[6:21] Okay, the time is now 6 p.m. I will call the meeting in order, Kelly May we have a roll call.

[6:29] Commissioner Ikeman is absent, Commissioner Burkehart, Commissioner Werner, here, Vice-Chiefena. Here, Cherokee.

[6:37] Here, Commissioner Werner, will you lead us in the pledge?

[7:03] Thank you. I think we've all had the opportunity to review the minutes from the August 18th meeting.

[7:09] If there are not any changes, I will take a motion for approval.

[7:13] So moved.

[7:15] We have a motion in the second.

[7:16] All in favour?

[7:19] No objections.

[7:21] Motion passes.

[7:38] Welcome to the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission's regular meeting. I would like to offer some

[7:44] information to help you understand how you can participate this evening. Members, I'm a public will have two

[7:49] opportunities to address the commission. Either during the specific agenda item or if your topic is not listed

[7:56] on tonight's agenda during public participation

[7:58] at the end of the meeting.

[8:01] Speaker cards and written comment cards are available

[8:03] on the back table, along with copies

[8:06] of tonight's agenda and presentations.

[8:08] Each person's speaking must complete a blue speaker card

[8:12] and submit it prior to the item being discussed.

[8:15] Cards submitted after the item has commenced

[8:18] may not be accepted.

[8:20] Individuals not wishing to speak may submit a green,

[8:23] written comment card.

[8:24] All cards must be placed in the trade to my left in front of the podium.

[8:30] Chair Keith will call speakers up in groups of three.

[8:33] When he announces your name, please be prepared to approach the podium to address the commission in the order that you are called.

[8:39] Note that all speaker and comment cards will be organized in the order of support, opposition, then neutral, so you may not be called in the order that you submitted your card.

[8:49] Applicants have up to 15 minutes in total for their presentation and individual speakers will be given three minutes to make their comments.

[8:57] When you're a lot of time has expired, a bell will ring.

[9:00] To respect each speaker's time, please refrain from applause.

[9:04] And as a courtesy, please silence all electronic devices.

[9:07] Thank you.

[9:10] Thank you, Kelly.

[9:12] The first item before, it says Mastercase 25-178, and Marlene Mincea assistant a planner will

[9:21] be present on the project. Before you present, I do want to make a disclosure that about

[9:27] four months ago, I did visit the site with the owner of the site, not the applicant, which of course

[9:33] if you know the site is very small. It took all of five minutes and what you can see from the 14

[9:39] any ways. So I just want to make that clear that I drove through the site and did about five

[9:45] minute tour. So with that, we'll come forward to your presentation.

[9:51] Thank you.

[9:53] Good evening, Chair Keith and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Marlene Mensea,

[9:57] an assistant planner too with the City of Sun and Creative Planning Division.

[10:01] The item before you tonight is Mastercase 25-178. It requests for an extended term

[10:07] Temporary use permit also referred to as ATP to allow for the continued temporary use of fleet parking and dispatching operations for Amazon.

[10:23] The project site is located at 2365A Sierra Highway. The applicant is RNC Enterprises. The applicant is seeking approval to continue the temporary use for Amazon fleet parking and dispatching operations at the project site.

[10:40] for a period of up to five years. Since 2021, the use has been permitted at the project site with a approval of a class 2TP on an annual basis.

[10:53] A class 2TP, class 2TPs are intended for temporary uses permitted for one year or less, while class 4TPs, such as the current term extended term TP, can be approved,

[11:08] Can approve temporary uses for up to five years and require a review and a decision by the planning commission.

[11:19] Depicted on this slide is an area and zoning map of the project site.

[11:23] The project site is identified by Yellowstar on both images.

[11:28] On the left is an area map which shows the project location between Sierra Highway and state route 14 north of Newhall Avenue.

[11:37] On the right is a zony map showing the project site and surrounding properties.

[11:43] The project site is zoned regional commercial.

[11:46] To the south is undeveloped commercial zoned property.

[11:49] To the east, beyond state route, 14 is open space zoned property.

[11:55] To the north and west are developed residential and mixed use zoned properties.

[12:02] In addition, the site was previously entitled in 2007 for the construction of four office buildings

[12:09] totaling approximately 100,000 square feet, with 394 parking spaces.

[12:16] Grading was completed at the project site under issued permits and preparation for the development

[12:22] of the site, no further development has occurred.

[12:28] The applicant is requesting an extended term to utilize the site for Amazon fleet parking and dispatch services.

[12:38] As you can see on the image on the screen, the site would include one driveway entrance off Sierra Highway on the northern part of the parcel,

[12:48] and include space to accommodate up to 61 fleet vehicles.

[12:51] The parking is proposed for box trucks shown here in blue,

[12:59] delivery van parking in green and trailer parking in red.

[13:04] The site also includes an area for 29 employee parking stalls depicted on the screen and orange.

