Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, it's good to see you guys. Yeah, it's been a it's been a minute.

going to we're going to go ahead and get started. So the uh I will call it the roll. The uh August 6, 2025 regular meeting of the planning commission will come to order at 6:35 p.m. Uh please rise and would uh commissioner um lead us in the flag in the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

If we can remain standing just for a quick second. Um, good and gracious God, as always, we want to thank you for the many blessings you give us each and every day of our lives. We want to thank you for the gift of our faith, of our family, and of our friends. And tonight, as we come before you as a planning commission, we ask you for wisdom and judgment to what's right for the items before us and for our residents and for our community and our city. Please protect those who protect us, our police and fire departments. And uh thank you for all the uh blessings you give us. Uh thank you for the ability to share what we have with others, to uh minister to those you place before us, but especially to pray for those beyond our reach. In your holy name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Okay. And may I have our planning commission secretary Ria please call the role? Yes. Commissioner Luhan, present. Commissioner Sakali, uh, present. Commissioner Legospi, present. Vice Chair Uba, present. And Chair Gara, I am here. Thank you. Um, so, uh, this is the time set aside for oral communication from the planning commission. Does any commissioners wish to make any announcements, report on a conference meeting, or request items for a future agenda? Anybody? No. None.

Okay. Great. Um, so I just Yeah, I'll make an announcement on there. Uh, just like I used to do it with um, Mayor Alex Sahab the a couple days before in a council meeting, we would run into each other at one of the items locations that you would have in the on the agenda. So today, this afternoon, while doing our homework, uh, Vice Chair UVA and myself ran into each other almost literally at one of the locations on their agenda. So, we were both doing our homework at the same time and we both, I think, startled each other in front of one of the items addresses. So, anyway, so I do know that vice chair UVA who was out there today. So anyways, I will now ask for presentations. Does the community development director have a report on the city council action or any other general updates?

Uh thank you, Chair Garrett. Just a quick update. Um the last uh few months I know we had a a couple of canceled planning commission meetings, but as I had shared at the last planning commission meeting, staff took the opportunity to really take a deeper dive into some of our general plan update activities. We've been working with our consultant to develop uh the the different uh zoning maps and uh reviews of different parcels related to the general plans update a lot of um dive into internal meetings related to the general plan elements. And so I just wanted to share that we're continuing to make progress. We've also updated our general plan website. I'll be sending the link to that to all the planning commissioners and also we'll be updating our development activity report for this upcoming uh new monthly report. So I just wanted to let you know even though the planning commission uh meetings were cancelled u planning staff really took the opportunity to divert some of our attention into some of the very important general plan updates. Um that's my update for tonight. Thank you chair.

Great. Thank you. Uh so now is the time set aside for public hearing PLN25 000047 the plan sign program. Uh does the planning commission secretary have proof of publication? I do. Okay. Great. Will the community development director uh introduce staff making the presentation please?

Yes. We have our uh senior planner uh Rebecca who will be presenting tonight's item. And we have a PowerPoint presentation that um we will bring up on the screen. Good evening, Chair Gara and Vice Vice Chair UVA, commissioners and members of the audience. This evening I will be presenting PLN-25- Z0047, a request for a plan program for a newly constructed multi-tenant commercial center located at 9432 Telegraph Road. Um, so just to inform you, the applicant is here in the audience. His name is Al Fam as well as the uh sign program uh designer K K Qua. The request is for a plan sign program to uh or SP to establish uh the size, location, number, and appearance of signs within the multi-tenant medical office building. Uh per the Downey Municipal Code, a PSP is required for properties within with three or more U non-residential tenants, which applies here as the building will accommodate three tenant spaces. The um as you can see in the aerial, the project site is located on the south side of the of Telegraph Road between

Passions Boulevard and um Hasty Avenue is actually to the east um with the city of Pico Rivera to the north. Um the planning commission previously approved the site plan review for the medical building in May of 2022 uh under resolution 22-319 uh 96. Um the condition of that approval also required a pl uh plant sign program prior to the installation of any uh exterior signage. therefore um leading to this request as well. Here you will find existing site conditions of here are you see the images of existing site conditions um from west, north and east um elevations. The following this slide, the following slide uh illustrates the zoning and general plan designation as highlighted in the yellow box. You can see that the zoning is C2 general commercial and the general plan designation is neighborhood commercial. uh uh the the plan um program requirements and proposal. The DMC requires the establishment uh of the PSP for a site having three or more tenant spaces. Um the subject property again meets that criteria as illustrated in the aerial to the right. Um there will be three wall signs, one per tenant space and one monument sign along uh telegraph road. All signs uh will be

eternal internally illuminated channel letters and can also be or reverse pan channel letters mounted to the existing wood siding backgrounds um on the facade which are already incorporated uh into the facade or the building's architecture. You will see that in a minute. Um, the PSP outlines criteria such as the type of wall signage that will be implemented again, which would be individual channel letters with acrylic faces or reverse panel letters. The illumination will comply with the Downey Municipal Code section 9624 lighting standards as condition per the reszo. It will allow um signage with one or two line sign copies. Uh ensure visual consistency by um by identifying the the placement of the signage in those areas where the wood sighting would be located. Sorry. While the P the the PSP does not prescribe specific font colors, it requires landlord approval before submittal to the city, ensuring consistency, it also allows exceptions for corporate branding and land with landlord approval. um of course and um while national trademarks and logos are exempt when when needed. Um specific locations, limitations and maintenance requirements are provided within the specific plan. Uh, an example of that would be to maintain the site's overall appearance and the PSP requires that within 15 days of the tenants lease expiration or termination, the landlord will ensure that the tenants wall sign

is removed and the sign is u returned to its original condition. Moving to wall sign location and sizes. Um the elevation here shows the proposed wall signs uh locations above each main um about above each tenants's main entrance. Uh you can see tenant one, two, and three um wall signs. Tenant one identifies a a sign area of 2 feet by I'm sorry 32 in by 22 feet. Well, s tenant one and two, sign two and three or tenant two and three um have the same sign area which is 2 ft by 13 ft. Um just to kind of go back the the total the maximum sign area as proposed is uh for tenant one is 95 square feet per linear feet for tenant one uh 1.01 01 square ft per per linear feet for tenant 2 and 1.24 square ft per linear feet for tenant 3. All signs are compliant with the maximum sign area of of 1.5 square ft of wall signage per linear feet of tenant footage per the municipal code. Uh here's some information regarding monument sign and location and size. Um as shown here, the proposed monument sign will be located along Telegraph Road near the driveway entrance pier of the driveway but near it. We it will be double-sided offering visibility for traffic and going in both directions

to accommodate. It will accommodate three interchangeable panels and will have a pushth through um panel for the identification sign. Um the although the sign says MKA professional center, it will be um updated to say MKA medical center. And just um as a brief um um note The monument sign will be a total of 5'4 in in high and then have a length of 7 feet 6 in. The proposed sign the proposed monument will also have 39.9 ft per side for a total of 79.8 8 square footage which exceeds the allowable um exceeds the allowable maximum sign area of 35.9 by 43.8 square ft. However, the sign the sign program can deviate from the signed standards in the Downey Municipal Code, which we will clarify a little bit more here in this slide. This reviews compliance with the Downey sign regulations. The table to your right summarizes how the sign is complying and where the deviation is proposed. Um, under the the Downey Municipal Code, signage in the C2 regulations, zoning allows up to um 1.5 square ft of wall

signage per linear foot for tenants uh frontage and um 1/3 square foot for monument signs per linear foot of building frontage as and that is calculated and shown in column two of of the um of the table as shown in the under the last row for total labeled total the the proposed sign area is 192.3 square ft and where um which is in within the allowable max um maximum allowed area of 190 7.8 square ft. However, as you um if I mentioned before, there is um a deviation which is the request which is for the monument sign um which would allow a total of 90 uh 79.8 ft which again exceeds the area by um 33.8 square ft. Can you can you go back to the previous slide one more time please regarding the uh size? Yeah, I have question on the 39.5 square ft is

that's per side. Sorry. Per side. Yeah, that's the maximum. The maximum per the Downey Municipal Code is 35 uh 9. 35.9. Mhm. the hence that therefore.5. Yeah, I know it's a little confusing.

Thank you. [Music] Um, however, the deviation is acceptable under the the Downey Municipal Code section 9610 uh 04 and the overall total sign area remains compliant as long as the overall sign uh area remains compliant and does not exceed again the maximum combined total of 197.8. How how did we how do we come up with that on the on our on our sign ordinance that 35.9 square ft? Is it based on the number the square footage of the entire property?

It's based on the frontage uh the designated frontage of the building in this case it would be 108 ft. Okay. Times the um uh 1/3 square per linear. Yeah.

Thank you. staff supports um just to continue analysis and um staff supports the proposed deviation based on the fact that the pro proposed SP plan sign program is in in compliance with the Downey municipal code pursuant to chapter 6 um signs. uh maintains an aesthetically cohesive and consistent sign plan with a allowable sign area and also demonstrates that the proposed signage are appropriate for the multi-tenant medical building and um complement the facade and are located um on the existing wood sighting backgrounds. Additionally, the deviation will cons will also improve wayfinding for the medical center by ensuring the monument sign is clearly visible um from both westbound and eastbound traffic along uh telegraph road. And lastly, maintenance requirements are are clearly outlined and conditioned within uh to ensure compliance and aesthetics. The project is categorically exempt under SQUA under section 15311 accessory structures. On July 24th, 2025, the notice of the pending public hearing before the planning commission was published in the Downey Patriot and mailed to all tenants and property owners within 500 ft of the subject site. There has been no correspondence on the item. In conclusion, the proposed sign program compliance with complies with the municipal code and provides clear and consistent um supports tenant visibility. Therefore, staff recommends

the planning commission adopt resolution 25 04553 approving PLN 2500 dash 000047 hereby establishing plan sign program for 9432 telegraph road. This concludes my presentation. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Does the planning commission have any questions of staff at this time? Yeah, I have questions. Okay. Um, a while back we approved a sign. I believe it's on Old River School Road and Stoening Gray for business.

Yeah, I saw it the other day. Yes. River. Yes. That was before uh so that at that time when we approved it. So this going to be different now. is is changing from the last time we approved that specific sign on that location at this same location. No, you're talking the one we did a couple months ago. Yeah. Stewart and Gray. Yeah. Older school river. Yeah, that's that's already done, right? No, no. Yeah. Yeah, I know. But this resolution, is it going to change anything or is it complimentary to that?

