frequency, duration, and documentation of training; content of training; method of delivery of training; qualification of the trainer.
R5:
By September 30, 2020, AB 1825 sexual harassment/abusive conduct training undertaken by and/or at the direction of the city of Gonzales should follow the directives and protocols laid out in 2 CCR §11024, including but not limited to the following areas: frequency, duration, and documentation of training; content of training; method of delivery of training; qualification of the trainer.
R24:
By December 31, 2020, Sand City should ensure that AB 1825 sexual harassment/abusive conduct prevention training undertaken by and/or at the direction of the city follows the directives and protocols laid out in 2 CCR §11024, including but not limited to the following areas: frequency, duration, and documentation of training; content of training; method of delivery of training; qualification of the trainer.
F10:
The city failed to meet the timeframe for sexual harassment/abusive conduct re- training of supervisory employees, as directed by California Government Code §12950.1 and more particularly specified in 2 CCR §11024. 52
F11:
The city’s failure to meet the timeframe for sexual harassment/abusive conduct re-training established by 2 CCR §11024 was due to staff changes and workload issues.
F12:
The city has no written policy about AB 1825 sexual harassment/ abusive conduct training. Findings – City of Greenfield
F13:
Greenfield’s Office of the City Manager should be recognized for its clear understanding of state requirements for AB 1825 supervisor training, and its dedicated approach to actively conducting both online and in-person classroom AB 1825 supervisor training in spite of lack of support from some city supervisory employees.
F14:
The city’s sexual harassment prevention policy (Attachment B to Rule 17, Section 7) is incomplete and out of date. It does not provide adequate information to assist employees or guide supervisors in dealing with sexual harassment situations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
Greenfield should revise its sexual harassment prevention policy to reflect current state law, city practices, and to make it a useful guide for employee and supervisors alike. This revision should be completed by December 20, 2020.
F15:
The city’s Office of the City Manager’s AB 1825 compliance records management is inadequate. The combination of a lack of a viable tracking system and a single staff point of contact has made effective tracking and compliance problematic.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R6:
By September 30, 2020, the city should retain a full and complete written record with respect to all AB 1825 trainings that it provides, sponsors, or otherwise uses, regardless of whether delivered via classroom, e-learning, or webinar format.
R9:
The city’s Office of the City Manager should review and revise current management practices for AB 1825 supervisory training and tracking. This revision should include: (1) development of a city supervisory responsibility system that will create a “demand pull” for AB 1825 supervisor training to complement the current “requirement push” approach that the city has used; (2) integration of all in-person classroom AB 1825 training rosters and training data with the TargetSolutions learning management system to ensure one unified 60 management, tracking, and reporting system for all AB 1825 training; and (3) off- loading the AB 1825 training and tracking responsibilities from the Office of the City Manager to a new or existing HR section, or augmenting the Office of the City Manager’s personnel with part-time or dedicated personnel responsible for tracking and coordinating AB 1825 training and compliance data. This revision should be completed by June 30, 2022. Recommendations – City of Marina
F16:
The city’s Office of the City Manager’s decision to use an automated learning management system, like TargetSolutions, was a positive measure that may facilitate more timely training delivery and better records keeping in the future.
F17:
Even with an automated learning management system for AB 1825 training and records compliance, the city’s Office of the City Manager will have continued difficulty meeting state standards for AB 1825 training compliance because of 53 competing work requirements in the City Manager’s office and the limited time and resources devoted to this training. The current approach does not recognize the expanded range of compliance measures required by AB 1825. Findings – King City
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Marina should employ a back-up online training provider in the event of a future hiatus in the TargetSolutions training program. This recommendation should be implemented no later than 6 months after this report is published.
F18:
King City is to be commended for their excellent record in maintaining 100% compliance with AB 1825 requirements for the fiscal years 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19. Findings – City of Marina
F19:
Marina has implemented a streamlined, effective training year tracking system for AB 1825 training for supervisory employees in its general management group.
F20:
The city did not address an alternate online training source for new and promoted supervisors during 2018, which may have resulted in two late trainings.
F21:
A high-ranking official is the only supervisory employee with no record of training for 2017 or 2019 and is assumed to have failed to complete required AB 1825 training.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Department heads should be models to other supervisory employees on the importance of respect in the workplace. Therefore, by September 30, 2020, the one city official who did not train in 2017 and 2019 should complete online AB 1825 training in 2020, 2021, and subsequent odd years.
