Staff Report -Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045) [Noticed on 05-12-2023]

City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2023-00602 5/23/2023 Public Hearing Item 12.

Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045) [Noticed on 05/12/2023] File ID: 2023-00602
Location: 891 Greg Thatch Circle, APN: 201-1070-076-0000, Council District 1, Represented by Councilmember Kaplan
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, Adopt: 1) Resolution adopting the Addendum to adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) Resolution for a General Plan Amendment to re-designate 8.21 acres from Public/Quasi-Public to the Suburban Neighborhood Medium Density (SNMD) designation; 3) Resolution amending the Natomas Creek Planned Unit Development Schematic Plan to redesignate 8.21 gross acres for single-unit dwelling residential and 4) Resolution adopting project entitlements including a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide ±8.21 gross acres into 79 residential parcels; Tentative Subdivision Map Design Deviation for non-standard street elbows; and Site Plan and Design Review for the construction of 79 single-unit dwellings with deviations to lot coverage and rear-yard and street-side yard setback development standards in the Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling zone within the Natomas Creek Planned Unit Development (R-1A- PUD).

Contact: Deja Harris, Assistant Planner, 916-808-5853, [email protected]; Garrett Norman, Senior Planner, 916-808-7934, [email protected], Community Development Department
Presenter: Deja Harris, Assistant Planner, 916-808-5853, Community Development Department Applicant: Monica Wuebker-Jarwin, Cartwright Nor Cal, Inc., LLC, 3010 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 160, Roseville, CA 95661
Property Owner: Capital Valley Investor LLC & Terrace Park Sac LLC, 1121 Gold Country Blvd, Suite 103, Gold River, CA 95670
Attachments:
01-Description/Analysis
02-Background
03-Resolution: Addendum to adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration 04-Exhibit A: Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan
05-Resolution: General Plan Amendment

Page 1 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-00602 5/23/2023 Public Hearing Item 12.
06-Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment Exhibit
07-Resolution: Natomas Creek PUD Schematic Plan Amendment 08-Exhibit A: Natomas Creek PUD Schematic Plan Amendment Exhibit 09-Resolution: Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Subdivision Map, Tentative Subdivision Map Design Deviation and Site Plan and Design Review 10-Exhibit A: Project Plans
11-Exhibit B: Tentative Subdivision Map Design Deviation Justification 12-Twin Rivers School District Boundaries in Natomas
13-Community Comments
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: The applicant is proposing to construct a housing development consisting of 79 detached single-unit residences and associated site improvements on a vacant ±8.21 gross acres site located in the Natomas Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD). The project is immediately adjacent to Magnolia Park to the north. The project site is surrounded by existing single-unit dwelling residential development to the west, south, and east.

Single-unit dwelling development is permitted in the Single Unit or Duplex Dwelling Zone (R-1A); however, the Public/Quasi-Public General Plan designation does not allow residential nor establish density and the Natomas Creek PUD Schematic Plan currently designates the site for a school use.

Accordingly, this project requires a General Plan amendment and PUD Schematic Plan Amendment to allow for residential development.

The following entitlements are required to develop the proposed project:
1) General Plan Amendment
to change the General Plan land use designation from Public/Quasi -Public to Suburban Neighborhood Medium Density (SNMD). 2) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Schematic Plan Amendment to redesignate ±8.21 gross acres from a school use to residential.
3) Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 8.21 gross acres into 79 residential parcels. 4) Tentative Subdivision Map Design Deviation for non-standard street elbows. 5) Site Plan and Design Review for the construction of 79 single-unit dwellings with deviations to lot coverage and rear-yard and street-side yard setback development standards in the Single- Unit or Duplex Dwelling Zone (R-1A-PUD) within the Natomas Creek Planned Unit Development.

The project requires a recommendation from the Planning and Design Commission and final decision by the City Council because of the General Plan Amendment.

Public/Neighborhood Outreach and Comments: As part of the application review process, the proposed project was routed to Preservation Sacramento, Civic Thread, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, Region Builders, Sacramento Housing Alliance, Natomas Community Association, Natomas Chamber of Commerce, North Natomas Community Association, Natomas Creek

Page 2 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-00602 5/23/2023 Public Hearing Item 12.