Commissioners, I could answer that question. So, that specific sign program is specific for that site. So for old river uh school road and I believe student grade that intersection that uh little plaza that has its own sign pro sign program. So for this site it has a separate sign program. It doesn't change anything that we've previously approved. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. You know my question I had asked that a little while ago too but I see it on the attachment. I guess you can it depends on the the design guidelines. You can add a logo as long as it fits into the name, as long as the landlord wants it kind of thing. Yeah,

cuz we we've had them. The last one we approved was just the white font letters and you know, you see some other ones on there. So, as long as I guess it's within the the guidelines or so forth, right? The size um that the size on. Okay. And my other question is why if if if we have a signed ordinance and this fits within it, I guess I mean why why do we have to bring it up to the planning commission every time on there is unless there's a deviation. Okay. Why? And I mean I don't mind seeing you nice folks here uh and stuff like that, but why? This one seems pretty clearcut. I think for

sign plant sign programs it gives opportunity for the property owner to do a more uh customization and also cohesiveness to the building itself. So even though a plan sag program is complying with our dining code it does give the option to customize it. So only allowing black font for example for that previous sign program or allowing a certain font uh type uh it will give opportunity to the applicant property owner to give that c customization and also in addition our municipal code does say if a tenant building has more than three tenants it requires a sign program. No, I understand the signed program, but couldn't it be approved at the staff level is what I'm saying. If it's if it's complies with our code and and so you know, they have to have one. Great. So why why you know this meets code, this meets this, this meets that on there. I I don't have a problem with it. I'm just saying why why

if I thank you for that that question, chair. So yeah, the question is uh why do they even need to come to the planning commission if it what you're looking at is already presented as the applicant has presented a cohesive design

that what I'm interpreting today looks and meets code. Um the plan sign program uh is a requirement in the code that when there's three or more tenants that the planning commission needs to look at. Now you may ask well why does the planning commission need to look at um in this case in this application uh the applicant is uh using the discretionary part that's written into the plan sign program of the code that allows the applicant flexibility that staff wouldn't have the flexibility to approve. Although we're what we're presenting tonight says the conclusion is it meets code. The applicant is invoking for lack of better word or is opting to utilize the flexibility that the planning commission to off that offers that uh the sign area be calculated as one and that allows them to utilize that sign area and distribute it as they need. So, uh I believe there's one sign. I believe the monument sign exceeds the sign area just slightly. Uh but altogether it meets it. Now, you may ask, well, can't why can't staff exercise that discretion? Um the the code has been designed uh to allow only staff to look at things a little bit more black and white and when we're exercising discretion, then it comes to the planning commission. Now, another topic that may come out of what I'm sharing with you is, you know, could the code be amended to allow staff to have that discretion? Uh, possibly. Could the code be amended in the future? Maybe not here and applicable in this case because it's already before you, but could the code be amended to allow staff discretion but only give staff a certain amount of discretion? maybe only allowing in some codes in other cities that I've worked in, you know, we're only allowed to have discretion up to a certain percentage or there's a limit.

Uh because again, there's there's the code is designed to give give a balance that staff has enough discretion that we're not overly being discretionary interpreting things where there's a lot of flexibility. Uh that really comes would come to a body like the planning commission. So hopefully that answers your question. Yes. But I think it brings up a good topic. Is there an opportunity to streamline certain applications and leave it at the discretion of the planning commission? Uh that that's always a topic that we're interested in hearing from the planning commission.

Okay. This would be a good example of it because it's a it's not a you know 20 units and it's not all this and and the and by the way I went by the building today. The building is beautiful. So it's going to be a nice addition on there. Can you tell the neighbors to implement the same plan, please? No, I'm kidding. Yes. Thank you, chair. I I agree. This is a fantastic upgrade uh to that area of Downey and this is a great example of uh revitalizing a commercial site and I think the science uh I I agree staff's recommendation. We find that they're complimentary and as part of upgrading uh the site that that's that's was part of staff's uh recommendation. My last question, if if the applicant, if the landlord wanted to change, you know, they have it for four or five years and then they have some different tenants and they wanted to change their sign plan, can they just do that? In other words, they want to have different fonts or different things on there. Do they don't have to come back to us to change the sign plan as long as they have a plan that fits code?

Uh, yes, chair. So the code does allow this um the staff the ability to review and approve minor modifications to the sign program. The individual signs are approved through a sign permit and a building permit. So um the copy it's called the text of the sign can change when when a tenant changes. Uh it doesn't require a change to the program. It just requires a new permit to be issued. So that's a separate process, but also minor changes to the program can be made at an administrative level. Okay. Thank you.

If I may just make a quick comment, I don't have a question, but I I also drove by and I was very impressed and uh with the building and I just want to thank the applicant for their willingness to invest in our city um especially on Telegraph. Thank you. You can tell them in a second when they have a chance to come up here, too. So, okay. Any other questions of staff? So, great. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. Thank you. It's a pleasure.

So, now before uh I have open up the public hearing and call the applicant or the representatives. This would be a good time for any of us to disclose any other visits. You went by there. I don't know if you drove after you saw me today over there too like I did or any other prehering discussions that the commissioners may have had about the project. So, this would be the time. So, I'll start. And I did drive by the property, tried to stop kind of in front of it, but really couldn't. So then I went across the street into the park, the shopping center across the street and faced it and got a really good look at it. So yes, I did drive by.

Okay. Anybody else there? So okay, great. Um, so the public hearing is now open. Will the applicant or the representative please come forward to give any testimony if you'd so like? You don't have to. So,

good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Hi. Good evening, sir. Good evening, chair, vice chair, commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Al Fabd and uh here's Dr. Mu Tran. Um the very first tenant of of the medical uh building is Mr. Key Quack the uh author a uh of the PSP.

Um we here to request the approval of the committee for our PSP um under plan sign program. The purpose is to build a uh building. Well, first off, for us to make a living, but then also to serve the community and uh we appreciate your words of uh remark as you drive by see what we've been doing on that. Um the medical center uh we only have one purpose that is to serve uh the community in the medical medical related field. Um there won't be any other type of business but the medical related field because that's our feel.

Good. Yeah. So uh with that uh once again uh thank you Rebecca for presenting the project and staff for your comment on that. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask you what what made you decide to to you know you bought that building and you've been re refurbishing that location and why why Downey? Okay. So I started practice in 2005 in Long Beach and there was a need for an endocrinologist in Downey and it took me a while for to make that move. I actually uh rented a place on Davis Street. Okay. Right here.

Right. And after about 3 years, my practice grew and I needed a bigger space and I wanted to um do more. And so I was looking for to move into a bigger place, but I couldn't find anything that would suit my practice. And so one of my friend um found the the lot and so we bought it in 2018 and the project has been since 2018 and it's very painful. Very very painful and I'm looking so looking forward to the next few months to be able to move in

and Downey is a great city and and I've worked here almost 10 years and I love the people. I love the population. I love what I do and so I hope to be able to serve more um uh with my specialty for our uh uh patients. Um but also I hope to be the first and not the only one that will beautify that whole telegraph street. So that's my hope in the future in the next five years. We'll continue to help you with that is my time. I invite us to your ribbon cutting but thank you for investing in our community. Is there is there any other questions of the applicant at this time? Great. I just have a comment.

I think it's a beautiful building like what was said, but what I really like is the wood siding for the signs. You don't really see that very much and it just it'll make it pop really nicely. So, it'll be really pretty. Can't wait for you to open your doors. Yes. Best of luck. Congratulations. And thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you so much for working with us for many years. That's really sad to say. I'm so sorry. Yes, but we're almost there. Great. You know, during the co time, everything. Yeah. No, we understand. We understand there. And make sure you are Are you still on Davis before you move? No, I'm actually right across the street in Telegraph in Pico. Oh, okay. Oh, I know where. Okay. Right across the street.

Well, we're glad you're here from Long Beach. We're much better than Long Beach. So, yeah. Thank you. Anyways, thank you. Okay. So, um at this time, are we going to close the planning commission? uh public hearing. Um will staff confirm if there's been any um any correspondence in favor or opposition to this? No correspondence was received.

Okay, great. Um so we already talked about in favor of it. Um there's nothing rebuttal at this time. Uh hearing no objections, I'm going to go ahead and close the planning as the public hearing. So now is the time for the time for any planning committees to deliberate. Um anything that anybody would like to discuss? We've we've always have a pretty lively planning commission. So we ask as we go. So at this point is there anybody else any other question? So what's the if hearing none what's the pleasure of the planning commission?

So I will move that we approve PLN25-000047 the planned sign program. I'll second it. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay. All right. Please vote.

Motion passes 5. Okay. So, congratulations and thank you. So, okay. So, now is the time set aside for public hearing PLN2500116. It's an appeal of the director of community development determination. Does the planning commission secretary have proof of publication? Yes, I do. Okay. You're by the way, I'm sorry. You're you're welcome to stay, but you're it's okay to leave. Okay. So, uh yes, you do. Okay. Uh will the community development director please introduce staff making the presentation?

Yes. Thank you, Chair Gara. Tonight's presentation for this item will be presented by our uh assistant planner, Marissa Montero, and we have a a PowerPoint presentation that accompanies this item. Uh this item uh does rely heavily on the photographs and the illustrations provided by the applicant. Um, and so, uh, if if you would like us, uh, to pause, uh, we can do that because there is quite a bit to take in as you probably realize through reviewing the staff report and the various attachments. Um, there's also design guidelines, uh, that are included uh, as part of staff's uh, interpretation of the design guidelines and the code. Uh, and also um, the determination was also based on the zoning code of the city. Uh so those are companion documents uh that Marissa will review today. Uh she'll give you a timeline of how we got here. Uh we've met with the applicant uh property owner, Miss Brenda Velasquez, and Mr. Guzman, the designer, uh in in our offices because we do understand uh there is a lot of work and a lot of heart that went into preparing these plans. There's a lot of investment being proposed in Downey and we value that. Um but as we did explain to them that as staff that is um our job to look at the code and as in the previous item uh sometimes things are written a little bit uh in black and white um when there's flexibility and subjectivity that's introduced that's an item that can come before the planning commission and that's a benefit to the applicant uh that we encourage them to uh go ahead and proceed if that's what they wanted to do. um their um appeal letter is included in the packet which Marissa will also be reviewing. I think there's a lot of value and a lot of points uh to be considered by the planning commission

and to look at the record as a whole um and to deliberate on this item. So with that, I'll introduce it over to uh our assistant planner, Mr. Montero. Thank you, chair. She's she's ready for us. even drank water before taking a pause. A lot of pages. A lot of pages to get through.

All right. Good evening, Chair Gara, Vice Chair UVA, commissioners, and members of the audience. Uh, the item before you is PLN-25-0000116, an appeal of an administrative decision pursuant to DMC section 9806. All right. Okay. The request is to consider an appeal of a determination made by the director of community development that the proposed roof line alterations do not comply with the DMC R1 development standards and the single family residential design guidelines. I'll refer to uh the single family residential design guidelines as just design guidelines throughout the presentation. If I may uh just um add a information that I forgot to add earlier is that following uh Miss Montero's presentation uh presenting the staff's determination the staff report the applicant also has provided uh slides uh to staff which we've uploaded into our system and that will be presented by the applicant. So I just wanted to give you a little context on that as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you Marissa. Of course.

All right. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Clancy Avenue and Apple Street. The main crossroads uh for this area are Lakewood Boulevard and Gallatin Road. And on the slide, we can see the subject property outlined. Uh the subject property is zoned R1 single family residential with the general plan land use designation of lowdensity residential. The surrounding uses are all single family residential. Um, and then right in the corner you can see uh some red for general commercial again at the intersection of Lakewood Boulevard and Gallatin Road. Oops. All right. The property is developed with a 1,50 ft single family residence, a 455 ft attached breezeway, and a 441q ft attached garage. These are photos of the existing home. Um, an elevation, a view from Clancy Avenue, and then a view from Apple by Street. And then that's an aerial of, uh, the property. The proposed scope of work includes additions to the living area for a foyer, bathroom, and living room expansion, the conversion of an attached breezeway into livable floor area for a bedroom, bathroom, and laundry room. a a new front porch and a facade remodel resulting in the alteration of the existing architectural style. Sorry, just um wanted to point out the images we have on the slide here. Um we have the proposed site plan with the additions outlined in red and then uh a rendering of the proposed facade remodel. Uh the subject property is located in

the R1 zone and therefore any additions, remodels or alterations are subject to DMC section 9312.08 which is the residential zones property development standards and DMC section 9312.08B3 which requires construction in the R1 zone to comply with the single family residential design guidelines. The R1 development standards and design guidelines were developed to provide design guid design guidance for proposed additions and alterations to single family homes while at the same time considering any existing structures on the site and the surrounding properties architectural forms to ensure consistency. These standards and the guidelines were adopted by the city council in May of 20 2021 after extensive community engagement and planning commission review. And this is a a timeline of of uh that effort to adopt the uh development standards and the design guidelines. I'll pause for a moment. Okay. So the design guidelines have multiple sections um in the bulleted list on the left hand side of the screen of the slide. Um, so those sections include the residential design goals and principles, Downy's characteristic residential architectural styles, mandatory development standards, and recommended design guidelines for projects that do not fully comply with the design guidelines or propose an architectural style different from the Downey characteristic residential architectural styles included in section three of the design guidelines. An alternative review process is outlined to evaluate compliance with the residential design goals and principles. This approach ensures that alternative

