Wireless Tempest
by Dale Tyler

On Sept. 4, 2007, the City Council held a discussion regarding Item 23, which was agendized as follows:
“City Attorney's Report
23. Discussion Regarding Proposed Ordinance; Prohibiting Certain Improvements in City Parks; Adoption or Deferral of the Same Recommended Action: Discuss the draft ordinance and direct staff, as necessary, regarding revising or adopting the ordinance.”

Although it does not clearly say so, this is in regards to the proposed proliferation of cellular antennas in city parks and in open space owned by the city. There is significant community opposition to the placement of these antennas and equipment cabinets in parks and public spaces. Many people are concerned about RF emissions, but others are opposed based on aesthetics. They ask, “Aren't parks for recreation, not to be rented out to the highest bidder?” Another wrinkle in the debate is a contract that was awarded to ATS to study how the city should regulate cell tower placement. ATS was also to figure out how to “market the city parks” to cell phone providers. The problem is that ATS is in the business of placing cell phone towers in various locations and thus has no interest in finding a solution that involves fewer cell phone towers.

The so-called Wireless Master Plan, being prepared by ATS and the city staff, is being positioned by Councilmen Lance MacLean and Frank Ury to try and overcome the objections of residents by claiming that a pseudo-scientific study should control where cell towers should go, thus allowing the City Council to shirk its responsibility by hiding behind a Wireless Master Plan when it comes to approving cell sites on every high spot in the city.

The question that really needs to be asked is “Is there a right of everyone to have a good cell signal at every location in the entire city?” I'd say there is no such right or even a real need for complete coverage. We live in a city with lots of hills and valleys. These, by their very nature, create cellular “dead zones.” Maybe some in the city feel helpless when they cannot make cell phone calls from everywhere, but most of us do not feel that way. It can be very frustrating when someone does not have cell coverage at home or when their car breaks down. But to try and resolve this problem by placing multiple cell antennas at every possible location and thus turning our beautiful city into a forest of fake palms, hollow steeples and just plain poles is a very poor solution.

How this item came to be on the agenda is also an interesting story. According to comments made by councilmembers at the meeting, this item was prepared by Bill Curley, our City Attorney, at the sole direction of Frank Ury. According to Mission Viejo City Council written policy, a single councilmember may not direct city staff nor the City Manager nor the City Attorney to take any action, except at a City Council meeting with the consent of the rest of the City Council.Yet, Ury decided to have Curley spend the time to write an ordinance, at considerable expense, without having the publicly stated permission of the rest of the council.

This is not the first time Ury has defied the council rules. In past years, he directed the City Manager to prepare a report without getting the required approval from the council at a public meeting. Ury seems to feel that rules do not apply to him. Further, City Attorney Curley should have known that Ury was not authorized to make the request, since Curley is at every City Council meeting and knew or should have known that he needed full council direction before proceeding to spend citizen tax dollars. Ury attempted to justify his actions by claiming “No good deed goes unpunished.” He also claimed that Mayor Gail Reavis should have pulled the item if she did not think it should be on the agenda. But why was it there in the first place? Either Ury should give the city a personal check to cover the cost of preparing the ordinance or Curley's firm should refund the costs to the city.

There is also the possible violation of the California Open Meetings Law, also know as the Brown Act. When Ury sent an email directing Curley and staff to prepare the ordinance, he sent a copy of that request to all other City Council members. Since this item had not previously been approved by the City Council and it was a request to prepare an ordinance, the sending of the email could be considered “advocacy” and, thus, an attempt to “gather consensus,” which is a violation of state law. Curley tried to tap-dance around this by claiming this action was initiated by the City Manager back on July 19. However, there was no discussion at public council meetings of creating an ordinance, and Ury's email seems to have been the trigger for starting the preparation in earnest. We may never know the truth of this matter, since the city has a policy that destroys all internal email after only 30 days, making it virtually impossible for citizens or prosecutors to find out what really happened more than a month ago. So much for open government.

It was announced at the end of the Sept. 4 meeting that the ATS-prepared Wireless Master Plan will be presented at the Sept. 17 City Council Meeting. It will be interesting to see what ATS suggests and what the council does with the report.