Community Watch Group and the North Natomas Community Coalition.

Staff received comments from nearby residents, the North Natomas Community Coalition, Civic Thread, and the Terrace Park Neighborhood Association. All comments received are included in Attachment 3 and are summarized below.

Public Comments:

1. Staff received one email from a nearby resident in support of the residential development with the recommendation of including a community pool. Staff received several comments from nearby residents opposed to the residential development. The residents expressed concerns about overcrowding of residential homes, provision of adequate emergency vehicle access, and indicated a preference to see community amenities instead. One resident also expressed concerns about the site location of Lot 1, abutting the rear property line of their existing single- unit dwelling. The property owner is specifically concerned that the unit is too close to their property line and will reduce sunlight and privacy. At the Planning and Design Commission hearing, the Commission requested the applicant work with this property owner to try and find a resolution, such as providing opaque windows on the western elevation. In agreement with the applicant, staff has added the opaque window requirement as a condition of approval.

Staff Response: The Fire Department and Department of Public Works have reviewed the plans to confirm compliance with City Code for adequate site circulation, roadway design, and emergency vehicle access. The proposed dwelling unit on Lot 1 is oriented to face Greg Thatch Circle which creates a side yard condition adjacent to the rear yard of the existing home. The house design on Lot 1 meets the minimum interior side-yard setback of five feet and the maximum height of 35 feet.

2. Staff received a comment letter from the North Natomas Community Coalition (NNCC) expressing their support for the infill development and commending the residential development and the design choices made for the project, particularly the variety in materials, and extensive color scheme. NNCC expressed the following concerns regarding the proposed parking:
· The narrowness of the lots combined with the width of the driveways makes for little curb space for parking. The many curves in the street make parking untenable there as well.
· Overflow parking may spill over to the streets surrounding the development (e.g. Greg Thatch Circle, Tres Piezas Dr., and Los Pueblos Way.)
· Heavy street parking and street storage of vehicles may cause vehicle blight in the neighborhood.
· Garage door heights are not designed to accommodate modern SUVs and tall vans. · Competition for street parking will probably drive endless complaints regarding 72-hour parking to city code enforcement.

Staff Response: The proposed streets are developed to City Standard for local residential roadways with a 53’ right of way, which accommodates on-street parking on both sides of the street. The project site is within the Traditional Parking District and requires one space per unit. This project provides parking spaces with 2-car garages and there is adequate driveway length to accommodate two vehicles behind the garage for a total of 4 off-street parking

Page 3 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-00602 5/23/2023 Public Hearing Item 12.
length to accommodate two vehicles behind the garage for a total of 4 off-street parking spaces.

3. Staff received two comment letters from Civic Thread expressing concern to amending the General Plan land use designation and their preference for developing a school at the site instead. Civic Thread further expressed that the development is in a high residential concentrated area and will cause further vehicular traffic by residents because students will not be in walking distance from schools in the neighborhood. The letter continued to indicate that the project conflicts with Appendix G of the CEQA Guideline questions about conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The comment then cites two policies of the North Natomas Community Plan related to siting schools (NN.LU 1.6 and NN ERC 1.14), indicating the failure to site a school on the project site will increase vehicle trips.

Staff also received a phone call from the Chair of the Terrace Park Neighborhood Association indicating that there was an agreement made between Twin Rivers School District and the adjacent neighbors, prior to the Covid-19 Pandemic, that the subject site would not be developed with a school and would remain vacant. The chair expressed that the association is opposed to developing the site with any use other than a school.

Staff Response: The site was first entitled in 1999 as a master planned community whereby this property was designated for a future elementary school. During that entitlement review, City staff coordinated with the school district to identify a school location and size. In 2005 an application was submitted to the City to develop 66 single-unit dwellings on the school site, which included similar entitlements requested with today’s application (P05-135). On January 24, 2008, the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending the City Council deny the project because they felt the site should be developed with a school. The project did not proceed to City Council and was ultimately withdrawn. The property has remained vacant.