[13:11] Hours of operation are proposed from 8 a.m. to 630 p.m. Monday through Saturday.

[13:17] If we're proof tonight, the TUP would allow the use to continue for up to 5 years, ending in September 2031.

[13:28] Provided here are views of the site as vehicles travel north and southbound along Sierra Highway.

[13:35] The site would continue to be screened by temporary view of screen fencing during the duration of the TUP.

[13:41] The conditions of approval would require the applicant to maintain the temporary

[13:45] fence screening and good working order free from tears.

[13:52] The applicant would be required to comply with the conditions of approval for the project

[13:57] including the installation and ongoing maintenance of fencing and screening surrounding

[14:02] the property, installation of rattle plates and compliance with best management practices and

[14:08] and the Russian control to help maintain desert, requiring all lighting on-site to be directed

[14:14] on the property and shielded, compliance with the city's noise ordinance and compliance

[14:20] with vehicle stocking requirements and cal trends standards.

[14:25] Together, these measures would help minimize potential impacts to surrounding properties

[14:30] uses and the community.

[14:32] The

[14:36] project is consistent with the general plan, it would support the continued operation

[14:40] of an existing business promoting a strong local economy and would use the site's existing infrastructure

[14:49] of the, sorry, of the underutilized commercial property while preserving the site's redevelopment potential.

[14:57] In regards to compliance with the Santa Cruz

[15:00] The code provides a process for evaluating temporary activities that may not otherwise be permitted under the underlying zone, because of their limited or temporary nature. A class 4 extended term to UP is required for the project, as the applicant is requesting to operate at the site for up to five years.

[15:22] The project is categorically exempt from sequela, public noticing requirements for the project were met,

[15:29] staff received seven comment letters citing concerns about dust, noise, light, spillover, and traffic safety.

[15:37] These letters have been included in the agenda packet for your consideration.

[15:41] Since the agenda was posted, staff received three additional letters, one citing similar concerns and two in support.

[15:48] They have been provided for your review as well.

[15:53] With that, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt recommendation resolution P26-07,

[16:00] approving Mastercase 25-178.

[16:04] I'm available for any questions as is the applicant's representative CC House.

[16:09] Thank you.

[16:10] Thank you, Marlene.

[16:11] Before we open the public comment, are there any questions from the commissioners?

[16:17] I do have a question.

[16:19] This is an extension of the TEP, so there were mitigation measures in place with the original TEP correct.

[16:31] There were conditions of approval. What we've done is made sure that any concerns related to impacts to this surrounding community were addressed in the conditions of approval for this project.

[16:41] So I would say there would be, for the original permit, there were conditions of approval and now we're just extending it with the same conditions of approval.

[16:50] Because I guess what I'm trying to get it is the residents, there's been just reading through some of the concerns from residents.

[16:57] There's still dust and noise and light issues with the project.

[17:01] So I'm just trying to see are there additional conditions of approval that we're putting on this time.

[17:06] Or is it the same ones and they just weren't?

[17:07] So I would say that this is not so much an extension.

[17:11] It would be a new TUP with additional conditions

[17:15] that are where I'm posing on the project.

[17:19] Concerns from residents, we hadn't received any.

[17:22] So as of right now, we're making sure

[17:24] that the conditions that we are proposing

[17:26] capture those concerns.

[17:35] Kelly, do we have any public speakers?

[17:47] Thank you.

[17:48] At this time, I will open the public hearing

[17:50] and begin the public comment portion.

[17:53] I will begin by calling the applicant up,

[17:55] and they will be prior to 15 minutes for their presentation.

[17:59] Stacy House, if you would mind coming up, thank you.

[18:10] Members of the Commission.

[18:11] I really just wanted to take a moment to thank you

[18:14] for considering this project,

[18:16] and to let you know that it is absolutely our goal

[18:19] to be a good partner to the city

[18:21] and a good neighbor to the community members

[18:23] in this surrounding areas.

[18:24] And if there are any questions,

[18:26] this evening that you have for me. I'm happy to answer them. Thank you.

[18:30] Thank you.

[18:34] All right. We'll move on to public speakers and the first, we only have two.

[18:40] So, I'll just call you up. Mandy Shaw.

[18:58] My name is Mandy Shaw. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

[19:02] I live in the Trenton Heights neighborhood immediately west of the project location across the era highway.

[19:07] I would ask the Planning Commission to address some of the things that you've already spoken about.

[19:15] Some of the concerns we have in our neighborhood are the high output lights mounted on temporary poles that are directed towards the Ohio AM, the approaching traffic.

[19:23] And we'd like to know whether the applicant was required to provide a photometric study or light planning and whether the city has confirmed that

[19:31] and lights bill will not create a time traffic hazard.

[19:35] We wanted to make sure that the city that vehicles associated with the operation do not

[19:41] queue or stage on Sierra Highway.

