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.

It was a privilege to know Norm Murray
Letter to the editor

I would like to add a word on the passing of Norm Murray.

I had the privilege of serving on the Planning and Transportation Commission with Norm for three years. That period was a graduate education for me on city planning and municipal government. There simply was nothing about city government that Norm did not know.

My principal concern was traffic, and we spent time considering how Avery Parkway could be widened and extended to Antonio Parkway to alleviate the burden on Crown Valley. We toured the new golf course under construction at the time. Norm conducted a verbal seminar on everything from water quality and storm drain design to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County.

Norm was always filled with common sense and concern for his fellow man, qualities I have missed from time to time on the City Council. He was always a gentleman and was almost courtly in his treatment of residents making presentations to the Planning Commission. His vast knowledge came from an almost unbelievable length of service to city government.

He told me that he was introduced to John F. Kennedy at the 1960 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. He was one of a group of local mayors at the time.

We will not see another like Norm Murray. It was a privilege to know him.

Michael Kennedy, M.D.
Former Planning Commissioner
Mission Viejo

June 4 Council Meeting Summary
Editorial staff

During public comments at the June 4 council meeting, four people spoke in support of Senate Bill 840, calling for implementation of a statewide universal health insurance system. Two of the speakers gave their out-of-town addresses, and a third didn’t state an address. Council members did not respond to the opportunity to endorse the bill putting the state in charge of insurance.

The city staff reported its findings about a dog park, with two locations still in play. The “rear” of Alicia Park (Alicia Parkway / Via Linda) and the “rear” of the Norman P. Murray Community Center grounds are the proposed choices. The council on March 19 hired a consultant to estimate the cost of such a project. The construction estimate for the Alicia Park site is approximately $1 million, and the community center site is estimated at $883,000. Costs for design and administration would be an additional $150,000. To put these amounts into perspective, the cost of Laguna Niguel’s dog park (developed approximately seven years ago) was $150,000. The estimated cost of various dog park sites in Mission Viejo two years ago was $500,000. A dog-park proponent who did not attend the meeting remarked to the blog, “It’s clear the city staff doesn’t want a dog park, and they’ll raise the price to the point residents won’t accept it.” Additional information coming out during the council discussion indicated no effort has been made to get input from neighbors of the proposed sites.

Councilman John Paul Ledesma asked why Lower Curtis Park had been removed from consideration as a dog park site, and he mentioned a past proposal for temporary use, which included an access road for an RV park. Lower Curtis Park was a controversial subject in 2002 when the city was involved in grading the site. The unapproved $200,000 grading job was described by city activists as a stealth make-work project for a city contractor, Granich Construction. Wilberg offered to revisit proposed uses of the parcel, mentioning sports fields and an amphitheatre but not the obvious temporary use to which Ledesma referred.

Further discussion of a dog park will take place at the city’s next budget meeting.

The council listened to a staff report about the city’s senior transportation taxi-ride program. It could have been summarized in three words: it’s a flop. No numbers of participants were revealed. In order to make this pricey failure look viable, the city will now broaden the program’s access and availability. The council voted 5-0 to extend the service to 24 hours a day, lower the age requirement to 80, permit travel to medical facilities and authorize the city manager to approve future administrative costs to the program. As with Alaska’s proposed $200-million “bridge to nowhere,” Mission Viejo has a program of “empty taxicabs to nowhere.” Residents can thank Councilwoman Trish Kelley for the $100,000 program – the cornerstone of her 2006 council campaign. If the city can’t succeed in making the program more popular, it will at least succeed in making it more expensive.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Following the next council meeting on Monday, June 18, the city will hold a budget workshop on Tuesday, June 19.

CUSD Update: New Spin from Old Trustees
Can’t we all just get along?

Those following the investigation of wrongdoing at Capistrano Unified School District awaited news of more indictments this week. As of this writing, no new information has been released by the D.A. regarding indictments or grand jury findings.

The May 24 felony charges against former CUSD administrators James Fleming and Susan McGill revived community interest in the controversies. When the June 4 school board meeting was opened to public comments, critics outnumbered old-guard supporters by a wide margin.