Since that time, the Twin River Unified School District has determined not to develop the site as a school and has accordingly declared the property surplus for lack of educational use. (Board of Trustees, Twin River Unified School District, Resolution No. 921, March 23, 2021.) The City does not have jurisdiction over this determination. On May 20, 2022, the School District offered the property for purchase through a public bidding process where a buyer purchased the property and obtained ownership in August 2022. The public bidding process was publicly advertised which included onsite signage as well as local publications.

The North Natomas Community Plan is a land use plan guiding development in the North Natomas area. As described in this staff report, the subject site was evaluated for development through a mitigated negative declaration (MND) that was adopted for the elementary school. The MND evaluated the physical effects of development of the site. As such, the City considered whether pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 a supplemental or subsequent MND or EIR was required. Because none of the criteria described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist, the City prepared an addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. The addendum includes discussion of the City’s General Plan policies related to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions along with updates to regulations that have been designed to reduce GHG emissions. Additionally, because the school district has already elected to surplus the school site, the proposed project does not contribute to

Page 4 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-00602 5/23/2023 Public Hearing Item 12.
increased vehicle miles traveled to access schools.

School Districts are governmental entities that act independently and do not need approval from the City to take action on school related projects or construction activities. When the City reviews new large subdivisions, the City will coordinate with the school district to identify areas within the new subdivision for a future school. That land is then set aside for the school to take ownership.

Staff posted the site with an early notice at time of planning application submittal. Staff also mailed hearing notices to all property owners, residents, and neighborhood groups within 500 feet of the project site and posted the site 10 days prior to the public hearing. At the time of writing this report, staff has not received any additional comments, aside from those mentioned above.

Policy Considerations:
2035 General Plan
The current 2035 General Plan designation for the project site is Public/Quasi-Public. The proposed General Plan designation of the subject site is Suburban Neighborhood Medium Density (SNMD) which allows a density range of 7-17 dwelling units per net acre. The project proposes a density of 13 dwelling units per net acre. The General Plan recognizes that Suburban Neighborhood Medium Density designation areas are envisioned to provide for medium-density housing and neighborhood- support uses including small-lot single-unit dwellings, multifamily dwellings, limited neighborhood- serving commercial, and compatible public, quasi-public, and special uses. Staff also finds that the project is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:
· Goal LU 1.1 Growth and Change. Support sustainable growth and change through orderly and well-planned development that provides for the needs of existing and future residents and business, ensures the effective and equitable provision of public services, and makes efficient use of land and infrastructure.
· Policy LU 1.1.4 Leading Infill Growth. The City shall facilitate infill development through active leadership and the strategic provision of infrastructure and services and supporting land uses.
· Policy LU 1.1.5 Infill Development. The City shall promote and provide incentives (e.g., focused infill planning, zoning/rezoning, revised regulations, provisions of infrastructure) for infill development, reuse, and growth in existing urbanized areas to enhance community character, optimize City investments in infrastructure and community facilities, support increased transit use, promote pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods, increase housing diversity, ensure integrity of historic districts, and enhance retail viability.

The proposed development provides infill development on an underutilized site adjacent to a community park with compatible single-unit dwelling residential uses. The proposed project will provide a logical extension of existing City utility infrastructure surrounding the subject site. · Goal LU 2.1 City of Neighborhoods. Maintain a city of diverse, distinct, and well- structured neighborhoods that meet the community’s needs for complete, sustainable, and

Page 5 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-00602 5/23/2023 Public Hearing Item 12.
structured neighborhoods that meet the community’s needs for complete, sustainable, and high-quality living environments, form the historic downtown core to well-integrated new growth areas.
· Policy LU 2.1.3 Complete and Well-Structured Neighborhoods. The City shall promote the design of complete and well-structured neighborhoods whose physical layout and land use mix promote walking to services, biking, and transit use; foster community pride; enhance neighborhood identity; ensure public safety; are family-friendly and address the needs of all ages and abilities.
· Policy LU 2.1.8 Neighborhood Enhancement. The City shall promote infill development, reuse, rehabilitation, and reuse efforts that contribute to positively (e.g., architectural design) to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas.