[19:43] This is a high speed road race of 50 mile per hour zone.

[19:46] I thought it was very convenient that the photo you showed had very little traffic.

[19:50] I think there was only one vehicle.

[19:52] When we are experiencing traffic in rush hour, it's really impacted on that surface street.

[20:03] The large delivery trucks that leave that temporary use area, they had northbound on Sierra Highway,

[20:09] and they immediately make a U-turn at the traffic signal at Dockweiler,

[20:13] and then they had back southbound on Sierra Highway.

[20:16] This creates unnecessary traffic congestion for residents.

[20:20] It causes unsafe conditions for residents as well as for the fleet drivers there.

[20:25] Because the vehicles are not small and sometimes they are a trailer connected to a truck and it's not a wide area there.

[20:32] They're making a U-turn.

[20:35] It's a high-speed area. People are trying to get to their, you know, kids school on time, etc.

[20:41] I also wanted to ask the planning staff to explain the environmental review.

[20:46] The notice says the project is being treated as a temporary and exempt from the

[20:50] CEQA as a class 4 minor alteration to land however the operation has already been occurring

[20:55] since 2021. The current request would allow it to continue for another 5 years so I think

[21:01] you know at what point this 10 years considered temporary and I would ask the commission staff

[21:06] to clearly explain the basis for continuing to treat it as temporary use. I would also request

[21:11] that the Commission asked whether the Secretary review adequately considered the dust generated

[21:17] by frequent vehicle movement on an unpaid lot, including impacts on nearby residents

[21:22] roadway of visibility, surrounding vegetation and local biological resources.

[21:27] I strongly request that any approval required the parking and circulation areas to be paved

[21:32] and otherwise hard surface and stabilized so that dust does not remain an ongoing problem

[21:37] for our residents. And if the Commission does approve the use I would ask of the following items

[21:42] being included as enforceable conditions of approval rather than informal commitments, lighting

[21:48] and glare control, no street parking or staging, dust control and hard-scaping and compliance

[21:54] monitoring over the full term of the permit. Thank you.

[21:59] Thank you, Manny. Our next speaker is Sean Nizara.

[22:17] You were giving me this opportunity to speak on my as another resident of Trent and Highside.

[22:23] Second, Andy Shaw's points of being raised on.

[22:28] I'll only add it.

[22:30] In the event, that's a, we do approve on this, a new term or extension, where you recall it, that's a rule on, probably consign,

[22:41] on the same neighborhood in the event that, on an unacceptable level of dust is blown into our neighborhoods, such as preparing,

[22:51] meeting our roofs, which are solar panels,

[22:57] use for electricity and similar things.

[23:02] Thank you.

[23:03] Thank you.

[23:05] We have no other speakers in no written comments,

[23:08] so at this time I will invite the applicant back up

[23:11] for a time of rebuttal if you so choose.

[23:22] As I stated initially, we definitely want to be a good neighbor

[23:25] to our community members, and in the past we have put DG down to try and minimize the dust

[23:32] definitely are open to doing that again if that would be helpful. And we've also added

[23:38] water trucks to the site as well to try and compress the dust as much as possible. So we just

[23:43] want everyone here to know that we definitely do want to be a good community member and take measures

[23:49] needed on our behalf to make sure that the community feels comfortable with the

[23:55] bill.

[23:55] Thank you. With no other speakers, I will close the public comment portion of the hearing

[24:02] and allow the commissioners to discuss something for staff. Was it discussed or has it been

[24:10] considered to use chemical soil stabilizers on the property in order to keep the dust down?

[24:19] Thank you, Commissioner, for a card, Eric I ever since senior planner, no, not specifically.

[24:26] We do have a condition from engineering for best management practices where that could be open

[24:33] to any type of dust control measure.

[24:37] Okay, along that same vein, typically when we have ongoing construction, we have signage

[24:44] posted that gives a number, a phone number to call when fugitive dust is leaving a site.

[24:53] Would we have such a signage on this site so that residents can report it when it's out

[24:58] of control?

[25:00] We do not have a specific condition to require that.

[25:04] It could certainly be something that the commission could consider.

[25:08] If it's along with everybody else here, I'd like to put that condition on there.

[25:14] And the last thing I would ask is the current lighting, do the conditions of approval that have been drafted for this?

[25:23] Are they going to require re-adjustment or of some modification to the existing lighting in order to comply?

[25:32] So we do have conditions in our conditions of approval that require for the lighting to be directed downwards and to be maintained on site

[25:41] And for no spillover, if there is some adjustment that needs to be made, we can discuss that, certain.

[25:52] I'm good,

[25:56] I'm sure, Dana.

[25:57] I'm just going to say, yeah, the conditions, whether or not it's actually happening, the lights are supposed to be pointing downward in the existing conditions.

[26:04] And that's where I think the sign comes in, if the lights aren't pointed down and there's a fugitive dust and whatever other noise issues, then we have the sign where they can call it.