architectural styles may be permitted as long as they align with the broader intent of the guidelines. Additionally, if when reviewing a project, staff staff determines that it does not comply with the design guidelines, the applicant can appeal the decision to determine compliance with the residential design goals and principles. Okay. Um, so DMC section 9814.04 I1 I and page two of the design guidelines indicate that the planning commission has the authority to consider an appeal of a director's determination. So uh the chart on the top of the slide shows the review and appeal process for the DMC R1 development standards and the chart on the bottom shows the review and appeal process for the design guidelines. Um so as you can see we you know start from staff review um which can then be appealed to depending which process we're looking at the director um or the term in the code is city planner but then director uh then we go it can be further appealed to the planning commission and then the planning commission can um make a decision which is why we're here today. All right, so this is a brief timeline. Um, so on May 28th, the applicant visited the planning division counter for a courtesy review of the proposed project. Staff noticed the varying roof styles, which partially gave the appearance of a flat roof, it did not comply with the DMC. On June 17th, staff met with the project's designer and the property owner to discuss the project and explained that while gable while the that while the gable roof would remain, using new parapits in front of the gables and flat roofed additions created the visual impression of a flat roofed

home, which results in staff's determination that the project is subject to the flat roof provisions of the DMC, specifically 9312.08 B20. The applicant asserted that the parapit does not constitute a flat roof because the gable roof remains structurally intact and disagreed with staff's assessment. Staff explained that the application of the DMC R1 development standards and design guidelines can be appealed to and considered by the planning commission. Furthermore, since staff's comments were based on the plan shown at the counter and via email and no formal application submitt had been made, staff advised applicant to submit a building permit application with plans which would undergo preliminary review from the planning division before fees are collected. On July I'm sorry, on June 25th, the city received a building permit application to initiate the permitting process. On July 8th, the director of community development issued a determination letter to the applicant affirming staff's decision regarding the proposed project and issues of compliance with the DMC and design guidelines. On July 15th, the property owner and design consultant submitted an appeal of the director's determination letter to the city clerk. All right. So on this slide, um, we're going to get into more details about the proposed roof form and pitch. So the facade remodel includes an alteration in the roof lines. This image shows a proposed roof plan with the varying roof styles colorcoded. The home's existing roof design is characterized with intersecting gable roofs with a 312 roof pitch. As proposed, the project has three distinct roof styles. The green shows the existing gable roof for the breezeway garage and a portion of a bedroom which would remain unchanged and visible from the public rideway. Blue shows the proposed additions for

the foyer, bathroom, and living room expansion, which are designed to include a flat roof with a quarter in to 12 in roof pitch um with an additional 12 in parapit. The yellow shows the remaining portions of the dwelling would remain with the existing gable roof. However, a new 47inch parapit wall would be added to the elevations which would screen and obscure the gable roof resulting in the appearance of a flat roof. The following slides um summarize staff's determination of the project's compliance with the DMC and design guidelines. The first standard and corresponding code section in staff's determination is to use 360deree architecture and maintain design consistency throughout the project design. The project consists of inconsistent design styles that incorporate a combination of the existing gable roofs, new flat roofs for the proposed additions, and new parapit walls to conceal portions of the existing gable roof. As a result, the overall appearance is a mix of gable and flat roof styles lacking consistency in architectural design. The following um sorry lacking consistency in architectural design. So that was that first um row in that table. Uh the following standard and code section is to design additions with materials, roof forms and architectural styles consistent with the principal red uh structure. The overall appearance of the proposed design does not utilize the existing prominent roof form and pitch. Again, the proposed design lacks consistency as it mixes differing roof styles that do not create a cohesive

architectural design. Although the proposed design incorporates three distinct roof styles, only two, the gable and flat roof design elements will appear from the public rideway. The code requires that roof alterations either one match the existing home or two be consistent throughout the entire structure. The proposed design satisfies neither of the above referenced DMC sections. Oh, I wrong thing. Um, if the roof lines were visually unified to appear as a flat roof, the project would still not comply with the last code section included in staff's determination, which is DMC section 9312.08b20, 08 B20, which limits flat roofs to blocks where at least 30% of homes on the block feature a flat roof design or if the home or or if the existing home already has a flat roof. Because the subject property is located on a corner lot, it is part of two blocks, both sides of Clansancy Avenue between Apple and Sheridel Avenue, and Apple by Street between Clansancy Avenue and Hen Avenue. The homes on the two qualifying blocks all have pitched roofs and none have a flat roof. So this is an aerial image showing um the again the two blocks and that determination is made by definitions in our code and that's also been included in the staff report. Um this slide shows the homes on those two blocks and as you can see they all have a pitched roof and again none of the homes here have a flat roof. So therefore not meeting the 30% uh requirement. All right. Uh the determination letter

sent to the applicant affirms staff's determination regarding non-compliance with the R1 development standards and the um and per the alternative review process which we discussed at the beginning outlined in the design guidelines um found that the project also does not comply with the residential design goals and principles. Specifically, residential design goals and principles number eight is not met because the project lacks internal consistency of style as it showcases different roof styles within the same design. And again, we just talked about it, but DMC section 9312.08 08 B20 flat roofs is also not met because a flat roof for the additions and the use of parapits to conceal the existing gable give the appearance of a flat roof and therefore must comply with the development standards applicable to designs that incorporate flat roofs. Okay. As proposed, the project does not comply with the development standards and the design guidelines. To comply with the design guidelines and the development standards, the project must revise the proposed roof alteration to be consistent with the home's existing architectural style or change the roof style of the entire structure as long as it results in one cohesive uh roof style. However, a flat roof is not permitted as the property does not meet the locationational requirements for that roof type. Okay. So, so far in this presentation, we have reviewed staff's determination and the director's determination. Uh, the planning commission should consider the appellance justification and staff's response when determining whether to affirm the director decision, modify the director decision, or reverse the

director's decision, which as we can see through this um flowchart. So the following slides summarize appellants justifications as outlined in the appeal letter and staff's responses. So here the first one the appellence states that the design is categorized as a 21st century modern which is present which is present in the city's design guidelines. Therefore the determination that the proposed architectural style is not allowed is not correct. Uh staff's response is that staff's determination is not related to an architectural style, but rather regarding the use of multiple styles of roofs, including flat roofs. 21st century modern is an identified architectural style in the design guidelines and is allowed in the city. Additionally, the design guidelines state that uh flat roofs are often a part of but not a prerequisite of 21st century modern style. Homes wishing to utilize a modern 21st century architectural style, specifically with a flat roof, must meet the location requirements for a flat roof and have a consistent roof form and pitch. Um, the appellant also stated that the city has determined that the original architectural style of a home must be preserved. Staff's responses. The design guidelines require that all proposed additions and alterations match, I'm sorry, match the home's existing architectural style. However, the project is not required to retain the existing architectural style if the entire structured is redesigned to reflect a single consistent architectural style including uniform

roof form uniform roof forms and pitches. The project as proposed is designed to reflect two inconsistent roof forms and pitches. The the appellent also states that the city has pro approved projects with flat roofs in areas where 30% of the homes on that block do not have a flat roof. The appellant provided examples included on the slide. Staff's response is that the R1 development standards and design guidelines were adopted in 2021. Projects that were already in a review process were with the city were were reviewed under the previous R1 development standards which did not have restrictions on flat roofs.

That's trails out. Uh new construction projects can sometimes take years from beginning to end based on various factors such as availability of labor, materials, changes in design, etc. Therefore, it is plausible that projects that begun designing in 2021 are completing construction today in 2025. Staff confirmed that the examples provided by the appellant that have flat roofs predate the current R1 development standards and design guidelines. Can I can I can you go back to that? Of course. Yes.

So So the second one, I'm familiar with that house on there that happens to be our mayor's house. Okay. Our former mayor's house on there. The one on Downey Avenue. So that started in 2022. So the difference So that's the year after the 2021 ordinance was passed or the the um design uh codes and so forth. So then what makes it different is it the little swervy things on the roof that make it for year 2023 when it was finally built and make it flat. The second house on straight across. So the year 2022 was already after the fact and then on 2023 so all they did was take off the little swervy thing and make it flat. So that's okay.

I'm just asking. Thank Thank you, Chair Gara. I have a response for that one. So the address that's being referenced is 123 Downey Avenue, right?

Uh which is attachment G uh of the staff report. Um, this home shows uh per the applicant's uh letter that it was built and remodeled in 2023. I have a little background on this and that I've I've done research on this for other reasons. Um, I think also when I was assessing and uh developing what's today being called as a director's determination, which is really uh on behalf of staffs in all of our work together collaboratively and interpreting our code and design guidelines. Um, I I have a Google map in front of me and I know you can't see it, but this house in particular was originally had uh parapit walls um as the original home design. uh the parapit walls uh in let me see I'm looking at here the the parapit walls um had more of a Spanish look and don't quote me on the architectural style but had uh as the original design had were not squared off maybe that's the easiest way to do it the remodel squared off those parapit walls um but behind it are uh flat roof areas and in front of it It used to have uh little tile shed roof as an architectural feature which have been now uh removed um and become just windows. So my short answer maybe to that long answer is that the original design included parapit walls that were not squared off and and the the pictures that the applicant provided those parapit walls have been squared off of the top but were existing parapit walls. Okay, that that still begs my original question though. Is it why is 2023 why is it a flat roof allowed there? Does it meet all the other requirements from the block and all that other stuff?

Maybe to add on to my answer is the flat roof was not being created. The flat roof was an existing condition and the parapit walls were in existing condition. Uh the parapit walls were not horizontal on top. They had curvatures. Those curvatures have been removed but the parapods walls were not introduced. The flat roof was in existing condition. Okay. Question if I may, Mr. Sure. Does the DMC clarifies what constitutes a flat roof?

Yes, Commissioner. There is a definition within the DMC section. Actually, we were just looking at it. I can read to you directly. It defines flat roof as a roof nearly horizontal and level. And there's also a figure within the DMC which basically um it doesn't have any kind of a slope or a pitch. Typically, and this is not a part of the definition, but typically flat roofs will still have a little bit of a slope to them for the purposes of draining water uh off of the roof.

Okay. All right. Okay. Um the appel the appellant also stated that the city is incorrect in determining that there are three different roof styles and asserts for visual purposes there are only two distinct roof types the existing gable and the new flat roofs. Further the proposed flat roofs are not visible from the public rightway. Staff's response is having two roof styles does not comply with the R1 development standards and design guidelines which do not permit more than one roof style on a single family structure. If the project were to propose one consistent roof style that was not flat, then it would comply with the development standards and the design guidelines. Lastly, the subject property is a corner lot. The both the gable and the flat roof are visible from two streets. Clancy Avenue and Apple by Street.

Could Could you go back to that one that overlay photo with the different colors? Of course. Um Yeah, that right there. Okay. So, so the blue is flat roof. This is under the new design to be right. The wish design to be. Yes. So the flat is the only one that we have a problem with because you got the gable with the par plate the yellow and the the green is already allowed and so is the yellow I guess because you have the parade. Well so we're only talking about the flat roof part of it. Chair if I could uh

go ahead try and take a stab at it and then Marissa can uh help also. The areas of concern, so to speak, are the flat roofs, the portion in blue that you mentioned,

but within the portion in blue, it should be noted that the zoning code does allow for open patios or unenclosed patios to have flat roofs. So there are certain portions within the blue areas that are actually part of the living area and only those portions um are something that the commission needs to consider. The other topic that the commission needs to consider is the portion that is shown in yellow. That portion currently consists of a gabled roof but it will be concealed behind a parapet. So as seen from the street that would look like a flat roof only because it'll be behind a parapit. So that is something that the commission

and we're okay with that is what I'm saying. That is the question. It's okay to have it as long even though it's concealed. We're okay with it. It meets code. That is the that is the item for your deliberation tonight. It is the staff's opinion that it gives the appearance of a flat roof. And if the commission so agreed or opined tonight that that in fact meets the definition of a gabled roof and therefore can continue um to meet the design guidelines as well as the zoning code. That would be your determination to make.

