Summary of Sept. 4 Council Meeting
Editorial staff

The Sept. 4 council meeting was sparsely attended, and it appeared dull – for awhile. The meeting later took a contentious turn, underscoring why voters tried to change the majority in the November 2006 city election.

During public comments, a frequent speaker talked about the electronic sign the council approved July 2 despite overwhelming objections from residents. The speaker had been admonished at the July 2 meeting, with Councilwoman Kelley claiming the speaker was misinforming the public. Kelley claimed the electronic sign would be unlike the Saddleback College signs, which residents describe as garish and distracting. The speaker said on Sept. 4 that the city’s sign, a Galaxy AF3165, is the same model as the Saddleback College signs. No council member or staff member responded.

A second public speaker commented about an item from the Aug. 20 meeting, when the council denied the establishment of no stopping or parking on streets impacted by traffic surrounding Capo Valley High School. Kelley and MacLean voted against the measure to give homeowners relief from the problems. The speaker indicated that Ms. Kelley had cut through his neighborhood to use the same drop-off point when her children were in school, possibly influencing her decision not to support the no-stopping-or-parking measures.

Two representatives of the YMCA thanked the council and city staff members for the YMCA pool renovations. Absent from the comments was any mention it was taxpayer money – not from the personal funds of council members. Perhaps YMCA administrators were attempting to balance their comments over the years, implying council members would be removed from office if they didn’t support the renovations.

No items were pulled from the consent calendar. This has been standard procedure since the council majority (of Kelley, MacLean and Ury) earlier this year reversed the policy of permitting members of the public to pull agenda items for discussion. As an example of items passed without discussion, $3,414,661 was approved as the check register total. The City’s Lawful Hiring Compliance Ordinance was adopted without discussion despite an apparent impasse at the Aug. 20 meeting over computer vendors’ refusal to sign any such agreement.

The item causing contention was a proposed ordinance regarding the use of city parks, Agenda Item No. 23. This item is discussed separately in another blog article, along with information that led to its placement on the agenda. Item 23 relates to the city’s Wireless Master Plan, which has involved heated debate during planning commission meetings.

As described in this week’s other article, the city attorney (Bill Curley) takes direction from the council majority and is not permitted to act on behalf of any one council member. As another matter, the council has not yet seen the Wireless Master Plan, as it will have its first council review on Sept. 17. Proposing an ordinance trumping the Wireless Master Plan prior to its approval is contradictory.

Here’s how it went during the Sept. 4 meeting. City Attorney Curley read and explained the proposed ordinance. Council members MacLean, Kelley and Ledesma took turns speaking without mentioning the city attorney’s improper action of proposing an unauthorized ordinance or asking how the item got on the agenda. To their credit, however, both Ledesma and MacLean said an ordinance wasn’t needed, and Ledesma said it had no beneficial effect to the city or its residents. Kelley did not discuss the item except ask what other cities are doing. Ury spoke, claiming the intent of the city’s proposed Wireless Master Plan is to “minimize the number of cell towers.” To the contrary, the language in the plan states the consultant is to market city property to wireless service providers.

When Councilwoman Gail Reavis spoke, she said, “We as a council never directed the city attorney to do this.” After she listed the number of problems such an improperly spawned ordinance created, Ury – somewhat sheepishly – began explaining that he was the one who directed the city attorney to draft the proposed ordinance, running up the city attorney’s bill without council consent. Reavis further pointed to a $14,000 expense on the check register she’d seen as a “public outreach effort,” apparently with regard to use of city property for wireless antennas. Such an expense is worthy of investigation, particularly if the purpose was to assist the master plan consultant, ATS, in pursuit of marketing city parks as cell tower sites.

Ury said he met with two residents and his planning commission appointee at Bagles and Brew and came up with the ordinance because the two residents expressed concerns regarding cell towers. By contrast, hundreds of residents have shown up at city hall asking for real protection from the Wireless Master Plan contract Ury pushed to approve. The Sept. 4 proposed ordinance appeared to be a political maneuver, placing Ury on both sides of the fence.

The Wireless Master Plan will be discussed at the Sept. 17 council meeting, and all residents are urged to attend.