[26:14] I think that's very reasonable.

[26:17] That's where BNP's come in, right?

[26:19] We do it on every construction site where we move and you dirt.

[26:22] Yeah, I'm good with that.

[26:25] I think since the applicant said it, I don't know,

[26:27] maybe get recommendations from staff,

[26:30] but that was going to be one of my questions

[26:31] that you addressed ahead of time where putting down DG

[26:34] at least on the entry path and where the heavy traffic is.

[26:39] It's already addressed in the conditions.

[26:41] I know some of the neighborhood concerns

[26:43] that we received were trucks going all hours of the night, which if that was reported and

[26:48] validated, I think would call their use permit into question with the conditions being 8-630.

[26:58] So I think that's kind of already buttoned up, but having a venue to call, I think does that,

[27:03] but I would propose that maybe on the primary access point that, you know, maybe

[27:13] D.G. is refreshed on the primary access roads or, you know, drybiles,

[27:22] seems reasonable, maybe on an annual basis, to preserve.

[27:28] Those would be kind of mine.

[27:30] Yeah, I think the applicant agreed to that and we're treating it like a new project.

[27:35] So you'd start fresh with a number and yeah.

[27:38] Yeah, I think that's kind of where I was getting out earlier with my question about the extension was

[27:42] If this mitigation measures were in place five years ago, and they're not working

[27:45] We need to look at additional mitigation measures for the dust and everything, but I think what we talked about is

[27:52] And not sad. I don't know what comments they had the last time this permit was approved trend heights and not yet open for sale

[27:59] So trend heights came later

[28:02] Well, if I'm not mistaken, I don't remember that we

[28:07] We heard this as a separate use permit.

[28:09] It was an administratively, it may have been shorter term.

[28:14] And extended on shorter basis.

[28:16] And instead of one year at a time,

[28:18] they're asking for five years to type of deal.

[28:23] So I heard recommendation of potions sign with a number to report

[28:27] if potential conditions of approval are not being met as well as DG.

[28:32] So these would be two additional conditions,

[28:36] Erica, or are they rolled into one?

[28:38] Okay.

[28:38] These will be two additional conditions, and if I could confirm I heard annually on the DG.

[28:47] That's what I would ask for. Yeah, I mean, it's fine. And I think that's good for the

[28:53] drive-iles. I'd still like to have the soil stabilizers on the areas around the area that are not

[29:01] being driven on every day in order to maintain that dust as well, coming down off the slope, both

[29:07] the slope up to the 14 in the slope down to Sierra Highway.

[29:10] In the areas, both to the north and south of the site.

[29:16] I think it makes sense.

[29:17] I mean, when we grade sites and leave them, it works well

[29:20] when you're not driving tractor trailers over it all day.

[29:24] Yeah, it wouldn't work if it was on any other areas being driven on.

[29:32] I mean, it's totally reasonable as part of it.

[29:34] And could likely be enforced as BMPs anyways.

[29:38] It's the engineering department.

[29:39] So I don't think it's a personal, I don't think it's a lot to ask for.

[29:43] I don't either.

[29:45] You have a chair, Keith.

[29:46] If I may pass you a clear planning manager,

[29:48] I just want to make sure that with these conditions that we're talking about,

[29:50] that the applicant has an opportunity to respond.

[29:52] I agree to those on the record.

[29:55] And so I just want to make sure if you're good,

[29:57] get an acknowledgement.

[30:04] Thank you. Yes, those are definitely agreeable. I would like to clarify the hours, however. So yes, 830 to 630 is a standard operation. There is one lot that does have trucks moving around the 730 to 1030 PM timeframe. This is typically about four trucks in the evening. And then during peak times, which would be holiday, we did also disclose that there could be additional movement during time as well. So I wanted to make sure I clarify that.

[30:36] I would ask staff how we should reconcile that to what the conditions are.

[30:46] Thank you, Commissioner Fena. We would need to amend the condition to expand those

[30:52] hours if the commission is immunable to it.

[30:59] I think that opens up a bigger, I mean, I heard what the applicant said and it seems

[31:05] more like the larger trucks who are maybe making a large delivery before the smaller trucks go

[31:10] out in deliver, but I don't know if we how to make that distinction in hours of operation

[31:17] on what's allowed or not and could be confusing to the neighbors if they just see activity

[31:22] and I could foresee a lot of calls coming in that I would know that's within it that's

[31:27] not.

[31:29] Yeah.

[31:29] So, plus this, I mean, I've been contemplating this on operating hours from 8 to 630.

[31:36] And now it's saying, except for the times when we want to go till 10-30, I mean, you couldn't do construction, but, you know, I could be bangin' a hammer and working on my house till 9.59 before it's a nuisance for my neighbors, so I would say, unless I have that incorrect, from a code standpoint in the city,

[32:08] perhaps,

[32:08] you know, consistent with those type of hours, you know, seven, seven a.m. to 10 p.m.