The proposed project enhances the existing neighborhood by activating a vacant site with the construction of a residential development with quality architecture, design and materials. The project will bring more housing choices and diversity to the neighborhood and contributes positively to the surrounding area by providing natural safety surveillance with houses oriented toward Magnolia Park and the streets, including Greg Thatch Circle and Tres Piezas Drive. · Goal LU 2.7 City Form and Structure. Require excellence in the design of the city’s formand structure through development standards and clear design direction. · Policy LU 2.7.4 Public Safety and Community Design. The City shall promote design of neighborhoods, centers, streets, and public spaces that enhances public safety and discourages crime by providing street-fronting uses (“eyes on the street”), adequate lighting and sight lines, and features that cultivate a sense of community ownership. · Policy LU 2.7.7 Buildings that Engage the Street. The City shall require buildings to be oriented to and actively engage and complete the public realm through such features as building orientation, build-to and setback lines, façade articulation, ground-floor transparency, and location of parking.

The proposed development integrates well with the existing neighborhood through appropriate scale, access, and parcel orientation. With units fronting the street, a natural surveillance is achieved that will provide “eyes” onto Magnolia Park and the surrounding public realm. Additionally, the homes have been designed to minimize a garage forward design with forward facing architectural elements, such as roof eaves, porches, and patios.

North Natomas Community Plan
The project site is located within the North Natomas Community Plan Area of the General Plan. The General Plan identifies the Community Plan Area as encompassing numerous suburban neighborhoods, employment centers, and corridors.
· Policy NN.LU 1.9 Housing Type Diversity. To provide housing for the wide range of residents in the North Natomas Community, the City shall ensure residential developers provide a variety of housing types in each neighborhood. As a guideline to ensure a variety of

Page 6 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-00602 5/23/2023 Public Hearing Item 12.
provide a variety of housing types in each neighborhood. As a guideline to ensure a variety of housing types, the maximum percentage of any dominant housing type should be 85 percent and the minimum of any minor housing type should be 5 percent. Residential developers are encouraged to be innovative and responsive to the changing lifestyles of future residents and trends toward transit, telecommuting, zero-emission vehicles, and others.

The proposed development utilizes small-lot sizes (average of 3,348 sqft) designed to meet market trends while providing architectural style that is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The homes will be affordable by design providing diversity in housing type, scale, and income point. Each floor plan includes designated office space to accommodate growing telecommuting trends.

Economic Impacts: The proposed subdivision will provide opportunities for residents in the region to purchase market-rate homes in North Natomas.

Environmental Considerations: On January 14, 2008, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.) the Rio Linda Union School District adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) and approved the Terrace Park (TP) Elementary School/Park Project (collectively known as the Prior Project). The TP Elementary School/Park MND evaluated the development of a 613-student elementary school and a neighborhood park. The neighborhood park (Magnolia Park) has been constructed and is currently functioning. But the school district opted not to develop an elementary school at the subject site leaving the +

8.21 gross acre site vacant for alternative development. The proposed project would development the site consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

Environmental Planning Services determined that environmental review for the project would require only minor technical changes to the previous environmental documents, and an addendum was prepared. The addendum evaluated the project with relation to the adopted Prior Project MND and based on that evaluation concluded none of the circumstances set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 were present. These circumstances include changes in the project or circumstances that would result in a new significant effect, or an increase in the severity of a significant effect. An Addendum to the previously approved MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. The Addendum and original Mitigated Negative Declaration have been posted and are available on the Community Development Department web site for environmental documents at:
<https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Planning/Environmental/Impact-Reports> 200-Year Flood Protection: State Law (SB 5) and Planning and Development Code chapter 17.810 require that the City must make specific findings prior to approving certain entitlements for projects within a flood hazard zone. The purpose is to ensure that new development will have protection from a 200-year flood event or will achieve that protection by 2025. The project site is within a flood hazard zone and is an area covered by SAFCA’s Improvements to the State Plan of Flood Control System, and specific findings related to the level of protection have been incorporated as part of this project.

Even though the project site is within a flood hazard zone, the local flood management agency, SAFCA, has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will ensure protection from a 200-year flood event or will achieve that protection by 2025. This is based on the SAFCA Urban level of flood protection plan, adequate progress baseline report, and adequate progress toward an urban level of flood protection engineer’s report that were accepted by City Council Resolution No. 2016-0226 on June 21, 2016, and the SAFCA 2022 Adequate Progress

Page 7 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-00602 5/23/2023 Public Hearing Item 12.

