Proliferation of Cell Sites in Mission Viejo
by Dale Tyler

Does Mission Viejo have enough cell towers? Should the city allow personal wireless facilities (cell sites) in our parks and on city buildings? This is the debate that has been taking place within our city during the past year or so. At the urging of Councilman Frank Ury, we brought in a high-priced consultant who basically told us what we already knew, that the city could make money by selling the right to put cell towers, antennas and other auxiliary equipment on city-owned property.

When thinking of alternative uses for city-owned facilities, one has to ask, what is the primary reason for the city to own that facility? I believe the city only exists to provide services to residents that they could not easily obtain as individuals, like street maintenance and parks. In general, the city is a money sink, in the form of taxes and fees. It can never make a “profit.” Thus, other than cost recovery for services received, such as the use of parks for private events, the city should not try to make money from city facilities.

Of course, if allowing cell sites on or in city facilities would somehow improve residents’ quality of life, then it might still be justified if the negatives did not outweigh the advantages. Our city has a number of rolling hills, and there are areas where cell phone service is not as strong as in other places. This varies from place to place, depending on what cell phone system one is using. Although I use a cell phone frequently and even changed cell phone carriers because of poor service at my house, it does not seem as if uninterrupted cell phone service is an inalienable right. If service is poor at one location, one can try other companies, or move a few hundred yards and an acceptable signal will likely be available. Even if all companies' signals are weak at your house, you can invest in a micro-cell repeater and probably get a good signal from at least one company, or just use your wired phone.

One downside to having cell sites at parks and other city facilities is the loss of citizens’ use as a result of the antennas, towers and other buildings. In addition to the visually unattractive nature of these cell sites, there is the business of access and noise. If a cell tower is erected or an antenna is placed on a light pole in a city park, there will be a need for technicians to visit the site much more regularly than if the cell site was not present. Further, many of these sites have backup generators to power the site when utility power fails. These generators must be tested, and they make a lot of noise, not to mention what happens when power fails at 3:00 a.m. and you live nearby with your windows open on a summer night. Some people also have concerns about health effects of radio frequency emissions of cell sites, but in my view this concern should not be a primary reason for opposing cell sites. The scientific literature seems to be mostly on the side of no significant effect on humans, but scientists are often proved wrong by new data.

So, the real issue is whether the city can simply refuse to grant any permits for cell sites at parks. In fact, the city can choose to deny all such requests, as long as they do so on a uniform basis. The city should make findings that state there is little or no benefit to the public, given the existing cell site infrastructure, and that no further sites are needed. Where we have already allowed cell phone companies to build their facilities on city property, we should require those companies to grant full access to other companies to the city property. This would mean more traffic and noise, but only where the city has already mistakenly granted permission to build cell sites.

The Federal Communications Commission grants local governments broad authority over personal wireless facilities (cell sites). However, local governments may not make decisions that discriminate among carriers, nor can they make rules that have the effect of preventing all cell site construction. Mission Viejo has a variety of cellular companies' equipment at many sites around the city. We are not obligated to surrender all of our parks and city buildings to cell phone company use.

There has been a good turnout at several city meetings where cell sites have been proposed, as well as at discussions of the city's “Cell Site Master Plan.” We need to keep up the pressure and let the city staff and council know that we have enough cell sites in the city and no more are needed. We also need to watch the public finance disclosures of our council members to see which ones are taking “campaign contributions” to approve cell sites.