[32:19] But I understand it could be a.

[32:21] When this was communicated publicly, and noticed, was there any, any, uh, notification

[32:29] of these hours in, in those notifications to the public of what we'd be considering,

[32:37] what

[32:37] I don't want to have is a bunch of angry people showing up next week saying, hey, wait a minute,

[32:41] I was okay until 630, but not until 1030.

[32:45] I mean, what they were advised of, right?

[32:48] If you looked up the agenda packet on the city's website, a condition say 8 to 630.

[32:55] There's other notifications as well, though.

[32:57] Commissioner Bercart, the public notice is part of the agenda packet and does not list hours specifically.

[33:04] Okay,

[33:09] but that said, anyone that would have investigated this project by

[33:15] I pulling, pulling everything down from the website would have seen, but the hours that we're seeing here.

[33:25] So, I don't know, I'm not,

[33:29] it's, it's hard because you want more of a concrete understanding of what's being done there without it,

[33:35] but it feels like something's slipping in.

[33:39] Well, there, it, I believe it, it shows in the conditions as written.

[33:48] Obviously, that any changes to hours of operation must be approved by the director of community development.

[34:01] So, as written, what's been presented and worked out ahead of time, you know, for our consideration and publicly noticed as what's before us.

[34:13] if there's additional consideration asked for that would have to go through the director

[34:18] community development.

[34:21] I'd be satisfied with that, with us approving what we've gotten front of us and if there's

[34:27] an opportunity for there to be changes administratively down the road, they happen that way.

[34:33] Yeah, they have to ask. And then it would follow the appropriate process to address any additional hours consideration.

[34:46] So, for me, we're going.

[34:50] Yeah, so there are two additional conditions or three, I guess if you roll in the chemical with the DG, that's probably one condition,

[35:00] as well as a sign posted with a number of the call for violations or a neighbor.

[35:06] To report dust or dust in or any concerns.

[35:12] So again, let me ask you, Erica, typically when we do that on a construction site,

[35:17] you're calling the construction, the developer.

[35:21] That is correct.

[35:23] Who do we want this number to reach?

[35:26] is it should it should come in to code enforcement or should it go to the applicant, and if it goes to the applicant, how do we know it's being handled and dealt with and all of that?

[35:42] Thank you for the question. So it should be the contact number should be the applicant.

[35:49] If that wasn't resolved, if that complaint wasn't resolved, then code enforcement could be contacted and code enforcement would go out and inspect and ensure compliance with these conditions.

[36:04] I think it's a natural progression for infrastructure.

[36:07] I actually need to be in the loop.

[36:09] At some point, I don't necessarily want to floating, floating code enforcement with things that they're just going to have to make another

[36:17] phone call to tell someone else to go fix.

[36:19] Yeah.

[36:19] And I think it gives the applicant a chance to solve any problems for the city gets involved.

[36:24] Agreed.

[36:25] Agreed.

[36:27] Okay.

[36:28] Okay.

[36:29] With those changes to the conditions of approval,

[36:32] I'd make a motion that we adopt the staff recommendation as presented.

[36:39] Okay.

[36:39] I have a motion for the staff recommendation along with the additional conditions.

[36:45] Do I have a second?

[36:46] Thank you. Kelly, may we have a roll call.

[36:50] Commissioner Bracart? Yes.

[36:52] Commissioner Werner? Yes.

[36:54] Vice Chair Faina? Yes.

[36:55] Chair Keith? Yes. Motion passes.

[37:00] All right. Thank you.

[37:06] The next item before us is Master Case 26-050

[37:10] and Kyla Danforth.

[37:12] Assistant planner one will be presenting on this one.

[37:15] We'll give you a moment to set up.

[37:47] Good evening, Chair Keith and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Kyla Danforth and I'm a Assistant planner, one with the City's Planning Division.

[37:55] Item before you this evening is Mastercase 26-05-0. Our request to install and operate a new rooftop AT&T Wireless Communication Facility in the Community of Canyon Country.

[38:11] To provide context, the project is located within a 3.14 acre commercial property located at the Plaza at Golden Valley.

[38:18] The applicant for the project is UConn Group on behalf of AT&T.

[38:23] The project is a new stealth roof-top wireless communication facility.

[38:29] With respect to Zoning, the site is located within the regional commercial zone, as depicted

[38:34] in the red area on the site.

[38:37] The Yellow Stars on the slide show the proposal of the wireless facility, which is approximately

[38:42] 460 feet from Golden Valley Road, approximately 650 feet from the closest residential property.

[38:50] The land uses surrounding the project site to the east, south, and west have been developed with a variety of commercial and residential uses and to the north is interstate 14.

[39:01] All of the parcels directly adjacent to the project site are also zone regional commercial.