Council Resolution No. 2016-0226 on June 21, 2016, and the SAFCA 2022 Adequate Progress Annual Report accepted by City Council Resolution No. 2022-0313 on October 11, 2022.

Sustainability: The project will develop homes on smaller lots which allows for a greater density in the area and contributing to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled.

Commission/Committee Action: On April 27, 2023, the Planning and Design Commission unanimously passed a motion to forward a recommendation of approval of the project to the City Council. The Commission directed the applicant to coordinate with the adjacent neighbor to Lot 1 to try and find a resolution to concerns about loss of privacy and casting of shade. The applicant has since met with the neighbor and provided shade projections scenarios from the new two-story home.

The applicant is also agreeable to placing opaque windows on the western elevation. The requirement to provide opaque windows for the second-story-western-elevation of Lot 1 has been provided as a condition of approval.

Rationale for Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the requested entitlements based on the findings of fact and conditions of approval attached to this report. Planning staff supports the Terrace Park Subdivision because it builds new single-unit dwelling housing on a vacant, underutilized parcel, creating additional homeownership opportunities. The project also integrates well with its surrounding environment as it is appropriately scaled in height and massing and provides a quality architectural design, that is compatible with the adjacent residential development.

Financial Considerations: Not applicable
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): No goods or services are being purchased under this report.

Page 8 of 8 ends

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map

Summary
The applicant is requesting entitlements to subdivide 8.21 gross acres in the Natomas Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) into 79 residential lots and construct 79 single - unit dwellings. The site is currently designated for a school site on the Natomas Creek PUD Schematic Plan. Twin Rivers Unified School District has determined they no longer need the property for a school and recently sold the property.

The requested entitlements include:
1) General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation from Public/Quasi-Public to Suburban Neighborhood Medium Density (SNMD). 2) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Schematic Plan Amendment to redesignate ±

8.21 gross acres from a school use to residential.
3) Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 8.21 gross acres into 79 residential parcels.
4) Tentative Subdivision Map Design Deviation for non-standard street elbows. 5) Site Plan and Design Review for the construction of 79 single-unit dwellings with deviations to lot coverage, and rear-yard and street -side setback development standards.

Table 1: Site and Project Information
General Plan Designation: Public/Quasi-Public
Planned Unit Development (PUD): Natomas Creek PUD
Existing Zoning of Site: Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling (R-1A-PUD) Existing Use of Site: Vacant
Parking District: Traditional
Total Parcel Area: 8.21 gross acres, 6.07 net acres
Density: 13 dwelling units/net acre (7-17 du/na allowed) Design Review District: Citywide

Background Information
On September 28, 1999, the Sacramento City Council approved entitlements for the development of the Natomas Creek PUD, a 290-acre residential community in North Natomas (P98-041). On August 22, 2005, an application was submitted for the construction of 66 single-family dwellings within the subject property that was designated for an elementary school site. On January 24, 2008, the Planning and Design Commission forwarded a recommend ation to City Council to deny the PUD Schematic Plan Amendment, Tentative Subdivision Map, Subdivision Modification, and Special Permit entitlements to construct 66 single -family dwellings (P05-135) because the Commission felt the site should be developed with an elementary school as envisioned by the PUD. On May 12, 2008, the application was withdrawn and the site has remained vacant since, with no other recent entitlement history. The applicant is now requesting to subdivide the 8.21-acre site and construct a 79- single-unit dwelling development.

Neighborhood Context
The project is immediately adjacent to Magnolia Park to the north . The project site is surrounded by existing single-unit residential development to the west, south, and east.

Table 2: Surrounding Zoning and Uses
Direction: Zoning: Use:

North Agriculture-Open Space (A-OS
Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling (R-1A) Park
South Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling (R-1A) Residential East Single-Unit Dwelling (R-1) Residential
West Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling (R-1A)

Residential

Entitlement Review
In order to subdivide this property into parcels for the construction of 79 single -family homes, the following entitlements are required: General Plan Amendment, PUD Schematic Plan Amendment, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Site Plan and Design Review.

