7.5 Miles from Primary

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

No recommendations for this finding

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. 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.

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 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

No recommendations for this finding

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

No recommendations for this finding

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.

No recommendations for this finding

F14

Parcel Map of Primary and Alternative Sites (annotated) Monterey County Records 6

No recommendations for this finding

F15

Uncaptioned Imagery (annotated) Google Permission with required credits on photo 7

No recommendations for this finding

F17

Primary site, with cell tower, looking south toward a tree line on the alternative site Permission of owner 8

No recommendations for this finding

F18

Monterey County Weekly. Notice in Oct 10-17, 2018 edition. (classifieds) 17 USC § 107 Fair Use 9

No recommendations for this finding

F19

PLN 180317 Public Hearing (10/25/18) Public Domain 10

No recommendations for this finding

F20

Tuesday, August 6th 2019, tower construction Permission of owner 11

No recommendations for this finding

F22

A LUAC-reviewed cell tower. distance: 14.8mi Permission of owner 12

No recommendations for this finding

F23

Bee Rock cell tower, 7.5 miles from primary Permission of owner 13

No recommendations for this finding

F24

PLN 180317 Microwave dish antenna Permission of owner 14

No recommendations for this finding

F29

Hesperia Road viewsheds two views: facing away & facing toward the cell tower Permission of owner 15

No recommendations for this finding

F31

RMA Planning - the permit counter Permission of owner 16

No recommendations for this finding

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

No recommendations for this finding

Findings and Recommendations 25 findings

Additional Recommendations 14

No Responses Found 3