[39:07] In the greater area, the site is surrounded by the urban residential to zone, shown in orange.

[39:12] These areas include the community across from Interstate 14, as well as on the south side of the property across from Golden Valley Road.

[39:20] Additionally, on the further east side, there is a residential development within the Canyon Park specific plan.

[39:25] Now referred to as Farrell's Ranch, shown in light blue.

[39:34] Provided in this slide is an aerial view of the proposed work.

[39:37] The applicant proposes to install an operating new stealth wireless communication facility located on the roof of an existing commercial building.

[39:45] currently a Trader Joe's grocery store.

[39:48] There are three areas where equipment will be installed.

[39:52] The Image will now transition to an aerial view showing the first location, which consists

[39:56] of installing a new Coupula on the roof located at the back side of the existing commercial

[40:01] building.

[40:03] I will provide elevations and simulations of the proposed Coupula in a later slide.

[40:08] The Total Hight will be 43V and 11 inches matching the height, design, colors and materials

[40:14] of the architecture at the commercial center, and tenas and other incillary equipment will be

[40:18] located within the new Coupola. Additionally, the project also includes adding equipment

[40:24] on the roof at the back of the building, which will be screened behind an existing building

[40:29] parapet. None of the equipment will be visible from Street View. Lastly, the project includes

[40:35] installing equipment with an existing Coupola at the front of the building. All the proposed

[40:44] The

[40:49] North East and Southwest elevations of the proposed facility are pictured here.

[40:54] These elevations also show the proposed location of the new wireless facility.

[40:59] On the left side of the site is the proposed new equipment, as well as the existing equipment.

[41:04] On the right side of the slide shows the existing couple of where additional equipment will be built.

[41:08] All of which will be screened from public view.

[41:14] The next two slides show visual simulations of the proposed facility.

[41:18] The image on the left side provides context of the approximate location of street view on

[41:23] Los Canyon Road.

[41:24] The image of the center of the slide shows the existing site and the image on the right

[41:29] side shows the simulated view of the new Coupola.

[41:32] For context, the proposed Coupola is the same height and design of the other Coupola's

[41:36] and architectural features within the existing shopping center.

[41:44] In the second visual simulation slide, provided our two additional angles of the proposed

[41:48] Coupola.

[41:49] The image on the left side of the slide shows the perspective further along Los Canyon Road.

[41:55] Additionally, the image on the right shows a closer view point from the back of the existing building.

[42:05] The project is consistent with the city's general plan and municipal code with respect to location, aesthetics, and noise.

[42:12] The project would be located on the rooftop of an existing commercial building and screen from public view,

[42:17] And therefore, it would be consistent with the city's municipal code, which encourages wireless facilities to be designed to be an integral part of the existing structure.

[42:27] The applicant identified the commercial building for the proposed AT&T Wireless facility due to the need for coverage in this area to improve network capacity and connectivity for its users.

[42:38] The applicant had a evaluated six other nearby locations for co-location.

[42:42] However, these alternatives were deficient either because there were access limitations, would require more of trusive designs such as a monopole or faux stealth tower or their property representatives expressed no interest in the applicant's proposal.

[42:57] With respect to aesthetics, the project would be located to minimize visual impacts.

[43:01] Their proposed couple will match identically to the commercial shopping centers design and height colors and materials.

[43:06] all other equipment will be screened behind an existing building

[43:10] parapet and within an existing couple of.

[43:14] The project is not proposing a generator, therefore there would be

[43:17] no net increase in ambient noise levels during operation of the facility

[43:20] and the project would comply with the city's noise ordinance.

[43:24] Lastly, the project, the proposed project would comply with all FCC regulations for

[43:30] wireless communication facilities.

[43:32] As a reminder, local jurisdictions are pre-empted by the FCC

[43:36] for making decisions based on environmental and health effects related to these types of projects.

[43:45] The project is categorically exempt from additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act or Sequoah,

[43:51] public noticing requirements for this project were met,

[43:54] and to date we have received one public comment letter for this project,

[43:57] a copy of the letter is included in the agenda packet.

[44:00] The concerns are regarding the radio frequency study,

[44:03] and the wireless facilities proximity to the residential neighborhood.

[44:06] To reiterate, the project must comply with the FCC regulations and the city does not have the authority to enforce their standards.

[44:17] In conclusion, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt resolution P26-05, approve a Mastercase 26-050 to install and operate a new rooftop AT&T Wireless Communication Facility.

[44:30] I'm available for any questions as the applicant's representative Jerry Ambrose.

[44:35] Thank you.

[44:36] Thank you, Kyla.

[44:38] Are there any questions for staff?

[44:43] Kelly, do we have any speakers?

[44:50] At this time I'll open the public comment area.

[44:52] We have one speaker and it's just the applicant.

[44:55] So I will ask if Jerry wants to come up and speak.