General Plan Amendment: The City’s General Plan categorizes land into specific designations based on several characteristics of the existing neighborhood. These land use designations prescribe de velopment intensity standards in terms of density for residential projects and floor area ratio (FAR) for commercial/mixed-use development.

The subject site’s current General Plan land use designation is Public/Quasi-Public. This designation provides for public uses such as government buildings, public and private schools, hospitals, and other compatible public uses. As such, this designation does not allow residential development and does not establish density development standards.

The proposed project is 13 dwelling units per net acre. Suburban Neighborhood Medium Density designation, which allows 7-17 dwelling units per net acre , is a compatible designation for the neighborhood and is consistent with the underlying R-1A zone and the Natomas Creek Planned Unit Development.

In order to approve an amendment to a General Plan land use designation, the City Council must make the following findings: the proposed amendment is consistent with general plan goals an d policies, the amendment promotes the public health , safety, convenience, and welfare of the city, and the zoning classification of the subject parcel is consistent with the proposed general plan land use designation . Staff finds that the proposed development is con sistent with the required findings in that the proposed development is surrounded by compatible residential land uses and densities , offers “eyes on the street” natural safety surveillance with residences that face Magnolia Park and the streets, the R-1A zoning designation allows development of single-unit dwellings, and the development provides quality architecture, architecture, design and materials.

Natomas Creek PUD Schematic Plan Amendment
The Natomas Creek PUD Schematic Plan currently show the 8.21 acres as designated for a school site . This project request includes a schematic plan amendment to redesignate the site for residential uses.

Staff is supportive of the requested amendment as the base Single-Unit Dwelling or Duplex (R-1A) zone allows residential.

Tentative Subdivision Map
The project proposes to subdivide one 8.21 gross acre (6.07 net acre s) parcel into 79 residential parcels within the R-1A-PUD zone. The map provides for and dedicates three public roadways to serve the proposed lots. The roadways will be constructed to City Standards with a 53 -foot right-of way section, which includes separated sidewalks and street tree planters. The proposed parcels m eet the minimum lot size, width, and depth requirements of the Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling (R-1A) zone in that each lot provides a minimum lot depth of 80-feet and a minimum lot width of 20-feet. The proposed lot sizes range from 2,900 square feet up to 5,055 square feet; the majority of the lots are 2,900 square feet. The map went before the Subdivision Review Committee on March 1, 2023, and received a recommendation for approval subject to the conditions of approval found in Attachment 9. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map has been reviewed by City staff and found to be consistent with the Subdivision Map Act.

Table 3: Applicable Development Standards
Standard Required Provided Deviation
Min. Interior Lot Size (Sq Ft) 1,600 sq ft 2,900 sq ft N Min. Corner Lot Size (Sq Ft) 3,040 sq ft 3,240 sq ft N
Min. Interior Lot Width (Ft) 20’** 36.25’ N
Min. Corner Lot Width (Ft) 38’ 40.5’ N
Min. Lot Depth (Ft) 80’ 80’ N
Max Lot Depth (Ft) 160’ 110.83’ N
** Subject to Sacramento City Code 17.204.330.B, the minimum lot width for interior lots abutting a lot in an R-1 zone is 25 feet. The proposed development does not abut any parcels in the R-1 zone and therefore a minimum interior lot width of 20 feet is required.

Figure 2– Proposed Subdivision Layout

Tentative Subdivision Map Design Deviations
The Tentative Subdivision Map includes design deviations for non -standard street elbows. The proposed 102.16 degree elbow at lot 43 deviates from the City Standard 90 degree elbow (Plate 15-16).

The applicant submitted justification for this deviation that has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works and is included as attachment 10 of this report. Public Works does not object to the deviation proposed. The project was reviewed with these deviations at the March 1, 2023 Subdivision Review Committee meeting. The committee acted to forward the Tentative Subdivision map for approval based upon the conditions of approval in Attachment 9 of this report.

