Summary of Oct. 1 Council Meeting
Staff editorial

Public comments by residents had more impact than city business conducted by five council members at the Oct. 1 council meeting. Residents’ issues included cell towers, power lines and wasteful spending. Council members conducted business as usual, including a 3-2 vote to approve consulting services between the city and ATS Communications despite overwhelming public opinion against it. In the face of nearly unanimous objections from residents who have spoken out against cell towers for years, two council members voting for the plan said the public made them do it.

Speaking first was a homeowner who objected to a planning commission’s recent recommendation to allow a cell tower on Moulton Niguel Water District’s Lope de Vega site. The homeowner said he was representing his neighbors who object to the cell tower, adding most of them weren’t notified and didn’t know about Team Mobile’s request for a cell tower near their homes. His own property was misrepresented in the consultant’s data that stated its distance from the cell tower. The resident said Team Mobile claimed the lack of attendance at the commission meeting should be interpreted as overwhelming support for the cell tower. The resident further commented about the “bias of Planning Commission Chairman Richard Schweinberg, who talked down” opposition to the cell tower. When another commissioner asked whether the commission’s purpose was to represent Team Mobile, Moulton Niguel or the residents, Schweinberg said the commission represented “the city.” The resident suggested the residents are the city.

A second speaker said she’s been a Mission Viejo homeowner for eight years, and her home is off La Barca. Her summary: “I want to start something to get these power lines buried. Please look into this.” For the benefit of anyone else who hasn’t noticed, the issue gets “looked into” every two years during city elections when various candidates promise to get the lines buried as soon as they’re elected. Otherwise, no one on the council or city staff brings it up.

A third speaker talked about six deputies standing at the back of the room during the Sept. 17 council meeting and made reference to the city’s crime stats. She said Mission Viejo’s crime rate increased 7.4 percent while other communities contracting with the Sheriff’s Dept. saw an average decrease of 7.2 percent. She also mentioned the council’s wastefulness, including $500,000 for a bathroom in a park, $750,000 for an electronic sign, $300,000 for a Rose Parade float, proposed spending of $1 million for a dog park, $750,000 for “aesthetics” on Crown Valley Parkway and costs for expanding the community center jumping from $3.3 million to more than $13 million.

The check register total of $1,850,019.54 was approved without discussion as part of the consent calendar.

As old business, refinements of the city’s cell tower contract with ATS were approved 3-2 with Council Members Gail Reavis and John Paul Ledesma dissenting. The city attorney apparently felt compelled to explain the cell tower consultant wouldn’t be paid by the city to place cell towers on private property. Adding further to ridiculous remarks was Councilwoman Kelley, who said, “We must remind ourselves we are responding to members of the public to ask ATS to look at private property for cell tower placement.”

As a reminder to Ms. Kelley, who apparently hasn’t understood a word anyone said, residents demanded that the council not allow cell towers in public parks, and no resident asked that a consultant with an exclusive contract to market cell towers on city property be further allowed to place cell towers all over town on private property. Residents must remind themselves not to reelect council members who refuse to listen or consistently fail to comprehend the will of residents. Councilman Frank Ury chimed in with Kelley, saying she hit the nail on the head.

Reavis stated she had hoped someone on the council would make a motion at the Sept. 17 meeting to cancel the cell tower contract altogether. When her fellow council members didn’t make such a motion, she also didn’t make the motion. The reason no one did is the fact it wasn’t on the agenda, and such a motion would have been disallowed. As another matter, Reavis consistently was among the 5-0 votes when ATS first came to the city and the council chose to pay the contractor $200,000 to develop a master plan. She could have put an item on the agenda at any time to end ATS’ exclusive contract to market city property for cell tower placement.

With a 5-0 vote, the council approved management and budget policies regarding discretionary reserve amounts, and in the very next item of discussion, they demonstrated with a 5-0 vote they can’t begin to manage money. The second item – yet another change order for the community center expansion – was pulled by Kelley, who stated: “We need to refocus our attention on what we’re doing for our community.” The focus has been directed by residents to the cost overruns and wastefulness of this project. Kelley mentioned costs she apparently considers essential, such as replacing the entire roof on the existing center to make it match the new roof instead of choosing a color for the new addition that would match the old. The council approved the item with a 5-0 vote, adding to the already bloated costs: $355,286 for construction, $27,364 for construction management and $38,150 for the architect.