Could you go back to one more photo before? Okay. So you have the majority of it. Could you use that as the majority of it is, you know, versus the entirety of it?

Uh, Chair Gary, I think that's an excellent question. Um, that that is um that would be subject to that that would be a subjective interpretation of the code and I think that's exactly what we're have encouraged the applicant to file this appear for deliberation by the planning commission. Um I think we can staff can assist in expanding that discussion if the commission so wishes. I think that's a very relevant point uh to elaborate on and discuss. Um I know there are additional slides that Marissa has. Go ahead. Go ahead. Um I I don't want to stop your excellent I think starting of deliberations but um I also want to give the

You're the one that told us. Well, no. Well, because I I know it's a lot to take in and you'll people I I will forget by the end. I also want to make sure that the applicant has the opportunity to introduce um I think that's uh the commission can be fair and look at staffs and also the applicant has uh relevant points for the uh commission to discuss. Thank you. Okay. I didn't. You had finished that one, I think. Yeah, I think you're on this one. Yeah.

Thank you. All right. Uh so, um the appeal of the director's determination can be considered by the planning commission and is subject to the findings included in resolution number 25-452. Um a uh as discussed in the staff report and in this presentation, um findings A, B, and C are not met. uh a specifically because the proposed facade remodel and the additions to the existing single family home are not in compliance because the project introduces various roof styles leading to a disjointed and inconsistent appearance. The proposed additions do not reflect the existing architectural style or roof form. As a result, the project fails to either achieve an overall cohesive architectural design or remain consistent with the character of the existing home. For B, the proposed project is not in conformity with the DMC because the project um with the different roof styles does not follow a singular architectural st character and style and the addition does not utilize the characteristics of the existing home. Um, as we discussed, flat roof style uh is proposed for the the additions, whereas the code only allows for flat roofs for open patios or when the existing home is entirely flat roofed. Furthermore, the code only allows for the utilization of flat roofs within the city if 30% of the existing block has similar characteristics. As shown, the block where the subject property is located is characterized by pitched roof styles. And finally, C is not met because the subject property is um because the subject property is located on a corner lot at the intersection of Clansancy and Apple Street and homes

along these streets are predominantly characterized by pitched roofs. In contrast, the proposed project introduces a flat roof for the cert for certain portions of the house, which is inconsistent with the established roof lines of the surrounding neighborhood. Um, as a result, the proposed structure would not maintain visual continuity or compatibility with the adjacent properties in terms of roof line form and architectural character. And that again that is um the specific findings that we would need to meet A, B and C uh that that we found were not met. Um so per DMC section 9806 the planning commission can either affirm the director's decision, modify or reverse. Uh affirming the decision would result in the revision of the proposed roof alteration to be consistent with the home's existing architectural style or to change the roof style of the entire structure as long it is as long as it results in a cohesive single roof style again but not a flat roof for reasons we've discussed. Um reversing the original decision would result in uh approval of the applicant's proposed design and then we have the modify uh which you all can discuss today. Uh staff has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with SQUA and determined that the appeal is not subject to SQUA because it it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment as there is no possibility it will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not a project as defined in the SQL guidelines. Uh a public notice was issued for this item on July 24th, 2025. The notice of the pending public hearing before the planning commission was published in the

Downey Patriot and mailed to all tenants and property owners within 500 ft of the subject site. Uh staff has received no correspondence in response to this public hearing notice. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution 25-4052 denying the appeal and affirming the determination made that by the director of community development that the proposed roof on property located at 9254 Clansancy Avenue zoned R1 does not comply with the Downey Municipal Code and single family residential guidelines. This concludes staff's presentation. I am available for any questions. Thank you. Okay. Does the planning commission have any other questions of staff? I

Miss Monto. Yes. Can you go back slide 39, please? Of course. Okay. This one. Um, I want to take a picture of him with the double glasses. I like that, sir. Sorry.

The one that specifies on the left side where the DMC uh uh states and what uh what the applicant I put down 39, but I could be off maybe 37 if you don't mind. So, so this is where the appellence um section starts. Was it before this? Do you think you have a couple more? I think that one that you had yes or no kind of thing. There a lot of graphs. Oh, go back this one.

That's fine. Okay. I I have um question. Um, and I asked this question to the staff earlier. Um, the the pitch, the roof pitch that the applicant or the architect is designing, you mentioned is quarter inch per foot. Yes. Which is about 2%. Mhm. Um, is that considered flat roof? I believe sir in the building code the 2% slope is considered a flat roof. Yes. At 2%.

Correct. So if the applicant would say I'm going to do half inch per foot he's no longer at 2% he's greater than 2%. Hypothetically speaking right hypothetically speaking the minimum requirement for building code for the water runoff is a 2%. So anything greater would be classified closely as a flat roof. Um do we know what is the existing pitch of the roof right now? Is it 3 to 12? Correct. 312 3 in to 12 in or 3 in to 12t? No. 12 in 1 foot. Are you sure? Yes. Okay. So it's a rise over the run. It's 12

inches versus three inches. Yes. Okay. Um, can you go back to slide 30, please? This is slide 30. 30. 30. 30. This is it. Oh, sorry. I got to put on my glasses. Put your other glasses on. Right. Right. So, this is the roof in question that has a quarter inch per foot. So, this is the proposed, right? This is a a rendering, I'm assuming.

Correct. Yes, this is a rendering. And these are proposed elevations. Um, so yes, this is this shows the what we described as the three distinct proposed styles. One of which is existing, which is the green highlighted area, which is the 312 gable roof. Okay. And and and the parapit wall, is it the one on the right side of the roof I'm looking at here? You referring to the parapit wall? So the parapit um is present both in the yellow and the blue um highlighted areas. Does it show on the top top photo?

Oh, correct. Yes, it does. So on the rendering we see the slope above the garage and then a portion which is the breezeway that will be converted into livable. That's gabled. Um and then right next to it um that is again it it's combination. It's mixed of existing gable with parapit or flat roof with parapit. But everything we see um to the right of that existing gable is uh a parapit wall. Okay.

That light is the parapit. Okay. Where is it? Oh, I see. Yes. This is the gable right here existing. And then this is all parapit. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. You just clarified it for me. Yeah. All right. I've never used the laser. Okay. Anybody else have any further questions of staff? I Okay. I do, Mr. Chair.

Sure. Um, Miss Montero, would you just for clarificate uh clarification purposes, will you talk and discuss a little bit more and elaborate more on the minimum 30% that is required? Yes, great question. So, um, typically, uh, well, 30% of a block needs to have a flat roof in order for, uh, alteration in roof style, a remodel for a specific property to propose a flat roof.

So, when we're looking at this property, um, this is on a corner. So, we evaluated two blocks. So that's this portion here and then this portion here on Clancy and then sorry again this portion on Apple buy. Yeah, at least the yellow ones right there. So there are about uh or not about there are 15 homes um not including the subject property um outlined here and shown here. So 30% would be five homes. So if five homes on these two blocks uh had a flat roof, then the proposal uh for a flat roof would be allowed.

Okay. The do we know if anyone else has applied for a flat roof concept in let's say the last 12 months? Is it a trend that is where the city in that area perhaps is headed? And um are we not discouraging redevelopment and being more modern and more more of a um modern look um community?

We're all fighting over that question. Um and I see Miss Velasquez over there smiling. Um we're not fighting in a in a good sense. I think that's a a excellent discussion and a very uh important discussion that we've had internally with staff and uh during our meeting with the applicant. Um we also had a a a premeating with our chair Gara because uh there is as I said in my introduction there is a lot of investment that's uh being proposed in this project. uh design is very subjective. Um if I just take my community development director hat for a brief moment, if that's even possible, uh it is it is a it is a very um how do I say it? It's it's it's it's a nice design, maybe just to put it nicely. Uh but putting my community development director back on, we are charged with our codes and our very lengthy uh design guidelines that have a lot of detail that we're trying to address an issue uh upon adoption in 2021 and the years prior uh where there is uh and I explained this to the applicant at that time there was community input and that was part of the staff report where uh mansionization was being addressed uh by staff and by uh city council at the time. Um and there was a feeling of of wanting to keep uh Downey uh and the designs that are the five prominent design uh styles of Downey uh to keep them alive, if you will. And that's what that was what initiated the design guidelines and ultimately that was part of what was adopted in the design guidelines. And as

part of that, uh, flat roofs were discouraged. Uh, now to fast forward to your last part of your question is, uh, do we want to discourage it? Uh, have times changed? I think those are questions that the applicant brought up to staff that are again a good discussion. Um if times have changed and if there is a desire to change the design guidelines, we would need to have that policy direction by our city council uh because it is a citywide uh action and a change in course of direction that the city would be taking collectively. Um however uh we did encourage the applicant to apply for this appeal because there is subjectivity as to what is a flat roof and I think commissioner psycholy was bringing that up is what is the what is the literally what does somebody think when somebody thinks of a flat roof you think of it absolutely flat uh what is the building code consider for a definition well the building code technically doesn't have a definition of a flat roof but we know that flat roofs when they're proposed, they do need to have a 2% slope in order to allow water to drain in order to maintain the integrity of of the roof. And that's in the building code application. We also know that flat roofs um in the sense of design guidelines are defined as flat because visually when you see it from far away you won't be able to tell there's a 2% drainage. Most people just think of it as flat is very different from a gable roof where you have a gable wall resulting from two intersecting planes. Uh so because there is so much subjectivity uh we believe that the questions being

asked by the commissioners now do contribute to uh there possibly being a greater discussion beyond just with staff saying no to this. uh is there is this such a unique situation in that there's a gable existing behind a parapit and that in itself was not the same definition of flat roof that was being referenced in the design guidelines and so again my answers tend to be a little in the longer period because I think there's a lot of content to digest but that is really the difficult discussion here before the planning commission of and again I encourage us to get to the applicant. Uh, but I think I don't want to stall discussion because I think they're very um good clarifications that the commission needs in order to fully uh vet this this discussion and this issue.

Thank you, Miss Won. One more question and this is my last one to Miss Monttero. Um just to clarify within all the neighbors um has no one has complained, no one has submitted objection to um this project or um or we have a uh folks that are against it. No, you're correct. We haven't received any uh correspondence against the project. Thank you. And and we I asked this question earlier and we send it out to the 500 foot radius like we do for correct property owners and everything. has been sent the notification to them. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And if I may add that there's we also have not uh reached the public hearing portion of today's meeting, I I know there's potentially an audience member, so that would be part of public input if there is additional.

Okay. All right. So, before I I uh open the public hearing, uh any public commit any planning commissioners want to disclose any prehering sites, pre-hering discussions that the commissioners may have had about the project? I think uh Vice Chair Uva and I disclosed that we happened to meet each other there. We exchanged the sandwich through the window. No, we didn't. No, we didn't. But thanks, Mr. Chair. Uh Mr. Guzman, the applicant actually uh uh called me uh mid June. Um he um uh shared that he was not happy with the progress within our city and um I listened. Um I offered no opinion. Um, I've never met the gentleman until I see him in the audience today. Um, yesterday I did drive by the site. Um, I was very curious and um, that's it. Um, I'm sorry, one more thing, Mr. Chair. After the phone call from Mr. Guzman, he did offer to send an email and he shared very uh, pretty much the same renderings that we're all looking at today.