[44:58] You are welcome too.

[44:59] You have.

[45:00] 15 minutes.

[45:04] Excuse me, I'm going to call. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Gerry Ambrose, here on behalf of AT&T. I don't have anything to add to the presentation. I'm just here to answer any questions.

[45:16] Thank you. That's all just to ask any additional questions for.

[45:21] Okay, no, okay. Thank you. At this time, that is all the speakers on this item, so I will close the public comment period and allow for any additional, which I assume there is none.

[45:34] Okay, then with no additional comments from the commission, I will take a motion.

[45:40] So move. Second. Second. I have first in the second. Can we maybe maybe we have a roll call.

[45:48] Commissioner Werner? Yes. Commissioner Berkart? Yes. Vice Chair Feina? Yes. Chair Keith? Yes.

[45:55] Motion passes.

[46:03] All right. The last item before it says Master Case 26-082 and Emily Rubik.

[46:10] Rubik Combat. Sorry about that. Assistant planner too will present on the project. Thank you,

[46:16] Emily, whenever you are ready.

[46:24] Good evening, Chair Keith and members of the Planning Commission.

[46:26] My name is Emily Robokava, and I'm an assistant planner too with the City's Planning Division.

[46:32] The item before you tonight is Mastercase 26-082.

[46:36] A request to allow the sale of distilled spirits at a 7-11 convenience store in the community of Canyon Country.

[46:44] As you may recall, we had a similar project for another 7-11 at a previous planning commission meeting.

[46:49] This is the same proposal, same applicant, but at a different location.

[46:53] The project site is located at 222 white canyon road and they are looking to expand their existing alcohol license to include the sale of distilled spirits.

[47:04] The application for the project was deemed complete on July 1st, 2026.

[47:11] This slide depicts the aerial and zoning maps of the project site, which is located near the northeast corner of solid ad canyon road and white canyon road.

[47:20] The property is highlighted in white on both images.

[47:25] On the left is an aerial map of the project site, which is an approximately 2,400 square

[47:30] foot 711 convenience store.

[47:33] And on the right is the zoning map of the project site and neighboring properties.

[47:37] The project site, along with the commercial retail centers to the west and south, are within

[47:42] the urban one zone of the Soledad corridor plan shown in red.

[47:46] To the north and west, we see single-family homes zoned urban residential to shown in orange.

[47:57] The existing convenience store is currently selling beer and wine for off-site consumption and operates 24 hours daily,

[48:04] with alcohol sales limited from 6am to 2am. This proposal does not change those hours.

[48:10] The existing beer and wine cells area is indicated here on the floor plan.

[48:18] The area shown in green represents the expanded cells for distilled spirits, which will

[48:24] be displayed in a locked cabinet occupying approximately 3.75 square feet, similar to the previous

[48:32] approval we saw at that last planning commission meeting.

[48:35] It will require attendant assistance to purchase.

[48:41] Convenient stores with beer and wine cells are permitted by right, however a conditional

[48:46] use permit is required for the cell of distilled spirits. Staff reached out to the Los Angeles

[48:52] County Sheriff's Department and the Sheriff did not provide any comments or concerns.

[48:57] Regarding licensing, alcohol beverage control has granted 10 off-cell licenses within this

[49:02] census track, which includes 711 as the currently cell beer and wine. The request

[49:08] Expans the existing beer and wine license to include distilled spirits, 10 licenses would still exist within the census tract.

[49:16] Therefore, the project does not propose an increase in concentration of licenses.

[49:25] This is a map of ABC licenses in the vicinity. ABC looks at concentration of licenses by census tract.

[49:34] Here we see the project census tract, which is bound by white canyon road and Sierra Highway shown in white.

[49:40] The project site is near White's Canyon Road to the left and borders one other census tract located west of White's Canyon Road.

[49:49] Licenses for offsite consumption are indicated in blue. These are generally supermarkets like Aldi Island Pacific and Bayarda,

[49:57] or gas stations with convenience stores like mobile or Chevron.

[50:01] Licenses for on-site consumption are indicated in yellow. These are mainly restaurants.

[50:06] As mentioned, the request would expand the existing alcohol sales to include distilled spirits for off-site consumption.

[50:15] The project is categorically exempt from sequa, public noticing requirements for this project were met, and today we have not received any public comments.

[50:27] With that, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P26-08, approving Mastercase 26-082.

[50:36] I'm available for any questions, as well as the applicants representative.

[50:39] Thank you.

[50:41] Thank you, Emily.

[50:42] Before we go to the public comment, any questions from the commissioners.

[50:47] With that, Kelly, do we have any public speakers?

[50:53] We'll do this.

[50:54] I will welcome Bruce Evans as the applicant to present to us.

[50:59] You have 15 minutes.

[51:02] evening.

