Score: +4 (4/0/0)

Monterey County Grand Jury • 2019-2020

Monument to a Failed Process:

Published: June 15, 2018 80 pages Consolidated Report

Ver PDF original

⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 13 findings

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Recommendations 1

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,

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

South County LUAC

August 25, 2020 • 4 pages • 9 responses • Score: +4 (+4, 0, 0) View Details ▾

PDF

9 responses to findings and recommendations

Response: Agree Score: +1

This illustrates how little attention and professional diligence RMA has toward South County issues and projects. 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. LUAC Response: This also illustrated the lack of professional diligence by RMA in processing this application and there was no effective supervisio...

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 ...

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The LUAC supports this recommendation and is willing to assist in the investigation. It is the LUAC's belief that the investigation will show that the description of the alternative site was false material information. As clearly depicted in this report, the original site analysis was fraudulent, so the approval of this flawed permit without any substantial alternate site analysis compounds the gross professional negligence associated with this project. The LUAC strongly supports revoking the use permit for this cell tower and starting again to do it in a correct and community supportive manne...

Response: Agree Score: +1

This also illustrated the lack of professional diligence by RMA in processing this application and there was no effective supervision to catch and correct this error prior to the tower's mistaken approval. Even the most cursory review of the "Monterey County Land Use Advisory Committee Procedures" would have exposed the need to conduct a South County LUAC public review. In addition, the Principal Office Assistant in the very Planning Department that claimed there is no South County LUAC is the individual that communicates directly with the South County LUAC regarding the scheduled meetings eac...

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.

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The LUAC supports this recommendation and states that this change is long overdue. 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 appropriate social media and local micro-resources that are active in the rural community where a significant project is planned. This guidance should be completed and operational no later than 90 days after the ...

Response: Agree Score: +1

LUAC agrees that the description of the alternative site was incorrect. No one checked and no one asked any locals about the alternative location. Again, this application was approved with a serious lack of professional diligence by RMA in processing this application and there was no effective supervision to catch and correct this error prior to the tower's mistaken approval. 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 bei...

Response: Agree Score: +1

On behalf of the South County community the South County LUAC agrees that the public hearing notice code as written will not be effective for our rural and spread out communities. Moreover, just increasing the minimum notification distance is not an effective fix. 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 (design...

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 th...

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The LUAC supports this recommendation. There are many local social media and community resources that could have gotten the word out and helped RMA understand what our community is like. LUAC thinks this recommendation should be part of a larger effort by the RMA to improve noticing and communications about projects within South County Communities. 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 lo...

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.

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The LUAC supports this recommendation. It must be applied in a way to ensure planners consider many efficient ways to let the community know about proposed projects. The current approach clearly does not work for our rural South County communities. R7: The RMA Services Manager should develop explicit guidance to encourage and support applicantsponsored 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 af...

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.

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The LUAC also supports this recommendation. It is a common-sense approach to making sure the project fits the community, and that the community can know about the project. It will take several different approaches to establish reliable outreach from the County RMA to our South County community, and the applicant should be an active part of that process. Again, the current approach does not work for our rural South County communities. In addition, the South County LUAC would like to express our appreciation to the members of the Civil Grand Jury for their dedication in conducting a thorough in...

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

County of Monterey Agency

Monterey County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office