Okay. All right. That's it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much, Andre. Um, so now I'm going to go ahead and open up the public hearing if we have no further questions for for you. So the public hearing is now open. Will the applicant or the representative please come forward to give testimony? This is forward. Okay. Thank you.

Good evening uh planning commission chair vice uh chair and members and everyone on here in this uh auditorium. Uh my name is Eduardo Guzman. I'm from EG and Associates Design Consultants. I've been doing architecture for the past 23 years. Uh I've been in city of Downey for the past 20 years. Uh you know, helping the community, helping residents, helping commercial buildings, uh residential. Um so, um the case here regarding the the subject property basically uh we we are proposing a flat roof uh which is not it's being visibly um blocked by parapites on the new additions. The the other part is not considered really a flat roof. It's considered a overhang when you got to the porch areas and things like that. That's considered an overhand of the roof. It doesn't have the visibility of the whole structure being flat. Um you know, you have consistency of different volumes and architecture styles. So the question is where we draw the line on on the design you know as an uh as doing architecture. Uh do we have uh one simple roof or we have a variety of different uh roof styles. Um I did submitted a couple of uh images renderings to to help uh find a solution to this project and u so so far that's the reason we're here. Um, I want to thank everyone for for giving me the opportunity to speak at this uh meeting and and and hopefully we can come to a resolution.

Just really quick, I'm Brenda Velasquez, the owner. Um, I have been in this community for 28 years. So, I own another property um in another part of Downey. And so, um, I appreciate Miss Velasquez, can you come closer to the microphone, please? Thank you.

So, I I appreciate the opportunity to even come here. And um it was a recommendation from Miss Wr. So I I I do appreciate that even though it kind of sounds like a it's a fight. Uh we we know that it's not. So um I'm hoping that that you know transparency and and you know you viewing our point of view will uh allow us to proceed with the project. Um I've worked hard to get this property um just like I work hard for my other property. Um, it's not a mansion, but it's it's where I plan to retire. And so, I'm putting a lot of effort into into staying in this community. Um, like I said, I've been here for 28 years. Um, my kids graduated from Downey High School. Um, so I, you know, I want to stay here. I want to stay in this community and I want to contribute. I think making this house beautiful, which in my opinion, I think Eduardo's design is quite beautiful, um would encourage the community to, you know, upgrade their homes or, uh, you know, increase the property value. And we are in different times. Um, we're not, you know, I know it was mentioned Downey has a lot of ranch style homes, but we're not in a ranch. We're in 2025. Um, so I hope that you, you know, consider our proposed project to be approved. So, thank you.

Okay. Is there any questions from the Who's who's doing the slides? I'm doing it right here. I have I have Oh, can you go back to that photo, the rendering? Yes. Yeah, that one. Um, I'm sorry, Mr. G. You had something.

No, that's okay. Go ahead. Um I really um no I I've I've managed build commercial buildings for the agencies that I work for where they had actually flat roofs where they had reverse hall crickets and down drains what have you. Um this house is really captures the the um the modern era with the old era and I think it's really fascinating. It would really very very good good work and but maybe you could improvise upon the parapet wall make it slightly shorter and I I understand the the geometry behind it. It looks nice the way the height is. Uh maybe you can approve upon the um a roof pitch on the gable roof so that way you don't have a flat roof. So two 2%. You know what I'm going to make it 2.1%. I'm just speaking hypothetically here. Of course you can have go back to the blackboard and what have you you drawing. Um does the parable wall has to be this high? Can you make it lower? And would you be able to see the existing gable roof? So now what people can see the actual the roof that does not give the appearance of a flat roof.

The the reason for the for the height of the parade which is about uh 3 and 1/2 ft uh that it matches to the top bridge of the of the existing gable. It was to block the the gable roof. So we will have uh the changing the style from from a typical uh uh gable roof to to more a modern look uh aesthetics. Uh that's the reason that we raised up uh I'm proposing to raise the parapit to the top of the ridge to to block the existing roof. Now I I I wasn't trying to demolish the whole house or redesign the whole house. So that's the reason I I have to play with the the existing garage and the breezeway to maintain it at least to you know to have a little bit of the old uh architecture with the new but also give it a new update because obviously this house was built 75 years ago and it hasn't been updated for 75 years. They did some painting, changed the walls as you can see on 20 2012 it was pretty rund down. It was updated. Uh they have the original uh wood shingles. Uh it had windows, it had awnings. Uh so so uh when when the property was purchased by Miss Brenda, um basically it they had done some minor modifications, painting, restockle, remove the the siding on it, but uh it still it needed improvement in order in order to get that to that uh new uh contemporary modern look. Now as far as uh the differences in roof then uh you know there is there has to be diversity in the different types of roofs as it show in the rendering uh of the root plant. The the reason is to to have some sort of design not just to have a square box a shoe box that looks squared off. You know that's the reason I have different heights on parapits. have one higher which is focused more on the entrance and then the rest of the house

is lower and it's about a foot or 6 in difference on regards to the parapits. Um the back part is it's part of the the extension of the living room uh and and it has a canal liver roof to cover the walkway in front of the living room and then in the front it's the same same uh same style of the back basically. It just has a can of livered overhang eve basically of the flat roof over the over over the walkway over the porch to prevent you know when people come in or guest you know they don't if they're if they're knocking the door they're not getting under the you know they're protected from the rain. I want to ask a question following up on that with you, sir. It I don't think the paraple's the problem, right? We're okay with the paraple. It's the the flat part of it. So, the paraple covering the gable. Am I reading that wrong from staff? We're okay with that.

Thank you, chair. A staff's determination letter uh does does indicate that the parapit with the gable behind it is not consistent with the city's code and design guidelines.

Oh, is not. So that is subject to um the planning commission's deliberation tonight. In addition to that, there's a small portions of flat roofs that are about maybe 2% uh that are in limited areas where the applicant has indicated that those are more like overhangs. However, I should note that in staff's presentation, uh, Miss Montera did note that the some of those areas are habitable areas and then the outer portions of the flat roof are more porch uh type of overhangs. Um, those port non-habitable porch overhangs are permitted by the zoning code. Uh, so those could remain as flat. However, the habitable areas are designed currently as flat, meaning uh flat with drainage per the building code. And let me let me clear. One of my arguments was that I follow we're not trying to come up with a different design guideline or anything. We're trying to follow the the city guidelines. And then one of my arguments is and in your uh R1 zone uh design guidelines. You show a picture of a modern home and it has different types of roofs. If you look at it, and it's right there on the on the on the screen, you have an arch roof, you have a a a slope roof, and then you have the the the modern look, which is a square box, and then you have a a difference. So, I did address it to to to planning regarding that because I'm still following the guidelines of the city except that where where uh the staff couldn't make me uh give me a resolution, that's the the point that we're here for, you know. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant before we can go start having some deliberations? Well, I want to hear from anybody else too.

So, Oh, okay. Go ahead. Questions of the applicant. Okay. So, um the way it's proposed now, you've created this set of plans. You know what the cost of the construction is more or less going to be. I'm assuming you have a general idea. If let's just say hypothetically that this didn't go your way tonight and you had to redo everything. Are we talking a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of it's obviously going to be major changes to the roof or is it just aesthetically you don't want the normal traditional roof? You want these different looks. I don't know. Walk me through your thoughts. So, so we did,

you know, if I just may interject quickly. Um, I think that question is well intentioned, but I would just add that's not a pertinent factor for the decision tonight um to the commission. Um, so um that's beyond the scope of the commission's consideration for this particular decision.

Couldn't they couldn't they give us I I disagreed in the standpoint that I want to hear what their thoughts are. I I understand. Well, wait a second. You you give me a dirty look and you haven't even heard what I'm about to say. So I understand the first part of it but the second part is you know to walk us through the thought process of the changes that you would have to make. Uh that is pertinent. I think I I don't know how it's not pertinent just through

I do not mind answering the question if I volunteer the information. Um yes of course it would cost more money. Um it would take more time for Eduardo to redesign. Um, we would have to discuss what look I want. Um, so yes, the the money is an issue right now. I I can't move into the home. I'm carrying, you know, two mortgages. Um, so that that is an issue for me. Um, and yes, aesthetically, I mean, I really do love this design. I It just feels like I'm so limited with a property that I own. It's my home. It's where I'm going to be. It's where my grandchildren are going to swim in that pool. Um, and so I Yeah, it is also aesthetics. I I love the design. I think a lot of other home owners in the area would be encouraged

to follow and to beautify, you know, that area even more. So, thank you. Thank you. And I was just want to bring up a point that, you know, time is money. So we started this process uh approached the city on May the 25th of 28th I believe. Uh we had you know we we reached out to the counter and then after that so to today's date is already two months lost. So, Miss Velasquez has been paying a mortgage for the last two months, you know, the more basically, but if we didn't needed to read the design and everything, it will be losing again going through back through planning and going through the reviewing and everything uh time wise.

Thank you. You have a question. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Um, Mr. Mr. Buzzman, you you mentioned earlier that you it's your opinion that the 21st century modern style that's being promoted by our city is pretty much what you're bringing to the table, three different types of roofs. Um I am curious when you brought this to planning and that's your opinion of of of seeing both designs. What was their response? Right. three roofs which is 21st modern and it's been adopted. What has been their response to you?

Well, their response basically said that the whole overall look of the project was aesthetically a flat roof. It looked like a flat roof. So, my my contradiction to that was like, well, I'm following the design lines. You have a picture there on your on your on your guidelines that it shows a modern home with square box, flat roof. It has different type of roofs in there. You have an arch, you have an engle 3 to2 or 4 to12 roof. And there's other properties here that have the same aesthetics. So I was trying to resolve it before we even got to planning commission, but it never went somewhere because obviously uh uh mis withdrawn or the staff I think they they just didn't want to take that decision. They said that I found a loophole on the on the on on the guidelines or on the on the municipal code. So that's the reason we're here.

Thank you. I I would like to hear from uh Miss Witro perhaps. Yes. Just maybe to quickly summarize what was staff's reaction. Uh staff's uh initial assessment of the project is what was included in the staff report that the parapit wall uh that is uh proposed to be built in front of a gable roof uh conveys an appearance of a flat roof. Uh the MO I'm sorry to interrupt, but it's not a flat roof. It's just the appearance. Correct. So that subjectivity uh is not outlined in the code for the staff to take that li that liberty

to uh go against the spirit of what the design guidelines was trying to prevent. I'll just be clear. Uh it's it's not uh staff's discretion to broadly reinterpret something that we know for certainty that was uh going to be approved on a limited basis only on the condition when flat roofs would be allowed only on the condition when the blocks would be at 30% flat roofs existing. uh because staff doesn't have that liberty to exercise that discretion that is uh before the planning commission. Um so uh as much as we are in the spirit of expediting and assisting and not wanting people to pay to mortgages, that doesn't please us as staff either. Uh we did our best to expedite it as a public hearing item to today. As you know that requires staff to prepare a very comprehensive determination letter with findings that we can then include in the staff report. We were able to quickly prepare the staff report because the letter that we provided basically became the staff report. We were thinking of that how do we not delay this multiple months. Uh so uh the Mr. Guzman made reference to staff encourage them to submit this appeal and that is correct. I've I've been transparent at that with the planning commission uh because the discussion before the planning commission and I think uh chair Ggera uh commented on this prior and other commissioners is uh is and um chair uh commissioner Legaspi is there is no flat roof behind the parapit but it gives the illusion. Now, can the planning commission have a discussion as a body and make some type of interpretation? Possibly. But that is what tonight's

item is about. Thank you for that, Miss RTO. And just one more. I'm sorry, Gara. Just to clarify for for for my understanding that the overall issue today is not whether or not we we have a flat roof. It's clear that we're we have a flat roof, right, Mr. Guzman? Yes. Okay. So, it's just the appearance and other than the we're not we don't have the 30% of the community building such a a project. Is there any other issues?

