Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Deployment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PLUM notes and files on Eagle Rock tower after staff says state/federal shot clock left it deemed approved
Summary
Planning staff told the committee a proposed 45‑foot wireless tower in Eagle Rock was deemed approved by operation of federal and California shot‑clock rules after the city failed to issue a timely written notice of deficiency; the committee voted 5‑0 to note and file a council motion seeking a remand.
The Planning and Land Use Management Committee on Tuesday noted and filed a motion concerning a proposed 45‑foot wireless telecommunications facility at 1731 West Colorado Boulevard in Eagle Rock after planning staff said the project was “deemed approved” on April 3, 2024, under federal and California shot‑clock rules.
Planning staff told the committee the application was initially misfiled, public notice steps for the required area planning commission hearing were not completed, and the planning department did not issue a written notice of deficiency within the first 30 days after the application filing. Under FCC shot‑clock rules (and the California statute invoked by staff), the city can toll the 150‑day shot clock by issuing a written notice of deficiency. Because that notice was not issued, planners said the 150‑day clock ran and the applicant provided notice that the period had lapsed, which triggered deemed approval under state law.
Linda Liu of the Department of City Planning explained the timeline: the case was filed in December 2022, fees posted in February 2023, a zoning administrator hearing was scheduled for July 20, 2023 but then rescinded when staff realized the wrong entitlement had been filed. The applicant then filed for the correct entitlement (a specific plan exception) in August 2023 and the design review board heard the case on March 4, 2024. On Feb. 28, 2024, planning staff received an email from the applicant’s representative about shot‑clock expiration; planning staff concluded the application met the criteria for deemed approval and issued a letter dated April 3, 2024.
Council staff and resident speakers argued the application lacked required public notice for the East Area Planning Commission hearing and that the facility violates the Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan’s 30‑foot height limit for Sub Area 2. Kevin Alcobillo, planning director for Councilmember Isabel Verardo, told the committee he believes the filing and notice requirements were not satisfied and urged remand to the East APC so the public can be heard.
Verizon representatives told the committee the administrative process concluded years ago and that statutory deadlines for challenging deemed approvals had passed. Outside counsel for Verizon said the remedy window (30 days after deemed approval notice) has closed and that litigation is not presently before the committee. Verizon network staff said the company had offered to meet with the community.
City Attorney Jane Choi told the committee that federal and state law are process‑focused in this area and that the city could face litigation if it tried to rescind the deemed approval; staff warned there is no mechanism for the department to rescind the April 3, 2024 approval.
The committee voted 5‑0 to note and file the motion. Committee chair Bob Blumenfield said he was reluctant to note and file but concluded the city’s legal exposure made remand infeasible. Members and many community speakers asked the city to examine procedural fixes to prevent recurrence.
Sources: Committee meeting transcript; presentations by Linda Liu (City Planning) and Kevin Alcobillo (CD14).
