The Honorable Stephanie E. Hulsey Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Monterey*

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. LUAC Response: This illustrates how little attention and professional diligence RMA has toward South County issues and projects.

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 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 each month. The implausible circumvention of the basic truth, plus the complete lack of sincere contact with the community suggests to us that the approval of this cell tower on Hesperia Road was a coordinated effort to avoid pubic knowledge of the project in direct conflict with the procedures dictated by the Board of Supervisors.

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. LUAC Response: 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.

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. LUAC Response: 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.

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. LUAC Response: The South County LUAC agrees that this tower should never have been approved. Every condition mentioned in Finding 6 shows how uncaring and unconcerned RMA was in processing this application. The one adjoining property owner that attended the Zoning Administrator Hearing pointed out these problems, but was dismissed. After the tower was built, the community presented a thorough description of the errors, but the County ignored these facts. The tower should have been removed and placed in a better location after coordinating with the community and doing the staff work correctly.