In addition to the usual criticism (of overspending, corrupt officials, nepotism, Brown Act violations, etc.), school board President Sheila Benecke drew fire during public comments for her insinuations. She opened with a prepared statement including, “Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one.” In case the audience didn’t get her drift (that any critic is a jackass), she later said public speakers could “slither” to the microphone. While slithering is not exclusive to snakes, several who made comments took offense.

Benecke’s recent public statements indicate she blames reform-minded parents for the resignation of CUSD’s new superintendent, Dennis Smith. Some public speakers during the June 4 meeting said Fleming’s defenders (Benecke, Marlene Draper, Mike Darnold and Duane Stiff) are the cause of ongoing conflict. Instead of facing charges, the four old-guard trustees have a new PR slogan, “Let’s move on.” Benecke inferred problems would end if critics stopped talking about them.

One critic said after the meeting, “I don’t see much change since the November election. The old trustees have dug in their heels defending Fleming. The community can move on when these folks are indicted or removed from office in the next election.”

A Mission Viejo resident attending the meeting said, “If the trustees [loyal to Fleming] didn’t know about the problems, they were negligent. If they did know, they’re culpable.” Other Mission Viejo residents reacted favorably to one of the new trustees, Ellen Addonizio, who lives in Mission Viejo. Addonizio at the June 4 meeting questioned various motions regarding policy and expenditures, including why the district is setting aside $500,000 for attorney fees.

For anyone wanting to stay tuned to the ongoing debate, check out a discussion board,
 http://talk.ocregister.com/showthread.php?t=23726&page=96&pp=15
This link goes directly to current comments in the Orange County Register’s online discussion of CUSD issues.

The Buzz column, June 8

Where’s the latest target for new housing in Mission Viejo? Casta del Sol residents should take note it’s the golf course next door. No, it’s not the property in the gulch behind the Nadadores swim club. The new site is on the other side of the driveway to Casta’s Gate No. 1.

***

Question from a blog reader: “Who is paying for the grading near Capo USD’s administration building in San Juan Capistrano?” As good news, CUSD taxpayers are not paying for it. According to an article in The Capistrano Dispatch, the grading is taking place above Valle Road as part of a developer’s (SunCal) mix of 416 homes and a retail center. The grading also includes cutting back the slope to widen Valle Road.

***

Mission Viejo residents said goodbye to one of the city’s founders, Norman P. Murray, at a June 5 memorial. More than 150 people attended the service at Presbyterian Church of the Master at Oso and Marguerite. Along with members of the Murray family, former city mayor Bob Breton spoke at the service. Breton summarized Murray’s many civic accomplishments and examples of community service to Mission Viejo. The church service was followed by a reception at the Elks Lodge.

***

After Murray’s memorial service, two blog readers reported their observations at the Elks. One said, “Trish Kelley showed up, wearing her name badge (‘Hi! I’m Trish Kelley, Mission Viejo City Council’) and working the room as if she were campaigning for office. This was a funeral, and she was going around to each table politicking.” Another who attended said, “It was mostly Norm’s family at the Elks, and we were trying to focus on their loss. I’m still wondering what Trish Kelley was doing there.”

***

Mission Viejo residents haven’t forgotten Council Members Kelley, Lance MacLean and Bill Craycraft ended Murray’s service on the Planning Commission by voting not to extend his term. Kelley later explained her vote, saying other residents wanted a chance to be appointed to commissions. Meanwhile, her own appointee to the Community Services Commission, Patty Bennett, has held the post ever since Ms. Kelley’s first election. Apparently, Ms. Kelley’s rules apply only to other council members’ appointees. After Commissioners Murray and Jack Anderson were removed from the commission, a majority of novices took over and reversed prior decisions. Steadfast and UDR/Pacific’s housing projects had previously been unanimously rejected, and Murray had wisely voted against both of them.

***

Residents who can read the microscopic print in Saddleback Valley News’ Public Notices may have seen two paid city announcements in the June 8 issue. Two hearings will be held during the June 18 council meeting. Both hearings involve microwave antennas on city property. The first is an appeal regarding microwave antennas in Florence Joyner Park, 22761 Olympiad Road. The second is with regard to antennas proposed for the Potocki Center, 27301 La Paz Road.