If I can uh simplify it. Uh there's two discussion items before the commission broadly. It's a very long staff report. One is does a is a planning commission in concurrence or do you disagree that a gable behind a a parapit wall is it a flat roof or is it not? If the planning commission interprets that is not a flat roof then that is one part of the item before you. The second part is the areas that are actually, if you can bring up the PowerPoint that Miss Montero bride up is the areas that are in blue. There's some areas that are in blue that are actually designed as 2% flat roofs. That is the second part for your deliberation is is what how how to interp one more back. One more back.

Uh one more back for this one is the one that and so and hopefully that that simplifies this very complex presentation and uh

Okay. All right. We're going to we're going to move on. We can have the deliberations in a moment. Um okay. Thank you so much for that. Appreciate it. Anything else you want to add if there's any u rebuttal? So, uh, may staff confirm there's any, uh, correspondence, uh, in favor opposition? I think we did that before and you said no. Uh, there's a lady in the audience. Uh, ma'am, we have a public hearing. Would you like to say something? No. Okay. All right. So, nobody here to speak in favor or opposition with that. So, um, with that, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and go into deliberation. So, the public hearing is now closed. So, it's now time for us to deliberate. And I just wanted to say a couple things. You know, the mansionization thing, okay, that that you know, the the cat's out of the bag, okay, that we've known that for years. Um, so when we did in 2021, we the city, I had nothing to do with it. Uh finally we're trying to make some design rules on this and and what what to do to continue the different variations of the neighborhood. Um so in the the applicants to me examples are very valid. It's hard to say with all those houses being flat roofs you can't have that. But it is the 30% neighborhood thing is also it is part of the code. That's where we we have this issue here. If you drive down the street, you have a mansion and you have a ranch style just down the street from them. You have big houses and you got little houses on there. They all have gable. They don't have flat roof, but they're totally different styles. You turn that corner there and there's it's like da and then the the thing on there. So, you know, there's already a discrepancy in there. What I'm trying to see if there's any way that within the

code on there that we can reverse this decision in my opinion I think there might be certain things that we can do. Uh I think that's one of them is the gable behind it not considered flat. Um I feel for it because those examples of those homes are very valid. It's like what do you mean I can't have this? There's 150 of those homes in Downey U and so forth. So maybe we can consider that that we saw that maybe the majority of the roof is flat. Maybe that's something we could interpret it from that. So to allow that to happen. So maybe um those are deliberations on there. I think the gable behind a paraplate would you know also is is a compromise that we might be able to do. I don't know. I'm just saying the only part that's bad is the blue part. The yellow and the green are good, you know. So that's more than the majority is all good. So I don't know. I'm just I I'm trying to find it. I think it's a beautiful home, beautiful design. Uh how do we how do we keep it in keeping the integrity of what our rules in our code? Um I mean to change the code is not going to happen. So how do we find how do we do a a standing a finding here tonight and they're within that? So maybe that's one discussion. If the majority of it that's silent in the code, if the majority of it is is, you know, is not flat, is that that okay?

Right. And and portions of that blue section um are within the code that are okay. So, not even all of that blue is in violation. So, I think we should my opinion is we should try to put our heads together and come up with a way to to reverse the existing decision, right? because the majority of it does comply. Yeah, it's a small portion that doesn't.

Could we Could you put that one there where the Yeah, there that I think that's important for us to see. It's like Yeah, this is the one that I keep going down there. So, because part of the blue there that we're looking at it already conforms because it's outside. Okay. So, it doesn't come into play. So, I think am I correct on that, SW? We had talked about it that part of this blue here, it's hard to talk about, but part of that blue there and part of the blue up there over there are are outside. They're just roofs, right? So, that's considered okay by the code. It's not living area, right? No, it's not living area. That's what I think. Yeah, Cherry, you're correct. And I'm trying to do with this laser pointed it. Yeah.

Identify the areas you're talking about. So, this section here is uh an open patio. Okay. and that may have a flat roof within the zoning code. Similarly, this portion here is um also open. It is unenclosed and may have a flat roof within the zoning code. Some areas of concern were this part of the proposed expansion which is part of the living room and then this part is I think a bathroom uh expansion and this one is part of an enclosed um home expansion as well.

Where where's the front of the house? The front of the house is here. This is um the front of the house. Right. Right. So the green section is is the part that it's it's that looks that looks pitched. That one's not flat. Even in all the drawings that looks pitched, right, chair Gary, the green area is existing gable that would remain. Okay. That that that area is existing gable. Yes. And and the yellow is covered is gable. It's is cable but gable, but it's covered by a the plate.

Yes. Jared, this is also the existing gable roof. It will cover it will be covered by a parapet. If you can follow along with my laser pointer here.

So you have you have I don't know what just looking at it. You're looking at 70% of it is going to stay from the pitches and everything else. You're putting a paraplate to cover the front part, but the majority of it is is is okay right now. Right. So it's the new part on there. So, can't we use a majority rule and say, "Hey, if the majority is not flat on there, I mean, I know the appearance of it, but you saw I I I don't know. I was looking at some of the the examples there." So, the appearance still looks like it that it's flat, but it's not really. And we're saying it's okay. And we did that in 2023. Correct.

So, after 2 years afterwards, and we didn't bother to look at the 30%. I mean, it's before your time. I'm not blaming anybody and so forth, but I just look at those things and I'm like, how can we not say that a parap plate covering up the gable is still not flat because we're just hiding it. Correct.

Chair G, I just want to clarify that the example provided that has a parapit from 2023 had an existing parapit that and a flat roof that was not a new condition that was added during the remodel. I I uh maybe just to add to additional context to aid in your deliberation as a collective commission uh if the planning commission uh I I heard the mention the word mentioned of reverse if the desire of the commission is to reverse staff's decision uh the commission would during deliberation uh provide justification ideas of why uh you are interpreting for example the gable roof behind the parapit not a flat roof. You have that discussion. You in that discussion will take notes. Uh you can then direct us to come to a future meeting to come with an alternate resolution to reverse staff's decision and to elaborate on the commission's deliberation on your new findings. Um and uh during that time if the applicant wishes to proceed with the plan check process and pay the fee they could do so at risk uh knowing that we would come at the next planning commission meeting with the revised resolution. But we do need the commission collectively to continue deliberation and if you so desire provide the justifications for us to then take those notes and be able to come back with an alternate resolution. I just wanted to provide you so you can help us

if that's the desire. Okay, that's fair enough. I'd like to hear from the other commissioners. And what are your thoughts on there? I got a lot of thoughts here. Okay. You're a smart man. You should have a lot of thoughts, sir. And and no two glasses are needed for that. You're never going to leave that one. Um I think um what the applicant if if I can ask uh to get closer to the microphone because I'm more than likely staff will be referencing this video u at a future date or maybe not. Um I just want to make sure that we have the proper recording so we can take notes if we need to. Sure. Okay. So uh can can you hear me better now?

It's like I have to extend the microphone. Nonetheless, um I see here a uh a great architect, architectural work. Um and um I believe in Downey for 25 years, 26 years going on 26 years now. I've seen Downey um changing periodically uh to a regular standard home, a ranch style home. And what we see is a rectangular box coming up all over the place. Big huge home set back on all both sides. Nothing. Hardly any green in front or a sides and a box had no shape, no style whatsoever and went on changing. This to me is really looks like a masterpiece from an engineer to an architect. This is really very nice work. Now, going back to the the fact that DMC does not allow or does not prohibit parapit walls, I not that I'm aware of. Um, having the gable roof behind the parable wall at a 3 to2 pitch is a 3 to2 pitch. It's not a flat roof. It's 3 to 12 is 3 to 12, not quarter inch 12. Um, what I see on the other side where the garage is on this rendering is a quarter inch to 12. That constitutes a flat roof. Fine. Maybe we can work around that. And I think the the heritage in Downey has been changing dramatically for the last 20 years or 25 years. Modern homes are coming in whether we like it or not. Changes are coming to Downey. We have

new entrepreneurs. New people want to live in here. They want to be different than the regular house next door to them. They want something extraordinary. They want something different. They want something live. This is really very nice. Why we are not allowing to do that? Besides 110,000 120,000 people in Downey, you're not going to have every single house like this on every block. Maybe as a matter of fact, on Sua Avenue and Arrington, there's a similar house like this. It's a white house just like almost like that. It's got the gable roof on the back. It's got the front parapit walls and it's got the glass garage. It's beautiful. And I think it's time for us to move forward with the era and um make minor changes to this design. And if we have to do a um another um discussion regarding what we need to do for a future city of Downey with the city council, why don't we do that? Allowing this style of homes um wherever it needs to be.

Right. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Hector. I agree uh just with Mr. Sakali sense that we do have times are changing. Could you speak into the microphone or I don't know if it's on? Is it on? No, it's off. There we go. Okay, there you go.

Yeah. No, I agree with Mr. Sakali. There's a lot of things that that we're evolving there. Times are changing. Uh it is I I agree. It's a beautiful uh design and um I think if there's any any type of modifications or we can have a discussion later or if we can come back um I definitely would hope that they would be in uh in agreement because we want to work with them. Um and I can see as us here we're trying to make it work for them as well is and I agree with this. Okay. Good.

I've pretty much expressed my thoughts. I I think that we need to try to make this work for them and come up with um something that says that it's the vast the greater percentage of what's before us meets the city code sections. It's just a small percentage of this roof line that doesn't and can we work with that and allow that to go forward. Okay. I got one question for for the staff real fast and I'm sorry Mr. Gillespie on there. So looking at this picture right here, the garage roof that's not considered flat, right? Okay. It's not. So because you Mr. Cycle, you said that was flat and I just wanted to clarify it. No, it's a quarter inch per foot. According to the DMC, it's a flat roof.

If I may clarify, Chair Garrett and uh and Commissioner Sychi, the green area on this that one, thank you. That area is is uh staff's assessment. is that that area is gable. We have not called that flat. Okay. So, that's a good thing. The whole the garage is not is not flat. It's the other stuff. It just looks sort of flat, but from a lay person like myself, where the purple walls, but behind the blue section, this where the gable roof is, right? It's this part.

Okay. the the yellow the yellow's got the g the the gable roof with the paraple wall covering it to making it look that way. Okay. So the parable wall it makes it look like it's so so the only part we're really talking about that doesn't comply is the flat roof is the blue the two sections of the blue.

Okay. So that was and then if you look again looking at the over top over top that's not even a word but from the top it's this one here the majority of it vast majority of it complies with code it's a little bit of the a uh the uh the blue okay and the little bit of the blue down below. So, those are the only two sections that don't don't comply because the one on the right, from what I understand, and please correct me, the one on the right, the blue thing sticking out there, that's u that's an open area. So, that one's allowed. No, the other way around. This part is enclosed. Okay. And has a flat roof proposed currently, right?

And it's the one It's this one here that is uh unenclosed. It's open and can have a flat roof. Okay, you see um walls over here, this part is enclosed and per the code should not have a flat roof. But isn't that ironic pitch on that one? You can't see what is that pitch on that one? Uh half oh quarter quarter inch to uh 12 in. That's the one that has quarter inch per foot. Yes, sir.

Okay. So if that to me seems like a very easy fix if the applicant make half inch per foot he's he's no longer flat roof

again commissioner if I can just remind the deliberation is with the commission we can ask questions um I I I think uh staff recognizes that there's room for interpretation so I I don't think we disagree that that the commission could possibly interpret it different from staff. However, um we do ask that you provide us those uh justifications uh maybe perhaps as a statement uh because if you ask us, I think we have to respond based on our letter because that is based on the code and the design guidelines. However, um we understand that this is a topic that's subjective in nature and uh the code maybe to go back to the the question at hand is a flat roof in the Downey Municipal Code is a roof nearly horizontal or level. So I think the code does recognize that a flat roof is not literally zero pitch that it's has a nearly horizontal or sometimes level. Um but I I think the the question that chair Garrett has brought up earlier is uh and I heard also chair UVA vice chair UVA is the yellow area has gables and it has a parapit in front and perhaps to start the commission can look at that and decide collectively if possible whether uh the interpretation should be different. Should it be uh that it's not a flat roof because it has a gable and has a parapin in front. If that's the case, then I think to uh chair Gar's point is in UVA is is there something because the majority I heard the word majority being mentioned. Could the commission then uh continue that discussion about what does majority mean? Again, I'm giving you ideas based on what I've heard. Uh but it really is uh staff's position is still a staff

report, but we do acknowledge there's a high level of subjectivity before you.

