Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and councilmembers press for review of telecom tower approval, citing procedural errors
Summary
Public speakers and councilmembers urged returning a telecommunications tower project to the planning commission after they said required hearings and notifications did not occur; councilmembers asked for additional review and some voted to send the matter back for further procedure.
Several residents and councilmembers pressed the Los Angeles City Council to revisit approval of a telecommunications tower project, arguing the city failed to follow required notice and hearing procedures and that the project's approval should not stand without a properly noticed public hearing.
Speakers representing neighborhood councils and community groups described a process they said left adjacent residents unaware of the application and said the planning department had not held the required public hearing. A community representative said the city’s planning staff had "tried to fly the plane while they were still building it," and called for the matter to return to the appropriate planning commission (the transcript references the "East Planning Commission/PLUM committee" as the relevant body).
Councilmember N. Jurado (referred to as "Jurado" in the transcript) and other members indicated the item (discussed at length as agenda item 15) raised serious due-process concerns. A neighborhood-council representative said the matter involved claims that notices required under California law were not provided and that the project should be considered in the proper forum.
After extended public comment and committee discussion, council members adopted a substitute motion for item 15; the transcript records subsequent votes on the revised item. The council ultimately recorded a vote of 13 in favor and 1 opposed on the version of item 15 presented by Councilmember Hernández (as recorded in the transcript during the final roll call).
Speakers repeatedly cited state law and prior case rulings about required notice and hearings for projects that affect neighboring property owners, and requested the project be returned to the planning commission that would ordinarily hold the public hearing. Councilmembers said they wanted to ensure proper process and community notification; the council directed staff to follow up per the substitute motion and recorded the final vote for the item as reflected in the clerk's roll call.
The matter will require staff follow-up to implement the council's direction, including processing any remand to the planning commission and ensuring legally required notifications are completed.
Votes and formal outcomes for the item were recorded by the clerk during the meeting.