Site Plan and Design Review
Site Plan and Design Review confirms the compliance of this project with applicable development standards and design guidelines as they apply to residential developments as well as developments in general in the Natomas Creek PUD and Citywide Single-Unit and Duplex Dwelling design guidelines. All standards that are not listed in the PUD guidelines are regulated by the Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling zone ( R-1A) in the Planning and Development Code (Title 17). Table 4 below illustrates project compliance with applicable development standards of the R-1A-PUD zone for single -unit dwellings including setback, lot coverage, height, and parking requirements. As illustrated in Table 4, a total of 55 lots do not meet lot coverage, rear-yard setbacks, and street-side yard setback requirements in the PUD Guidelines and R-1A zone.

*Development standard of the Natomas Creek PUD.

The proposed dwelling unit designs comply with applicable development standards except for lot coverage, rear-yard, and street-side yard setback regulations.

Table 4: R-1A Zone and Natomas Creek PUD Applicable Development Standards Standard Type Requirement Proposed Parcels With
Deviations
Front Setback Minimum 20 feet

All 20 feet N
Street-Side Setback Minimum 12.5 feet 7.66 to 9.25 feet Five Parcels: 10, 27, 43, 53, 72
Interior-Side Setback Minimum 5 feet 5 to 10 feet N
Rear Setback* Minimum 12.5 feet 11 to 41.41 feet 36 Parcels: 1, 3-5, 7- 9, 11-14, 16-17, 20-
22, 24-26, 28-29, 31-
34, 65-67, 69-70, 73-
76, 78-79
Lot Coverage* Maximum 40% for
two story homes
41% to 49% 49 Parcels: 1-9, 11-
17, 20-26, 28-33, 36,
38-39, 41, 44-45, 66-
70, 73-79
Maximum Height Maximum 35 feet ± 28.63 feet N
Vehicle Parking 1 space All 2 spaces N
Setback Deviations: Staff supports the proposed rear -yard and street -side setback deviations and finds that the project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable development standard in that: 1) the proposed rear setback deviations are a minor encroachment into the required setback; and 2) the encroachment does not significantly impact the privacy of the adjacent neighbors, or hamper access to light and air.

Lot Coverage Deviation: The purpose and intent of the lot coverage requirement is to ensure a project’s development footprint does not overwhelm and is in substantial conformance with adjacent properties. The maximum lot coverage requirement is 50 percent within the R -1A zone and 40 percent for 2 -story homes in the Natomas Creek PUD. As proposed, 49 proposed dwellings would have a lot coverage greater than 40 percent and less than 50 percent. While the lot coverage of 49 dwellings would exceed the 40% maximum of the Natomas Creek PUD, the lot coverage is consistent with the R- 1A zone. Staff supports the proposed lot coverage deviations and finds that the project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable development standard in that: 1) the lot coverage is consistent with the R -1A zone; 2) open space is provided and the dwellings are adjacent to common open space at the adjacent park; 3) the lots are adequate to accommodate the proposed single -unit dwellin gs and utilit ies; and 4) the subdivision provides separated public sidewalks and trees are provided which further activate the street frontage , creating a pedestrian scale community and improving the walkability within the subdivision.

Site Access and Circulation
The site is bounded by existing public roadway s, Greg Thatch Circle and Tres Pieza s Drive, which will provide primary access to the development into new local residential streets which loop through the site. There is currently an attached sidewalk fronting the project site along Greg Thatch and Tres Piezas Drive. The attached sidewalks will remain in place because they are in overall good condition and do not warrant complete replacement. Additionally , a n attached sidewalk , at the request of Youth, Parks & Community Enrichment, will be constructed adjacent to Magnolia Park that will provide convenient pedestrian access into and out of the park and the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposed public streets internal to the new subdivision will be designed to the current 53-foot-wide City Code standard fo r local roadways, which includes on -street parking, a separated 5-foot sidewalk, and a 6-foot landscaped planter.

Vehicle Parking

The subject site is located within the Traditional Parking District. Per section 17.608.030 of the City Code this project requires a minimum of one vehicle parking space per dwelling unit. This project provides parking spaces with 2 -car garages and there i s adequate driveway length to accommodate two vehicles behind the garage on models without the tandem garage. On-street parking will be allowed on both sides of the new streets (X Way, Y Way, and Z Circle).