So I got a question based on that points on there. So you can't see that from the street. Isn't part of the code is what you can see from the street? Because if that blue part back there, why do we care that it's flat if everything else is pitched and and and you know the yellow and the green and everything else on there? So there's that small portion in the back and yeah, small in the front. But how is that? I don't know. How can we can't you interpret that the majority of it you could see from the street or anything you could see from the street? I I I'm not an expert on the code, but doesn't it have to be seen from the street versus that? I mean, I you know, when I drove around the neighborhoods today, I didn't see too many flat roof houses, but I don't know what I was looking for then either, you know. So I mean what if we there's flat roofs behind the gables that we didn't see and stuff like so all I'm saying I'm trying to make a determination here. So I guess my question is so we can have you know big bold statements of what we want to do for staff to help the staff out. Does it have to be seen by the street to consider it flat?

Chair going back to the way the definition is worded in the zoning code. It doesn't say as seen from a right of way or as seen from the outside. It simply just states that uh oh I don't have it. It it is almost level or flat.

I know that's not the question that you're asking. I'm just limited to reading the definition in the zoning code. I can elaborate a little bit on that question. There is a a Downey municipal code that calls for 360 architecture uh which uh calls for staff when conducting design reviews for us to look at facades, roof forms, pitches, materials and details that are visible from the pelic rideway or abudding properties. It says in addition it should utilize characteristics of the style of the existing approved home. So this is again uh charging staff per the code to look at 360 architecture uh not just public rightway but also adjacent property

but the code has one key word there what's visible okay you said it in your thing if it's not visible does that matter

if sorry commissioner G and uh director if I could add there's another code section so our DMC code sections are comprised multiple areas right uh DMC code section 9312.08 subsection B20. It says for additions, flat roof elements may be incorporated when the existing home is entirely flat roofed. A subsection below that says flat roofs shall be permitted for open patios, meaning open patios are not have area. So unless the entire home is flat, you could have additions and still incorporate a flat roof. I I in staff's opinion this example of co- sections it states that you can't mix two uh roof styles flat and a gable roof unless the entire home is entirely flat

but you could with a pair parapit wall you couldn't hide it isn't that with some of the other ones that we have are hidden the parapit the yellow area with the parapit wall is a question is could they have the gable with the parapit in front of it, right? That's what we need uh the planning commission to determine. If you determine that you don't consider that a flat roof, uh then I think that's what we would need uh discussion from the commission to direct staff that we should interpret it differently. So perhaps I would suggest that the commission focus on the yellow area first and then move on to the blue areas.

Well, okay. So again, just a suggestion. So here's my big bold statement on there. I want to consider if the majority of it is complies that you know you're talking a small portion of that. I want to make sure that we how do we make this compliant if it's a majority is is is on there. So I don't want I mean it's you know I don't want to go back and change and then you're going to go to the council and it's going to take a year and a half to change the code. So the the question is uh if you're asking staff does the yellow area comply uh staff in the in the determination before you in the staff report has determined that it doesn't. Uh so that's staff's answer. However, knowing what I've heard today and from the applicant are we still recording?

Yeah, we're still recording. Thank you. Uh make sure we have the recording. This is a complex discussion I want recorded. Does the commission want to discuss whether or not the yellow area should be considered a flat roof or not? If you don't consider that a flat roof, then you reverse staff's decision and then we then take that and can come back to a future meeting to determine that that is not a flat roof based on the commission's discussion. Well, under any definition, it's not a flat roof, right? It's got it's it's got, you know, it's got a cable. It's it's a cable roof. I mean, gable roof, right?

Again, perhaps um asking staff, I I I really Okay. I think we really are receptive to being asked questions, but I think at this point commission is it's obvious to me that it's it's not a flat roof. You know, I mean, we're going by definition already, so you you don't want me to choke today.

Flat roof. Okay. A level roof is a flat roof. That means if you put your uh your uh level, even though you have a bubble, if it's in the center, that's level. If you have 2% fall, that's not flat. The streets are 2% crosswalk from either side for the drainage. So the roof has a 2% fall from either side for drainage purposes. Where where do you draw the line for a flat roof? Flat roof when the water is not moving anywhere. In this case uh in my opinion 2% is not considered flat roof. It has a slope 2% slope.

So what's the wishes of the planning? What do you guys what do we want to do? In my opinion this is not a flat roof. Okay. All right. And I I would I would agree with my fellow commissioner. I think it's the appearance that is the issue here, but the the roof is not flat. So, uh, as Miss Wet Throne has asked, let's let's start with that being um a discussion. The yellow part, can we all agree it's not flat, right? And therefore, that should not be an issue.

Well, that's never that that's not even a discussion. There's no it's not flat. I mean, under any interpretation of it, just if you can hide something, but it doesn't change it. It's going to be it's not flat. Neither is the green. Okay. So, both of those are not flat. The only one thing we're talking about is the blue.

And and you know, just because it's I mean, the visibility part that's what kind of I mean, how many houses in Downey do we have walls around the whole property? You can never see the roof. Okay. That you can't even figure out where the roof is on there. So, okay. So, why don't we do that? All right. So, we can make an interpretation that the majority of this is not a flat roof. Whatever. So, the yellow and the green are not flat. Is that Are you guys Let's go baby steps. Is that something that the whole planning commission can agree on? I agree with that.

Okay. So, Mr. S. Okay. All right. So, we have a 50 for the recording. Can we take a maybe an informal quick poll on that so we can We just did. Everybody just said that. Do you want it to be more on the record? I I was looking down so I didn't Everybody All five of us said that yes, we can agree on that. Thank you for that clarification. I was taking some notes so I didn't see.

All five of us just said we can agree that that the yellow and the green are not flat. Okay. The only thing we're talking about now is the blue. Okay. So, how do we want to can it be interpreted from a legal ease standpoint? Let me ask this of staff then. Can the can the majority be interpreted as as disagreeing with you? If the I'm not talking about majority of us. I'm talking the majority of the the site. I think if you look at the square footage of those blue areas in proportion to the rest of the house, I think it it's very is very minor compared to the rest. Yeah. I don't know what the square

what I'm hearing vice chair Gara and perhaps concurrence from uh vice chair I'm sorry UVA and chair Gara I was going to say something happened in the last 30 seconds hybrid uh vice chair UVA and chair Gara is that uh when the code is referencing that the entire home in order to be used to use flat roofs the code says the entire home must be flat roofs what I'm hearing from from uh from the dis here is that entirely is really in the code and is intended to me meet majority majority correct correct are we an informal poll look on there are you Mr. Mr. cycling.

Yes, sir. Miss Okay. So, five of us agree that that's that's the majority of that. The majority would constitute not a flat roof. The majority of the roof. Why you looking at us funny now? No, I'm I'm taking it in. Stutter. No, just taking it in. Yeah. Can we go back to that slide with the yellow and blue and all that? Yeah. Uh No, not the No, the one before that. Right. There we go.

Okay. So, I'm looking at the blue and you got the blue on the side here. It says the proposed addition for the foyer bathroom living room smashion horizontally flat roof with a quarter inch per foot roof. Okay. Um if you go back to quarter inch per foot, that is the 2% that I was referring to is that constitutes a flat roof. Again, the wording here designed to include a flat flat roof with a quarter inch to 12. Quarter to 12 is not a flat roof. So, what I'm what I'm hearing from the dis and perhaps for maybe another informal poll is that the blue areas because there's slope to them are not considered flat roofs.

That is correct because they have a slope of 2%. I I am not qualified to know that. In other words, I don't know that I give you a scenario on the street. When you drive on a street, Uhhuh. the cross fall is 2%. Of course, and more plus. Okay. The reason I do 2% because it's a minimum slope allow the water to flow over the asphalt. Okay. That's what you have here. 2%. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. So what are you saying? You want you want We have two things. I'm going back to the original said that we said that it's not flat. It's not flat.

It's not. Yeah. The the world is round. It's not flat. We have proof of it just by looking at this slide. There you are. We're going to take a picture of this slide. Okay. Forever. This will be the slide. Yeah. This will be the slide for you guys someday. Right here. This slide on there. Um Okay. All right. So we have two things that we agree upon. Okay. Do we want to make a motion to direct staff? Number one is we are um we are uh upholding the appeal. Uphold. Yes,

we are upholding the appeal. The claim that this is not flat this this particular one. So that way it's not against the code. It's not flat. We're making that finding. And number two, that the majority of it, even if it wasn't, that the majority of it should constitute um should constitute the the code. The majority of of you guys know that roof, right? Is that is that clear to the staff? Is that is that clear as a motion?

Yes, chair. I would just repeat uh what was already mentioned that if that is the direction you would like to go, staff needs to bring back an updated resolution with updated findings in order for you to make that motion. So what wait wait wait wait no we I want to make a motion. What's before us today is to deny or or uphold the um the staff's decision. So we want to say okay we want to uphold it. So we can vote on that chair. No, the resolution today is prepared so that you are supporting the director's determination. Okay.

Upon your deliberation, you're moving in the direction of reversing the director's determination. Okay. For which we need to bring back an updated resolution. Okay. All right. And we can do that in the next meeting then. Yes. Okay. All right. So, I'll make a motion that we uh bring it back, but with the direction that we want to overturn that decision based on the facts that we just gave. Is that okay? Everybody got it? Okay, you guys are good. Is there you guys? I'll make that motion. Is there a second on that? Anybody want to make a second? I can second it. Okay. Do you guys understand what we're doing? Everybody all clear. All five. Okay.

All the heads shook. Yes. Okay. Just from that standpoint. So, chair, just to clarify, sir, um your motion would have the effect of reversing or directing staff to come back with a resolution reversing the determination of the director supported by the requisite findings based on the discussion of the uh the deliberations of the commission tonight. Correct. Okay. Correct. So, we find it not to be flattened, the majority of of the of the project not being flat. And I would just query staff um just to confirm that they're comfortable that it has all the uh enough detail to a um to come back or to return to the commission with the uh the desired resolution.

Yes. If if I can just ask in the motion uh to include that staff can refer to the discussion the motion and the discussion and deliberation by the commission. Sure. To draw upon and draft those findings. Sure. That sounds good to me. Okay. All right. That's I'm good with that. So, thank you. Um, yeah, I think that I think we're all clear on the two things that we just did. And is that and will this set precedents precedents in the future because we use the majority of it, Mr. Funk or Miss Hutron or

Chair, can we I was requesting if we might take a five minute break just to go over the findings and see if anything else needs to be okay. um identified tonight before we can say yes, we can make We can do that. We're on the home stretch on there. Sorry, folks. It's going to take another 3 to 5 minutes. Okay, we're on the home stretch. I I have to use the rest. Thank you. Okay, good. Perfect. Oh, what am I doing? These chairs are at uh they might have like a level or something where you can make them recline. I'm not sure. Oh yeah, I have a comfortable chair too.

I thank God the doctor game was earlier. Yes, we do. We have a a very sharp engineer. Your comments are just great. I'm in love with architects all the time. Design all the time. It is really, you know, they want to stay in in the Come on. People want to spruce up things, you know, different. They're going to invest money something really nice and make it.

