Last Monday, the City Council voted unanimously 5-0 to approve a T-Mobile Cellular light tower in Gilleran Park- one of the 12 parks on the Wireless Master Plan. Though the Planning Commission had previously denied T-Mobile, Chuck Wilson cited Beauchamp's regret over having been unduly influenced by an activist. When Gilleran residents asked Lance MacLean why he appealed, Lance claimed his legal right to appeal on behalf of a multi-million dollar corporation. Here is a recap of Monday night's City Council Performance: Act 1 The once independent minded Beauchamp having been effectively reigned in by the City Manager and her own Frank Ury, regrets that she will be no longer be able to support Mission Viejo families in their pleas for public safety. Act 2 Gail Reavis asking the only intelligent question of the evening to T-Mobile's Joe Thompson, "Do you have squatter's rights by being the first one to erect the light pole tower? do other companies now have to pay T-Mobile?"; but then being sufficiently lulled back to sleep by Thompson's "yes, no, maybe so" answer. Act 3 Mr. Boudwijn Hanrath, a cell company insider, alighting to the podium pulling an AYSO coach card, painting images of young athletes being hit by flying soccer balls while frightened parents dial 911 in vain. Act 4 Lance MacLean exhibiting his profound ignorance of the ATS contract in his statements, "the city pays a flat fee to ATS, we didn't choose a revenue sharing program"; and "ATS is an independent contractor who doesn't work for any telecom carrier right?". Read the contract Lance. We did. ACT 5 ATS's own Tony Ingegnari getting up to cite all the engineering research he has done, which involves driving up and down the Gilleran hill to note where the "flat" spots are found. Act 6 T-Mobile's Joe Thompson having no legal ground to stand on resorting to threats that he will now have to erect antennas on every single light pole in the city's right of way. Wait, isn't it Frank Ury who wants to do that? and the Grand Finale: The mysterious city Wi-Fi negotiator is revealed to be none other than councilmember Frank Ury and his www.viejotech.com. "The Viejo Technology Group specializes in representing local governments in all aspects of strategic technology deployment. Areas of focus include municipal WiFi deployments..." Well, we sort of guessed.... But, can this be legal? City attorney Curley to the rescue, and this one can be swept under the carpet along with Cindy Sage's SCE report on EMF radiation.
October 8, 2007
Good evening Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Cathy Schlicht of Mission Viejo. I would like to thank this planning commission for all the time and work you put into trying to incorporate public concerns into the cell tower Master Plan.
I cannot understand how or why the city council received and filed a flawed draft document, nor will I ever understand how or why they did not even discuss this body’s recommendations.
The council has not placed any safeguards into the cell tower master plan. The general public, for the most part, are unaware of the unsafe EMF levels at Flo-Jo Park. If it was not for citizen leadership, the city itself, would not be aware of the invisible and dangerous pollution being emitted at that park by the overhead power lines.
However, the City Council did agree with Frank Ury, that sensitive parks will be removed from the plan – so far the council has removed 6 parks. So with sensitivity setting the precedence for park removal, it would allow this planning commission to turn down future installations in our parks that our citizens find sensitive.
If the applicant wishes to appeal this body’s decision to deny approval, then the applicant can then take it to the city council. Doing so will make the city council do the right thing and fix a flawed master plan which has the potential for long term harmful and negative effects on our community.
The council cannot make assumptions and then hide behind its wishes to represent the silent majority, because we are a caring community, raising our families. We are not callous enough to want seamless cell coverage at the expense of our neighbors, children and our community parks. We do not to place families at risk – whether it is concern about potential health risks or loss of property values. If council truly want to represent the silent majority, then they would cancel the ATS contract and create an ordinance restricting park uses for recreational purposes only.
We hear the council say that the Tele-Communications Act places severe limitations on the city’s rights in regards to cell tower construction – and yet this master plan greatly increases access to cell sites for the carriers.
The council made your work irrelevant. Yet Government Code Section 65101 charges that Planning Commissions “...shall act in the public interest.” The public has spoken very loudly against using our parks for cell tower installations.
We hope in the coming months that you would continue to support our community values and help us preserve our parks and not be facilitators for special interest. As a legal body, the planning commission reports to the city council. But you are also legally required to act in the public interest. Did the council act in the public interest when it accepted a draft master plan with all its flaws and conflicts of interest?
We are all aware of Council member Lance MaCleen’s e-mail comments that those in North Mission Viejo were stupid to buy near the power lines. Are all our citizens who bought homes near parks also stupid?
October 9, 2007
OC Register; Saddleback Valley News
POLICE PRESENCE WAS UNNECCESSARY
At the Sept. 17, City Council meeting, during public comments, people chuckled when I said the city must expect us to riot because we have six deputies at the back of the council chambers.
But it was not a laughing matter, and a number of people were not happy with their presence. It was a form of intimidation. Families were there with their children, participating in open government, trying to protect our parks, families and homes from the harm of placing cell towers in our city parks for revenue generation. There was no need to show such a threatening display of misplaced authority over our citizens.
Small children came to the meeting wearing blue T-shirts that said "Flowers not Towers," but they were greeted with police officers lined up in the hallway.
According to a June 2007 press release from the Orange County Sheriff's Department, crime in Mission Viejo is up 7.4 percent, the second highest increase in crime in the jurisdictions served by the sheriff's department, compared to a 4.2 percent averaged reduction in crime for the contract cities served by the sheriff's department. The officers should have been placed where they were needed, not in fixed post positions at City Hall.
As a citizen I not only found it insulting, but it was a despicable display of abuse of authority and a disgraceful waste of taxpayer money.
But our Council does not give a hoot about wasting money. Look at its record: A half a million dollars spent on a restroom. Over $150,000 spent on a garish electronic sign to replace the community sign board. About $300,000 for a rose parade float for six seconds of time. A $1 million dollar dog park is in the pipeline. And for another over-the-budget project, on the Oct. 1 consent calendar was an item for a quarter million dollars for aesthetics for the Crown Valley widening project. And now the rising costs on the $5.5 million expansion of the community and senior center from a grant of $3 million to a price tag well over $13 million and still climbing.
No wonder the Council took away the public's right to pull items from the consent calendar; they don't want the details publicly released through staff reports.
Cathy Schlicht of Mission Viejo
