Sept. 17 Council Meeting Summary
Editorial staff

Approximately 50 people attended the Sept. 17 council meeting to protest the city’s Wireless Master Plan, telling the council to end a cell-tower consultant’s contract to place cell towers on city property. Those making public comments brought signed petitions and other documents representing hundreds of residents who object to such use of city property, particularly cell towers in neighborhood parks.

Six residents made public comments at the beginning of the meeting. One talked about the city’s practice of low-balling prices to initiate a contract, then dramatically raising the price with change orders. The community center expansion has increased in cost from $5.5 million to $13.5 million. The speaker indicated it’s a sign of incompetence.

The second speaker, a resident of Lake Forest, commented on the problem of day laborers congregating on Los Alisos Blvd. The third speaker stated the need for replacing playground equipment in his neighborhood park.

The fourth speaker commented about a power outage in his neighborhood two weeks ago. He called city hall to ask the reason for it, but his calls weren’t returned.

The next speaker said there was no public discussion on Feb. 12, 2006, regarding the proposed Wireless Master Plan, which she stated was misleading. The final speaker commented about parking problems in neighborhoods surrounding Mission Viejo High School, adding that two council members didn’t appear familiar with the issue’s history.

With a 5-0 vote and no discussion, the council passed the entire consent calendar, including the check register total of $2,242,735.83 and a $21,207 change order for the community center expansion.

The public hearing on the Wireless Master Plan began with a city staff presentation, followed by a presentation by the cell-tower contractor, Tony Ingegneri of ATS, who will implement the plan. Ingegneri gave four purposes of the plan: 1) to reduce the number of cell-tower sites, 2) to reduce blight, 3) to create better cell phone coverage, and 4) to generate revenue for the city. The contractor has already received $200,000 to develop the plan, and he has exclusive rights to market cell-tower placement on city property, plus a bonus for every cell tower he places on city property. He identified 18 city sites and noted that eight of them are “most sensitive,” apparently measured by the number of residents who complained.

The discussion next turned to council members’ comments, with Councilman Frank Ury engaging in what appeared to be an orchestrated effort with Ingegneri, whom he brought to the city and pushed as the contractor. Ury asked, “Can you comment on the demand for cell phones?”

Ingegneri said he expected demand to increase six-fold.

Next, residents responded to the plan by speaking at the public microphone, presenting signatures on petitions – some speakers representing neighborhoods or school PTA boards – and having their children make comments. Approximately 35 others turned in written comments, which were read into the record. Eleven people emailed their comments. With the above comments and petitions comprising hundreds of residents, only one person supported the plan, and he doesn’t live in Mission Viejo. San Clemente resident Joe Thompson spoke on behalf of Team Mobile, his employer.

Most residents based their objections on visual blight, reduced property values, health and safety concerns, unknown health risks and inappropriate use of parks. One resident pointed to six police officers at the meeting, asking council members if they expected a riot. She added, “It is not the job of government to create a business plan for a company. The council gave Tony Ingegneri a goldmine.” Another speaker reminded council members they’re supposed to represent residents who put them into office. Another said, “Vote no or you will go,” adding the plan is sleazy and underhanded. Others questioned if the cell towers were “today’s asbestos” or how soon advancing technology would make such towers obsolete. The city’s $14,000 P.R. contract with Paul Glaab was panned as a taxpayer-funded outreach effort to promote the plan.

Confusing commentary came from a speaker who said she moved from Mission Viejo because a cell tower was placed near her home, passed with a vote that included the support of Councilman Ury. The speaker thanked Ury for his proposed ordinance of two weeks ago, banning cell towers from parks – a sham political move by a councilman who clearly is promoting cell towers in parks, neighborhoods and anywhere else a vendor wishes to place them.

The council discussion began with Councilwoman Trish Kelley thanking residents for their input, which – by evidence of her later votes – she either didn’t agree with or comprehend. She insisted the Wireless Master Plan is just “a study” that asks the city staff and consultant to maximize collocation. According to Kelley, hundreds of concerned residents are apparently misinformed.

Ury said Tony Ingegneri’s marketing effort should be expanded to include private property as well as the monopoly he already has to market city property. Ury added that the intent of the plan is not to market parks, despite Ingegneri’s claim he is doing exactly that at the direction of the city. Ury reported talking with a resident about her concerns regarding cell towers on public property and, as a result, he decided not to prohibit use as she asked but to expand the contract to include private property.

Councilman Lance MacLean indicated residents are “victims of terminology,” spinning the Wireless Master Plan as a study to minimize the number of towers. He stated, “It’s doing exactly what you [concerned residents] are asking it to do.”

Councilman John Paul Ledesma seconded a motion by Kelley to eliminate city parks from the marketing plan and to remove the clause that a purpose of the plan is to generate revenue. He then asked the city attorney if such a motion would require amending the vendor’s contract. The city attorney said it would require an amendment.

The ensuing council discussion became so inconsistent and hostile, it’s worth viewing the videotape (borrowing it from the city library). To view the discussion online, go to [Clip removed from city website]

No council member consistently objected to the Wireless Master Plan, Ingegneri’s contract to place cell towers in parks or removing all city parks from consideration. Although Kelley’s motion (to eliminate parks and recreation centers) was seconded by Ledesma, neither pursued eliminating all parks.

Ury pushed for dividing the question. Kelley’s motion became: Receive and file the master plan and make modifications as follows: 1) emphasize goal No. 1 of the Wireless Master Plan, to reduce the number of potential sites through a coordinated collocation process and emphasize this by asking staff and the consultant to maximize collocation in areas wherever possible; and 2) eliminate goal No. 4, to generate additional revenues for the city of Mission Viejo.

Beyond receiving and filing the Wireless Master Plan, the above restrictions are meaningless. For example, the intention is still to generate money for the city and Ingegneri – they’re just not going to talk about it. Emphasizing or deemphasizing of anything is of no consequence to the contract or the contractor. The motion passed 4-1 with Reavis dissenting.

The second vote was to remove the following sites from possible consideration for future cell sites: Coronado Park, Minaya Park, Napoli Park, Crucero Park, Seville Park and Vista del Lago open space, and 2) direct staff to return with an amendment to the ATS contract to remove the restrictions regarding the marketing of private sites that currently exist in the contract with ATS.

Ledesma objected to the motion, saying it is outrageous to give ATS a contract containing exclusive rights to market city property, plus allowing ATS to compete against the city by marketing all private property sites as well. Ledesma said he only supported a portion of the clause to eliminate the named parks from consideration. The motion passed 3-2, with Ledesma and MacLean dissenting.

In the face of hundreds of residents, 100 percent of them against the cell-tower contract and use of city property as cell tower sites, the correct answer in representing the residents was for all five council members to vote no on both parts of the divided question. No one on the council got it right on both counts.