This is going to cost a lot of money to build it. Oh, for sure. For sure. It's not your your typical, you know, gay ring, right? Just so you know, in order for you to speak again, we have to reopen the public hearing. I know. I'll just keep racing. I know. And we can't we can't we have to he has to reopen the hearing for you to speak. So, sorry. I I'm aware of that. Okay. Okay. Okay. Wow. I can't believe it's this late. Yeah. I haven't had dinner yet. Just looked at it. It's like it's almost 9. And I got to get up early. We have that that waft thing at 8. Got to go to work tomorrow. When I was 11, we used to stay at the council meeting till like 1:00 in the morning.

Oh, come back on Tuesday. I'm sure you had some of those. We had we had we had a couple. We used to have a couple gad flies. So, we had a couple. So, yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. And there were a lot of people yelling at us. My very first council meeting. Okay. Yeah, I'll never forget that came out there and it was it was packed and our city manager came in the back and said, "We have never had this big of a crowd." It was when the legal demolition of Bob's Big Boy. Oh, yeah. Okay. So, my very first council meeting, so we're in the back is all this there's TV cameras and this place is packed. And he comes back there, our experienced city manager, Jerry K. Biggest crowd we ever had. I'm like, "This is my first council meeting. I've never even said hello." And and and so forth. So I came out and then when it was my comment to the be I'm like oh my god that's so nice of you all to come for my first council meeting everybody cracked up you know it was the other my first council

yeah so now I remember because I was I was living in at the time when they like demolished third of it or something like that stopped oh my god they destroyed Bob's big boy that's iconic what are they doing it was the guy was 10 feet from dying so the the the owner hired he couldn't get a demolition permit from the city so he went right that so he went to so he went to it wasn't Home Depot it was all American at that time and he hired a couple day laborers and he had a forklift so they had not even turned off the power there so the poor guy is on the forklift like ramming it with a forklift with a live wire

totally it's a somebody drove by and called the police and the Kles came there and kind of stopped it on there but half of it was already demolished on there. That was on a Sunday and the council meeting was on Tuesday. But yeah, no, that was the very the guy was going to die. They prosecuted him. That one was uh Stamati, I think. These are two brothers. They're two brothers. They don't speak to each other. They don't speak to each other, right?

Yeah. And so that was so then so then we made the commitment that was the worst deal that was the worst deal in economic development we've ever done for the city. Just in terms for example to bring portals here it was when we had economic development money it cost us 500,000 out of our economic development funds to pay for the parking lot. Okay but they spent $13 million on that. Okay so that's a good deal right and by the way and it was a 3 to1 vote and bear voted against it because she thought we can't give that money to one person. It's like and then Governor Brown took the money anyways, right? But on the project for Bos Big Boy, we wanted to restore it the way it was and it was going to be like $2.5 million project and everything got taken out, cleaned and put back in. So it was that's the original stuff, the original floor, original that cost us $900,000 other than $2.2 million project.

So that's a terrible return on investment, but we wanted it. So we, you know, we and so we voted on the council to do that for 900,000. But yeah, we had at the end because we didn't use it all like idiots because we were very anti- development when I got on the council and it was just real conservative council, good people, just very conservative.

So we had all this money never got used. So the original vote was two to two to bring Portos. It was Rick Tjo and myself voting yes and uh Anne Bear and Dave Gaffin got nervous about it so he voted no. It was a tie vote so I didn't go on. So then the next couple days I took Dave Gaffin where Roport is we went and took him to Burbank store and showed him this is what could be. Oh yeah. So we had to convince them that 500,000 Dave we have $4 million in there. What are we going to do with the money? You're not going to get somebody to bring 7,000 people a day. We I mean we almost turned it down. Kurt couldn't vote because he was working on the real estate deal.

So anyways, so then the following council meeting, we brought it back and it was a 3-1 vote. We got Dave to vote on it. I still can't believe that. It's like, how did we almost not get portos? Because right, we didn't at that time. It may seem like, hey, maybe we have already two two of them in Downey. Why don't we need a third one? We didn't have anything. We had No, we didn't have it. Portos. Are you talking about the one on Firestone? I'm talking about Portos on Downey, the bakery. Yeah. Firestone. You had one on You have one on the top of Yeah. No, dude. Totally different.

They're not in the same league. No. No. That had nothing to do. They were really They were really smart. No. Portos is is we they Portos averages now 8,000 people a day to our downtown. And on a weekend it's about 14. There was there was 40 new restaurants came into downtown in the area within a quarter mile of after Port came in. That's how much I mean that was the genesis for our downtown. So yeah. No, no, the other bakery is real small. No, they're not in the same league. Porto does more than an hour than that place does in you know in a week and there not the same league. They're good people and they're fine, but they're not in the same league.

Yeah. I still can't believe we almost lost Portos. That was a good That was a good good investment. Yeah, it's not a test.

Raul Portos was looking at it and how we originally met, we went to uh Glendale and the mayor of Glendale and I had a meeting at Portos. Raul Portos came to us and Kurt was with us. We were trying to get Glendale to join the Orange Line Authority and then Raul Portos came and that's the first time I had been there. I'm like, "This place is nuts." So I go, "Raul, would you ever consider Downey?" And he goes, "Yeah, I thought about it, but here's my card. Call me." So he calls me a couple weeks later and I put him in my car with our economic develop and we drove around the city for two and a half hours and stuff and then you know a year and a half later spent he bought that building and demolished the building with Portos. We even changed you know we're talking architectural that was going to be like the one in Burbank it was going to be like um Mediterranean style and we said we don't want that if you I go Raul can you? So, he went with the mid-century modern and it's been, you know, obviously amazing for us. Yeah. And then they've gone with all

our recess. Oh, back on our record from our recess. So, um yes,

staff, do you have everything that you need? Uh so uh we've uh been we wanted to make sure that we have sufficient uh information based on the commission's deliberation to uh come back at the following meeting with the appropriate findings. We also had the opportunity to uh speak to our city attorney John Funk to make sure that uh we are also considering other uh parameters that are based on the legal review. Um and with that um knowing what the commission's desire is is to uh uphold the applicant's appeal and hearing the deliberation and hearing their proposed motion uh we ask the chair and the commission uh to consider uh more precise wording uh in consultation again with our city attorney's office uh directing staff to uphold the appeal uh that the applicant has filed uh determining that the gay table behind the parapit is not flat and allowing flat roof areas provided that the flat roof areas are dimminimous so that the entirety of the project is not flat and also determining that the approval is for this project.

Okay. So let me see if I get this right. So, okay. So, my motion is that we direct staff to uphold the appeal and under the findings that the gable is not flat, which we I don't understand that we we know that the gable is not flat. That's the determination of the commission tonight to reverse staff's uh determination. So yes, the sentence you're looking for that the gable behind the parapit. Okay. All right. So the gable behind the pair plate is not flat cuz it's not considered flat. It's not considered flat cuz it's not flat.

I'd use the word consider. Okay. Is not considered flat because it's not flat. That's the wording I'm going to use on my motion on there. And then the entirety of the project since the majority of it the vast majority of it is not flat that not be considered a flat roof. Is that good enough for you guys? The the second part was um provided the flat roof areas are provided uh pro uh are allowed provided that it's dimminimous so that it's not considered the entire project. So they're just smaller areas of a bigger project.

Okay. I don't speak that way. So the flat areas are a small portion of the entire project. Yeah. Just to interject, there are small enough there are a small enough portions of the project such that the entirety of the roof is not considered flat. Okay. What can do we want to get specific? Do we know how many square footage is the blue versus the green and yellow? We believe that if uh the motion as you stated right now uh would be appropriate. Okay. And there miss secretary can you read that back and the third and the third part the third part would be that this approval is for this project.

Can you repeat that just because it has spec very specific details to this project. Start over again please. Yeah. Yeah. I lost you. We think we lost you. You lost me on the third point or the third on everything you said that the that the uh approval uh the findings and the approval are um specifically for this project that yeah the determination is limited to this project. Okay. Yes. But don't you think somebody else in the future if they use more than flat if if if they have the gable behind that you don't think they can come back to this?

Uh that's an interpretation that would be based on in the facts of any particular case. Um and that's why I I believe the commission's decision if it elects to move in this direction um you know doesn't create a hard and fast standard but rather one that on these facts recognizes that the flat portion of the project is small enough or as the the term the director used dimminimous enough such that the entirety of the project is not flat. That's a conclusion that a determination that would need to be made based on the unique facts of any case before the commission.

Okay. So, if somebody could write this down and I'll read my motion out loud. Okay. My motion is that the gable part of this project is not flat and since the majority of this project is a smaller portion of the project, it's considered it's not considered a flat roof. And the third thing is we're reversing the director's decision based on these findings that the gable is not the roof is not flat because the gable is not flat. The gable behind the parapit, right? Just any gable. Okay, got it.

By its own definition, it's a gable, right? It's not flat. So, I don't care what hides it, I guess. You know, you can put a bushes there if it's that tall. Is that clear? Do we have or do you guys need more? I believe that's clear. There's just I think one additional component, Mr. Chair, and that is that this determination is limited to the facts of this specific project. Okay. I agree. Yes. Yeah. And this determination is Okay. So, can you guys somebody read that back to us so we can make a vote on it?

Okay. We we direct staff not to bring I mean to bring this back. We're upholding the appeal. We found that the gable is not flat. Okay, by its own definition. We found that it's since the the gable is the majority of the roof on there that the whole entirety will be considered not flat. And lastly, the third part is that we have um that this is for this project only. Is that easy? Yes. Okay. You guys got it? We all on the same. Okay. So, that's the motion. Anybody want to second this? Second.

Okay. All right. Great. All right. So, you ready to vote? Okay. So, let's all vote. Okay. Okay. I I have a question. Sorry. Not for the motion. The motion is okay. It's a question for the attorney. Um do we have to continue or do we have to notice again at the next meeting to bring back the resolution? Uh no. The next time the resolution I imagine is going to come back at the very well whenever staff um decides to bring it back there won't be another need for a public hearing to be noticed. No. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. It will actually ordinarily would come back as a consent item because the the the staff is staff has received I think um enough and precise determination how to modify the resolution and has conducted its deliberations tonight in full. um unless the commission elects to deliberate further. I don't think that's the case. I'm not hearing that. There would be no need for a um uh for the item to be continued or deliberated upon any further based on the direction of the commission tonight. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for staff. Okay. Wait, wait. Does it matter on the vote before we vote? Okay. So, let's finish off the vote. So, it's a five 50 vote. Okay. Guys, run. Yes, sir. Motion passes.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair Garrett. Um just just to just to uh make sure we're on the same page. Um and to be fair to the applicant because they've waited and they've waited and they've been patient. What time what kind of time frame are we talking about to be able to bring this back to uh a future agenda item?

That's a great question. So we will have a regularly scheduled meeting of the planning commission on the 20th of this month. we can bring back the resolution once again not as a public hearing item but as a consent item that the commission can vote on. Um the decision of the planning commission does have a 15-day appeal period. That appeal period uh opportunity is open to um any other residents in the area as well as the city council. However, um knowing that the applicant does have the ability to at their risk proceed with submitt of their plans

which they already have submitted the plans as you saw in the meeting tonight. So if if they request staff can continue the review of their uh submitted plans. I think your answer is in two weeks. Yes, that's what I heard right. That's um that's pretty much what I heard. Okay. Thank you. You're not going to get any better than that. So, okay. On there, u we have the consent calendar. We have a motion to accept the calendar for the minutes of the October 16th and November 20th. We're getting there, you guys. 2024, we're catching up. Do I have a motion? A second for that. So moved. Okay. Second.

Yeah, I was going to say really you want deliberation now people. No. Okay. All those in favor, please vote yes. Okay. Great. All right. All right. Does the community development director have any additional comments? I don't have any other updates. Great. All right. Well, the meeting is now adjourned at 9:17. Thank you all for, you know, plowing through this. We did it there.