June 25 Planning Commission hearing, Wireless Master Plan
Staff editorial

With more than 80 people in the audience at the June 25 meeting, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the Proposed Draft Wireless Master Plan. According to the agenda description, “The primary purpose of the Wireless Master Plan is to help the city take a proactive approach to handle the future development of cellular antenna sites.” Residents disagree, saying the plan gives a consultant a huge financial incentive to place as many wireless facilities as possible on city property – targeting city parks – without regard to need or the will of the people.

As a quick summary, the commission rejected the plan with a 4-1 vote. The issue will go the council on Mon., Sept. 17. Reaction of the residents to the wireless master plan: it stinks.

Where’s the system of checks and balances when one person – Tony Ingegneri of ATS Communications – is paid by the city to determine the “need” for coverage and then paid for the “solution” as well? Each presentation at city meetings is a sales pitch arranged and paid for by Ingegneri.

Last year, city hall woke up to the fact cell phone service providers are putting wireless facilities all over the place, and it’s a lucrative business. Mission Viejo’s city government was slow jumping on the bandwagon, but it’s making up for lost time with an aggressive “consultant” – a/k/a salesman. While it was Councilman Frank Ury pushing for the wireless contract with ATS, all five council members agreed to proceed. At least one council member has already accepted a check from ATS as a “campaign donation.”

How did an entire council get so far out of whack? For the past several years, this council has a history of defying the will of residents. Consider the range of unpopular decisions – everything from housing development to contracts with council members’ friends. The steady stream of money from developers, contractors and city vendors into council members’ campaign bank accounts says it all.

Residents – not council members – are trying to protect the city. At stake are home values, aesthetics, government ethics, health and safety issues and quality of life.

At the June 25 Wireless Master Plan hearing, more than 20 residents made public comments, and an additional 40 submitted written remarks in opposition to the plan. An entire family – parents and four children – asked commissioners not to place a cell tower in the park near their home. Only one resident spoke in favor – a real estate agent making deals between wireless service providers and property owners.

The commission chair instructed residents that their remarks about health impacts wouldn’t be considered for lack of evidence that such exposure to radio frequency is harmful. In contrast, ATS’s information presented by its hired gun, Jerrold Bushberg, focused on such issues. A resident from the audience pointed to the inconsistency, and he was told by the commission chair he was out of order.

The addition of Bushberg was in contrast to an ATS-hired “expert” in a 2006 city showdown over a cell tower. ATS’s former “expert” had no relevant credentials. The 2006 situation became laughable when residents demonstrated they had considerably more knowledge, background and reliable information than ATS’s presenter.

In its contract with the city, ATS receives up to $200,000 for creating the wireless master plan. Thus far, the data provided by ATS appears to have major flaws, incorrect information about coverage and a remarkable lack of accounting for all antennas in the city. It includes no data for some known service providers. Additionally, the consultant receives 30 percent kickback for each new placement on city property for the first five years of the lease and 20 percent kickback for years six through 10. Residents said the contract creates a conflict of interest, among other problems.

One resident offered to file suit against the city if the council moves the plan forward. Another said any council member who supports the plan should be removed from office at the next opportunity.

This blog frequently reminds residents of the next opportunity to remove council members: the General Election in November 2008.