F22:
The city’s written, stand-alone harassment policy needs updating, because it is missing certain language governing protected classes required by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s 2 CCR §11023 regulations, and it does not contain a reference to AB 1825 supervisor training mandated under 2 CCR §11024 regulations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12:
The city should update its written, stand-alone, “Policy Against Sexual Harassment,” and its associated Acknowledgement of Receipt form, within 90 days of the publication of this report.
F23:
Revision of the city’s Personnel Policy Manual is extremely overdue. Findings – City of Monterey
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R13:
The city should revise its Personnel Policy Manual so that it reflects the mandated training requirements outlined in 2 CCR §11024. This recommendation should be completed no later than 12 months after this report is published. Recommendations – City of Monterey
F24:
The city of Monterey’s personnel tracking system does not include enough data to ascertain whether employees promoted to a supervisory position received AB 1825 training within six months of hire or promotion as a supervisory and then every two years thereafter.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R14:
Monterey should revise their personnel tracking system to include all city employees regardless of department, each employee’s date of hire as a supervisor or date of promotion to a supervisory position, and date of classification change to a non-supervisory position, in order to accurately determine if AB 1825 training mandates are being met. This recommendation should be completed no later than 12 months after this report is published.
F25:
Monterey was unable to provide a complete and accurate roster of all of its supervisory employees along with their AB 1825 training dates resulting in the Civil Grand Jury having insufficient information to determine if the city was indeed training all of its supervisors timely and according to AB 1825 mandates.
F26:
Monterey’s sexual harassment policy titled, Harassment/Discrimination/ Retaliation/Abusive Conduct/Bullying Policy, in city code 25-3.03 accurately reflects the 2 CCR §11023 conduct prohibitions, but it does not include the mandated employee training requirements in 2 CCR §11024. Findings – City of Pacific Grove
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R15:
The city should review its Harassment/Discrimination/Retaliation/Abusive Conduct/Bullying Policy to include the employee training requirements mandated by 2 CCR §11024. This recommendation should be completed no later than 12 months after this report is published.
F27:
Pacific Grove has a first-rate classroom training program. However, its structured in-person training dates sometimes make it hard to achieve timely training for all employees who have training due.
F28:
The city’s existing AB 1825 recordkeeping system does not facilitate tracking two-calendar year retraining and six-month supervisory employee training.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R17:
By September 30, 2020, Pacific Grove should continue to improve its recordkeeping efforts and fully update its supervisory employee roster worksheet to better track and address potentially late AB 1825 training before it becomes late.
F29:
The city’s electronic onboarding or induction does not ensure timely six-month training for new and promoted supervisors, which has resulted in a low percentage of timely training.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R18:
The city should develop a practice to individually counsel and refer new and promoted supervisors to online training when classroom training is not available within six months of their hire. Those employees also should be encouraged to take the next session of in-person classroom training to reinforce the city’s culture of respect. This recommendation should be completed no later than six months after this report is published. 62
F30:
The city’s policies no. 100.80 –100.110, Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation Prevention Policy and Complaint Procedure, found in the 55 Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual posted on the website, are missing a reference to mandated AB 1825 training requirements contained in 2 CCR §11024 regulations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R19:
By December 31, 2020, the city should amend their Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, policies no. 100.80 –100.110, Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation Prevention Policy and Complaint Procedure, to reference AB 1825 training requirements per 2 CCR §11024 regulations.
F31:
The city’s Employee Handbook, for which employees sign an acknowledgement of receipt, is missing references to AB 1825 policy and mandated training requirements. Findings – City of Salinas
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R20:
The city should publish an updated Employee Handbook that
F32:
The city of Salinas HR Department should be recognized for its clear understanding of state requirements for AB 1825 supervisor training and its active and professional approach to that training for the city.
F33:
The city’s AB 1825 compliance program is generally compliant with state requirements but is somewhat deficient in identifying and ensuring new supervisor six-month AB 1825 training compliance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R21:
By June 30, 2021, the city of Salinas should automate the six-month new supervisor training signal for AB 1825 training. The city’s HR Department should develop an automated HR noticing process that informs all newly hired or appointed supervisors of the six-month AB 1825 supervisor training requirement, and signals HR to (automated or manually) enter that training suspense in the New World ERP system.
F34:
The city currently manages AB 1825 using the New World ERP system and using online vendors like TargetSolutions. This dual systems approach is a point of potential failure in tracking.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R22:
By June 30, 2022, the city should continue to advance HR integration and automation of training processes and functions. This should include (1) automated notices or “ticklers” to supervisors on AB 1825 training deadlines, (2) integrating online training records with the New World ERP system, and (3) routinely creating global city reports of compliance that can provide HR and senior city leadership with a comprehensive snapshot of AB 1825 training compliance by city supervisory personnel.
F35:
The city currently manages AB 1825 using the New World ERP system and HR records to generate notices for supervisors of required training. However, the Civil Grand Jury found there is insufficient senior management accountability or focus on the individual city supervisory employee to complete required training in a timely manner. Absent senior management emphasis, complete compliance or even high rates of compliance with AB 1825 training requirements may be difficult to achieve. Findings – Sand City
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R23:
By September 30, 2020 the city’s senior management should adopt a stronger emphasis on promoting individual city supervisory employee responsibility to 63 complete required training, including AB 1825 supervisor training, in a timely manner. Recommendations – Sand City
F36:
For two employees, Sand City failed to meet the two-year timeframe for sexual harassment/abusive conduct re-training of supervisory employees, as directed by California Government Code §12950.1 and more particularly specified in 2 CCR §11024.
F37:
The city has no written policy regarding AB 1825 sexual harassment/abusive conduct training. Findings – City of Seaside
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R7:
By December 31, 2020, the city should prepare a written AB 1825 harassment, discrimination, retaliation prevention policy that is consistent with 2 CCR §11023; the policy should contain a provision covering the employer’s training obligation under G.C. §12950.1 and 2 CCR §11024. Recommendations – City of Greenfield
R26:
By December 31, 2020, Sand City should engage with the City Attorney, other staff, or an outside contractor to prepare a written policy regarding AB 1825 sexual harassment/abusive conduct prevention training for its workforce. Recommendations – City of Seaside
F38:
Seaside is commended for its fully compliant AB 1825 written policy.
F39:
The city has a comprehensive AB 1825 training program that allows employees to select their preferred training method.
F40:
The city does not fully coordinate course completion between its three AB 1825 training modalities (classroom, online, and webinar) and does not limit employee training, which has resulted in some supervisory employees training more than required and other training late or not at all.
F41:
Seaside’s onboarding procedures are ineffective at ensuring new and promoted supervisory employees complete AB 1825 training within six months.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R28:
Seaside should implement an onboarding system that effectively captures new or promoted employees and requires them to complete AB 1825 training within six 64 months of their hire or promotion. This recommendation should be completed within 90 days of the publication of this report.
F42:
The city lacks an efficient recordkeeping system for AB 1825 training compliance, and some training records for supervisory employees are archived off-site and are not readily accessible. Findings – City of Soledad
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R25:
Sand City should develop a system to ensure that a full and complete written record of all AB 1825 trainings that it sponsors, regardless of whether delivered via classroom, e-learning, or webinar format, is in place and includes the date of the trainings and the names of attendees. This recommendation should be completed within 18 months of the publication of this report.
R29:
Seaside should adopt an effective training tracking system to assemble all AB 1825 recordkeeping in one location, preferably saved to electronic files with cloud access. This recommendation should be completed within 18 months of the publication of this report. Recommendations – County of Monterey
F43:
Soledad is to be commended for their excellent record in maintaining 100% compliance with AB 1825 requirements for the fiscal years 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19. Findings – County of Monterey
F44:
Monterey County Civil Rights Office (MCCRO) has a strong, professional understanding of all requirements to comply with AB 1825 training in the Monterey County government, and delivers high quality, compliant AB 1825 training to County supervisory employees in both online and classroom/in-person settings.
F45:
MCCRO’s AB 1825 compliance records management is inadequate. The office (1) lacks a unified interface for accessing or directly managing all past training, and (2) lacks sufficient access to individual personnel records to actively track ongoing AB 1825 training deadlines for current or new supervisors.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R30:
The Monterey County Civil Rights Office should review and revise the processes used to manage AB 1825 supervisory employee records to include the following: (1) develop a unified interface for accessing and directly managing all past training; (2) develop a method either with Learning Management Specialists, or centralized with an automated and trackable notice or tickler for AB 1825 training due dates; and (3) increase staffing and authority for personnel responsible for tracking and coordinating AB 1825 training and compliance data. This recommendation should be completed within 18 months of the publication of this report.
F46:
MCCRO’s AB 1825 compliance records management process is a complex series of push-pull actions—requiring careful, ongoing interaction between the MCCRO and other County departments. Each department has Learning Management Specialists to help make this process work, but the MCCRO itself does not have sufficient staff to keep up with the coordination and planning work of ensuring AB 1825 training requirements are met for supervisors in all departments.
F47:
Monterey County Civil Rights Office leadership and staff displayed a high degree of professionalism and personal commitment to the spirit as well as the letter of the AB 1825 law. All office personnel were forthcoming, honest, and helpful for this investigation. 58
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
There is a prevalent and genuine need for residents of Monterey County, and other interest groups, to have access to unbiased, scientifically reviewed information about pesticides.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Within budget limitations and personnel constraints, MCACO should create a simple, accessible forum on MCACO website that is general-public focused, and that publicizes relevant pesticide information directly to the Monterey County community. This website forum should be bilingual in content (English/Spanish). This recommendation should be completed within one year of the publication of this report.
F2:
The scope of MCACO’s mission, resources, and outreach capabilities mean that it can play a central role as a forum for fact-based and authoritative information to the public about pesticide-related facts and issues.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
MCACO should expand its use of social media to a more varied range of portals, outlets, media and platforms. These outlets should link to the proposed general public pesticide forum, when active, and also publicize MCACO’s rich resources of pesticide information throughout. This expanded outreach should include printed materials and bilingual (English/Spanish) content. This should be completed within one year of the publication of this report.
F3:
MCACO currently uses social media such as Facebook, but has not availed itself of the ever-expanding range of other outreach opportunities, including other social media outlets. Also underutilized are printed bilingual (English/Spanish) materials that could reach a wider range of the County’s different communities.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
MCACO should prepare its current social media and all expanded outreach channels to support contingency planning and public notifications for any incidents under MCACO’s purview that might develop or create public interest or concern. This should be operational within six months of the publication of this report.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
As evidenced by interviews, the current level of vacant health care positions has a direct and negative impact on the County by reducing the County’s ability to deliver community disease control and prevention outreach, and to provide adequate Public Health case management activities. This also creates an undue burden on the remaining staff that leads to job burnout.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The “Compensation Philosophy” should be updated to reflect appropriate and comparable counties and cities for each job classification. This update should be completed in six months. 10
F2:
Critical positions such as public health nurse practitioners, psychiatric social workers, environmental health specialists, and physicians are not being filled in a timely manner. 9
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
County Human Resources should engage an experienced compensation consultant to assist in the creation of a transparent and global compensation and classification program. This should be completed in three months.
F3:
Human Resources staffing levels in some Departments are insufficient to maintain optimum staffing levels.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Budgeted positions should be posted in a timely manner giving priority to posting positions that affect the health and safety of County residents. This posting should occur within 60 days.
F4:
Current County personnel vacancy levels and rates of hire confirm that recruitment has not been occurring at an optimal level in either the centralized or the decentralized departments.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Open positions should be proactively advertised within 30 days of an employment vacancy or upon notice of retirement, transfer, or resignation to avoid reduction of essential public services, departmental job burnout, and overtime or temporary hiring expense.
F5:
The compensation plan (currently called “Compensation Philosophy”) in use by Monterey County is outdated; the list of public agencies used for “market survey” comparison was last updated in 1989, more than 30 years ago.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
Each budget cycle should include specific opportunities for department heads to identify and justify specific referral and hiring bonuses for their hard-to-fill positions. This process should begin within six months of the date of this report.
F6:
As discussed in interviews, on-line learning systems may provide critical on- demand training, but they cannot replace the human interaction that occurs in person-to-person training, which supports job satisfaction.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
In order to ensure an adequate staffing level for essential County public health workers, the County should begin a process to identify supplemental funding sources to mitigate un-forecast budget shortfalls in federal and state grants, aid, or other direct program funding. This analysis should be completed in 30 days.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R7:
The Learning and Organizational Development Division of the Human Resource Department should be restored to include classroom training. This should be completed within 18 months.
R8:
The County should conduct a review to determine the level of Human Resources staffing, both in the departments and in the Human Resources Department, that can provide support levels sufficient to achieve the 10% 11 vacancy rate goal as assumed with the County budget. This review is to be completed within 15 months. REQUESTED RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses to the Findings and Recommendations from the following governing body within 90 days: • Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
Enplanements for the years 2014-2018 have consistently fallen short of the estimates used in the 2015 AMP. This has resulted in a calculated shortfall of $100,000 to nearly $200,000 each year in available AIP grant funding, with similar shortfalls in available PFCs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Within the scope of the contract recently executed for advice on funding sources for the “Local Share” of the project, a complete re-forecast of enplanements (and resulting PFC and FAA grant money) should be done, so that the total remaining unfunded local share amount is as accurate as possible. (F1 & F2).
F2:
Even without the funding shortfall noted in F1, sources of funding for the $62 million or more in local share costs have not been identified. As stated in the AMP, these funds are primarily for the construction of the new passenger terminal building. This was concerning to the Civil Grand Jury because the Board has not effectively communicated to the taxpayers that this large funding gap looms, and the taxpayers within the District are likely not aware that the solution to the unfunded portion may include additional taxes.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2:
Communicate immediately with the residents of the District about the potential implications of the shortfall in grant funding available for the Terminal Building Project. (F2)
R3:
As soon as they become available, share the results of the contracted inquiry into available funding sources for the local share amounts with the taxpayers. (F2)
F3:
The number of enplanements has been inconsistently reported in the District’s financial statement package. This is a critical financial metric used to forecast available AIP grant funding available and should be as clear and accurate as possible for the public, especially for those who live within the boundaries of the MPAD.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Revise the table (or alternatively add a separate table) in the Management Discussion section of future annual financial statements to include strictly revenue- passenger enplanements since that (rather than total enplanements) is the metric used by the FAA in determining available AIP funding and PFCs. (F3)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
25 hallazgos
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)). 174
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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. When the 2019/20 Civil Grand Jury began our investigations, COVID-19 had not yet become a public health crisis. However, as we conclude our reports, we are tasked to specify a time frame within which to address our recommendations. We have done so, attempting to allow some extra time, given the current situation. We ask the County Supervisors, Departments, Cities, and Special Districts responsible for enacting our recommendations to do their best to accomplish these goals as expeditiously as possible, given the effect of the current pandemic crisis on staffing availability. 177
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 178 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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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. When the 2019/20 Civil Grand Jury began our investigations, COVID-19 had not yet become a public health crisis. However, as we conclude our reports, we are tasked to specify a time frame within which to address our recommendations. We have done so, attempting to allow some extra time, given the current situation. We ask the County Supervisors, Departments, Cities, and Special Districts responsible for enacting our recommendations to do their best to accomplish these goals as expeditiously as possible, given the effect of the current pandemic crisis on staffing availability. 177
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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. 179
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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. 179
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. 176
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
F14:
Parcel Map of Primary and Alternative Sites (annotated) Monterey County Records 6
F15:
Uncaptioned Imagery (annotated) Google Permission with required credits on photo 7
F17:
Primary site, with cell tower, looking south toward a tree line on the alternative site Permission of owner 8
F18:
Monterey County Weekly. Notice in Oct 10-17, 2018 edition. (classifieds) 17 USC § 107 Fair Use 9
F19:
PLN 180317 Public Hearing (10/25/18) Public Domain 10
F20:
Tuesday, August 6th 2019, tower construction Permission of owner 11
F22:
A LUAC-reviewed cell tower. distance: 14.8mi Permission of owner 12
F23:
Bee Rock cell tower, 7.5 miles from primary Permission of owner 13
F24:
PLN 180317 Microwave dish antenna Permission of owner 14
F29:
Hesperia Road viewsheds two views: facing away & facing toward the cell tower Permission of owner 15
F31:
RMA Planning - the permit counter Permission of owner 16
F34:
Bryson - Hesperia before Permission of owner * The owners of all pictures were verified by the Civil Grand Jury, and all names have been redacted. 216
Recomendaciones adicionales
14
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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,
R13:
Uncaptioned photograph Permission of owner 5
R14:
Parcel Map of Primary and Alternative Sites (annotated) Monterey County Records 6
R15:
Uncaptioned Imagery (annotated) Google Permission with required credits on photo 7
R17:
Primary site, with cell tower, looking south toward a tree line on the alternative site Permission of owner 8
R18:
Monterey County Weekly. Notice in Oct 10-17, 2018 edition. (classifieds) 17 USC § 107 Fair Use 9
R19:
PLN 180317 Public Hearing (10/25/18) Public Domain 10
R20:
Tuesday, August 6th 2019, tower construction Permission of owner 11
R22:
A LUAC-reviewed cell tower. distance: 14.8mi Permission of owner 12
R23:
Bee Rock cell tower, 7.5 miles from primary Permission of owner 13
R24:
PLN 180317 Microwave dish antenna Permission of owner 14
R29:
Hesperia Road viewsheds two views: facing away & facing toward the cell tower Permission of owner 15
R31:
RMA Planning - the permit counter Permission of owner 16
R34:
Bryson - Hesperia before Permission of owner * The owners of all pictures were verified by the Civil Grand Jury, and all names have been redacted. 216
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
13 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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,
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.