[51:04] Res7s for 7-11, first off thanks to Ms. Rubikava, the Planning Department for their professionalism

[51:09] throughout this process, just to give some context it is a little unusual I was here

[51:14] two weeks ago for a different store, I don't think that's ever happened before, I don't

[51:20] want the commission or the city to think you're going to be flooded with applications for

[51:24] liquor licenses for 7-11. You're not. 7-11 doesn't propose this often, we only do it

[51:31] And there's a good store and a good franchisee that the corporation wants to support.

[51:35] There are simply not enough liquor licenses to buy to do this often at all their stores.

[51:40] In this case, right-aid declared bankruptcy some time ago and there was an opportunity

[51:44] to buy those liquor licenses at an attractive price.

[51:47] So that's what's happened here.

[51:49] As I said last time, proposals the same.

[51:52] This is a very modest request.

[51:54] We are not trying to turn this into a liquor store.

[51:55] It's a three-foot wide locked cabinet, and it will not be expanded beyond that.

[52:01] Several of them doesn't want to do that that's controlled by the conditions of approval.

[52:06] So this is a modest request.

[52:07] It's an opportunity for the preparation to support the French I.Z., and I'm happy to answer

[52:12] any questions.

[52:14] Thank you.

[52:15] Are there any questions for the applicant?

[52:18] Okay.

[52:18] I think that's all the speakers on this item.

[52:22] so at this time I will close the public comment portion and I will ask for a motion.

[52:30] Do I have a second? Second. Motion and second. Kelly, can we have a roll call?

[52:37] Vice Chair Faina? Yes. Commissioner Burkehart? Yes. Commissioner Werner? Yes. Chair Keith? Yes. Motion passes.

[52:50] Okay. At this time, I will turn the meeting over to Patrick for the planning managers report.

[52:56] All right, good evening again, Cherokee members of the Commission, Patrick O'Clayer Planning

[53:01] Manager here at the city.

[53:03] Just wanted to give you a quick update.

[53:05] It looks like we're getting close on the process of crossroads project.

[53:08] We're trying to get that up to the Planning Commission here in October.

[53:11] It looks like we might be ready to have a project introduction on October 6.

[53:15] I understand there's some, there may be some conflicts with holidays, so we'll look at

[53:21] that again, but just understanding that's where we're sort of looking at it right now.

[53:25] The next meeting date would be October 20th where we have some minor code updates again with ADUs and some other cleanup items that we'll be considering.

[53:35] From there, we're looking at November 17th where we have a couple of different items that are still sort of floating.

[53:41] I'm not sure if they're going to land or which ones of those are going to land there, but we'll keep you updated as that goes.

[53:47] And again, as always with these projects where we have a large project, specific plan, EIR, these sorts of things.

[53:52] We'll try to get that document after the commissioners, as soon as it's publicly available, so you have an opportunity to review it and be aware of what you're going to be considering that evening.

[54:00] So, hope that helps. I'm available for any questions you might have. I can close my comments. Thank you.

[54:04] Thank you, Patrick. Any questions for Patrick?

[54:07] Okay. Kelly, do we have any speakers for public participation?

[54:15] Hi, Lynn.

[54:20] Whenever you are ready.

[54:22] Well, I'm just representing myself tonight.

[54:24] I ran over here as fast as I could when I saw that Amazon trucks on the agenda and I missed it.

[54:32] But what I want to say is probably off the agenda topic anyway.

[54:36] When you granted the grading permit for that, you cut down ten oaks.

[54:40] I have been in here consistently asking about where those oaks are.

[54:44] Now you are permanently leasing it.

[54:46] That should have been a condition in this that they replant the oaks.

[54:51] It's really sad to me that our city with an oak on its city seal is allowing this to happen.

[54:59] And the council has indicated that they don't want Oaks cut down until there's actual real building permits for something.

[55:05] And yet somehow the planning department allowed that to happen when take out a heritage over on New Hall Avenue for a,

[55:15] I think it's a senior hospital or something like that and nursing facility and you know there's no nursing facility just the oak is gone.

[55:24] We really need those trees.

[55:26] I want to just say to you that when I come from Valencia to my neighborhood with a lot of oaks in it the temperature drops for degrees and that's really a lot in this heat.

[55:37] And, you know, I just think that it's so important that we take care of our oaks and replant them.

[55:42] And I would ask that those please get replanted.

[55:45] I mean, this going on now, you have your commercial use on it.

[55:48] You've allowed the grading, but the oaks have not been replaced.

[55:52] And they should be, and I'm asking that you do.

[55:55] And if the contract comes up again, I'll hope I wish you would consider how terrible that looks.

[56:00] Having all those Amazon trucks up on the hill at the entrance to our community on the 14th.

[56:05] Thank you.

[56:06] Thank you, and the additional speakers coming.

[56:15] With that, I will take a motion for adjournment.

[56:21] All in favor?

[56:23] I.

[56:23] Meeting as adjourn.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript