Monterey County Grand Jury

2024-2025

3 reports

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
F1: The cities of Del Rey Oaks and Sand City do not have links to an online service request on the home pages of their websites, making it difficult for citizens to report an issue.
F2: Sand City’s online public complaint form is tailored to complaints against a business or person. There is no separate service request form for reporting road safety or maintenance issues.
F3: The City of Pacific Grove appears to have a mobile app, but it is not available at the Apple App Store.
F4: The purpose of the SeeClickFix button on the home page of the City of Seaside’s website is unclear.
F5: MCPWD does not have an online “Request for Service” form on its website for road safety and repair issues, making it more difficult for the County residents to report a problem.
F6: The availability of the Salinas, Soledad, and Monterey County uConnect mobile apps are largely unknown to the public, rendering them of little use.
F7: The Collision Data Map on TAMC’s website was last updated in 2018 and does not provide up-to-date information for Monterey County residents.
F8: TAMC’s outreach survey could be made more useful to TAMC and the public by incorporating a section where the public may report unsafe traffic or road conditions.
F9: Caltrans, TAMC, and the Monterey County Department of Public Works collaborate effectively with local municipalities to complete road and traffic projects.
Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The cities of Del Rey Oaks and Sand City add a link to the online service request form to the home pages of their websites by 7/31/25. 13
R2: Sand City amend its public complaint form to include requests for service regarding road safety and maintenance issues by 9/30/25.
R3: The City of Pacific Grove activate its mobile app on the Apple Store by 9/30/25.
R4: The City of Seaside rename the button on the home page from SeeClickFix to “Report an Issue” and reference the availability of the SeeClickFix mobile app by 7/31/25.
R5: Monterey County create a direct link to an electronic “Request for Service” form on its website for road repair or safety issues by 10/31/25.
R6: Monterey County and the cities of Salinas and Soledad promote their service request apps by prominently displaying information regarding their availability on the Public Works webpages, on other relevant pages of their websites, and through social media by 12/31/25.
R7: TAMC update the Collision Data Map to include data from 2018 to the present on its website by 12/31/25.
R8: TAMC expand the public outreach survey on its website to solicit public feedback and invite questions from the public regarding its plans and projects as well as traffic and road safety concerns by 9/30/25.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: The City of Monterey has failed to maintain the structural integrity of its wharves for many years, resulting in the wharves' classification as being in "Poor" condition, according to ASCE standards. Several structural elements have been identified as requiring immediate repair, yet little action has been taken. This neglect poses serious risks to public safety, the City's historic structures, and the assets of leaseholders.
F2: Under the 1991 leases, the City of Monterey cannot require leaseholders to undertake structural repairs identified by the City's inspection reports unless the leaseholder's engineer agrees those repairs are necessary. This allows the leaseholders to avoid making immediate and critical repairs identified in the City- commissioned wharf-wide inspections.
F3: The six-month timeframe for repair completion specified in the 1991 ground leases is unrealistic in today's regulatory environment. Currently, the permits alone, required from the City of Monterey, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Coastal Commission, cannot all be obtained in six months. Consequently, the City allows the leaseholders to delay these repairs without a required completion date or a penalty for noncompliance.
F4: The City of Monterey has not informed all ground leaseholders regarding their ability to use the City's Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which could significantly expedite the permitting process. This has resulted in delays in leaseholder-initiated repairs. By employing the MND, leaseholders can streamline the permitting process, reduce costs associated with delayed repairs, and ultimately shorten the time required to mitigate risks to the public.
F5: In 2019, the City of Monterey commissioned a consulting firm at significant expense to create an ongoing maintenance program. This was intended to streamline structural repairs to the wharves, replacing the less efficient project-by-project method. The City of Monterey has yet to implement the Program, delaying work by at least three years, which is equivalent to the length of one maintenance cycle, jeopardizing public safety.
Additional Recommendations 9

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The City of Monterey prepare and publish a report analyzing the discrepancies between leaseholder inspection reports and the 2024 COWI/Foth findings of "immediate" or "critical" repairs. The report must specify the necessity of each repair in accordance with ASCE standards and shall be made public by December 31, 2025.
R2: The City of Monterey include any necessary repairs identified by the City's analysis of discrepancies between leaseholder inspection reports and the 2024 COWI/Foth
R3: The City of Monterey repeat the analysis of discrepancies between leaseholder inspection reports and the 2024 COWI/Foth findings and incorporation of discrepancies into the Capital Improvement Programs (as specified in R1 and R2) every three years.
R4: The City of Monterey develop a policy to provide a reasonable timeframe for leaseholders to complete repairs, accommodating the current permitting demands, instead of the six months as specified in the 1991 ground leases. The policy shall be implemented by December 31, 2025.
R5: The City of Monterey develop, communicate, and implement a more proactive process for monitoring and enforcing required leaseholder repairs in a reasonable timeframe for leaseholders to complete repairs, accommodating the current permitting demands (as specified in R4), by February 28, 2026.
R6: The City of Monterey notify leaseholders of the existing Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for use in expediting repair permits by September 30, 2025.
R7: The City of Monterey update and publish a wharves maintenance plan that prioritizes and schedules "immediate" and "critical" repairs in accordance with ASCE standards.
R8: The City of Monterey identify funding sources to ensure ongoing structural integrity of the wharves as outlined in the report developed by ESA in 2019 by March 31, 2026.
R9: The City of Monterey complete triennial comprehensive structural inspection schedule for both wharves by November 30, 2025, and share resulting findings with all ground leaseholders within two months of receipt.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: The aging infrastructure, design limitations, and deferred maintenance of the facilities contribute to safety concerns for both correctional staff and incarcerated persons (IPs).
F2: The training programs provided to IPs at both facilities are of high quality. These programs equip IPs with essential technical skills and leadership training, enhancing their employment opportunities upon release.
F3: Advancements in technology present both benefits and challenges for the facilities. Security procedures must continually evolve to address emerging threats, such as using drones to bypass perimeter security.
F4: Digital communication offers IPs valuable connections with their families; however, the increased monitoring responsibilities place an additional burden on correctional staff, potentially impacting their ability to oversee housing unit operations effectively. INVITED RESPONSES From the following persons: ▪ Warden, Correctional Training Facility o F1-F4 ▪ Warden, Salinas Valley State Prison o F1-F4 DISCLAIMER Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. GLOSSARY & ACRONYMS CDCR California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation CGJ Civil Grand Jury CTF Correctional Training Facility 15 IPs Incarcerated Persons SVSP Salinas Valley State Prison BIBLIOGRAPHY CDCR website. https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/ www.cdcr.ca.gov/ombuds/ombuds/entering-a-prison-faqs https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/regulations/wp-content/uploads/sites/171/2022/01/NCR_21- 13_SNY-NDPF_Master_File_ADA.pdf Salinas Valley State Prison recognizes 20 years, The Californian, May 6, 2016. https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/my-safety/2016/05/06/salinas-valley-state- prison-recognizes-20-years/83994532/ Monterey Herald, Feb. 17, 2025. https://www.montereyherald.com/2025/02/15/tails-k9-program-saves-dogs-and-helps- the-incarerated/ SPCA Monterey County, Ruff Start Program. https://www.spcamc.org/programs-resources/lifesaving-programs/ruff-start.html Correctional News, Oct. 23, 2024. https://correctionalnews.com/2024/10/23/california-model-being-noticed-nationwide/ California Code of Regulations, Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/15-CCR-3269.4 Legislative Analyst’s Office, Improving California’s Inmate Classification System. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4023 16 APPENDIX Security Levels at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Prisons Security Level Definition/Prison California Salinas Valley Description Training State Prison Facility Level I MIMIMUM SECURITY Facilities and Camps consist primarily of X X open dormitories with a low security perimeter. Level II MEDIUM SECURITY Facilities consist primarily of open dormitories with a X secure perimeter, which may include armed coverage. Level III MEDIUM-to-HIGH SECURITY Facilities have a secure perimeter with internal and external X armed coverage and housing units or cell block housing with cells non-adjacent to exterior walls. Level IV MAXIMUM SECURITY Facilities have a secure perimeter with internal and external armed coverage and X housing units or cell block housing with cells non-adjacent to exterior walls. Source: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/ombuds/ombuds/entering-a-prison-faqs/ 17

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.