House Designs and Design Guidelines Consistency

The applicant is proposing to construct a 79 detached single -unit subdivision and associated site improvements on the vacant 8.21 -acre site. As shown in Table 5, the project proposes three floor plans, each with two elevations and color themes for a total of six styles. Each floor plan layout has a kitchen, dining area and living space, and a half bathroom downstairs, a 2-car garage at the front, and the bedrooms and two bathrooms located at the second level. There are three different house plans, each with different façade designs that vary by exterior materials, colors, and design elements such as roofing pitch, roofing material, window framing and accents, and porch decoration.

*Excludes porch area and garages.

Homes are oriented toward Greg Thatch Circle, Tres Piezas Drive, and the proposed internal streets. The exterior finishes of these homes consist of smooth stucco , fiber cement and board and batten siding, dimensional composition shingle roofing and metal accent roofing , decorate window trim, decorative front entry doors and accent wood elements on the window shutters and porch columns. The homes are designed to bring architecture forward of the garage doors with porches, deep recesses, and roof eaves to provide deep shadows and to minimize their impact on building façades. The color palette for the project is generally earth toned and neutral, with warm -toned accents. The architecture of the homes is inspired by a contemporary approach while complementing the surrounding neighborhood. Trash and recycling storage and HVAC condensers are screened from street view with low fences at exposed and visible sides, and behind fully fenced side yards where possible.

Table 5: Proposed Housing Plans
Plan Square
Footage*
Bedrooms Bathrooms Stories Elevations Lots Proposed
1A-1B 1,755 3 2.5 2 1 (2 color
schemes)
19 Lots
2A-2B 1,923 4 2.5 2 1 (2 color
schemes)
29 Lots
3A-3B 2,070 4 2.5 2 1 (2 color
schemes)
31 Lots

Figure 3: Conceptual Streetscape

The purpose of the Citywide Single-Unit Dwelling and Duplex Dwelling Design Guidelines is to encourage consistent design while allowing for variety, innovation, and for residential structures which will improve the character of neighborhoods by making th em more attractive and inviting places to live while maintaining visual interest and a sense of place.

The design of the homes is consistent with the Citywide Single-Unit Dwelling and Duplex Dwelling Design Guidelines as the proposed house plans:

 Incorporate porches which encourage a sense of community and attractively identify entry features;
 Roofing is designed to extend beyond garage doors which minimizes their visual impact;
 A variety of exterior materials, colors and design elements are including providing visual interest; and
 HVAC units are conditioned to be ground -mounted and screened from street and pedestrian views.

Landscaping

Site landscaping includes enhanced tree coverage along Greg Thatch Circle and Tres Piezas Drive frontages, planter strips spaces will be planted with City trees, and the front yard of each lot will be planted with additional ornamental trees and shrubs. The proposed landscaping is designed to improve the aesthetic appearance of public and common spaces connected to the development.

Fencing
The project is conditioned to provide a 6-foot-tall CMU block screen wall along the side yards of Lots 42, 71, and 79, where adjacent to Magnolia Park. Privacy fences of six feet

in height are provided along the interior property lines and on corner lots. Privacy fences are limited to 50 percent of the parcel depth in order encourage landscaping visible from the street side.

P age 1 of 4
RE
SOLUTION NO. 2023-
A
dopted by the Sacramento City Council
ADO

PTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM AND

THE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE TERRACE PARK
SUBDIVISION PROJECT (P22-045)
BACKG
ROUND
A. On April 27, 2023, the City Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing and forwarded to the City Council a r ecommendation to approve with conditions the Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045).

B. On May 23, 2023, the City Council conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant Sacramento City Code Section 17.812.010(A)(2): (a), (b), and (c) (publication, posting, and mail (500 feet))], and received and considered evidence concerning the Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045) Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045).

SED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY
COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

S
ection 1. T he City Council finds as follows:

A. On
January 14, 2008, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.), the Rio Linda Union School District (USD) adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) and a mitigation monitoring plan (MMP) and approved the Terrace Park Elementary School/Park project) (Project) in the Natomas Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD). A notice of determination (NOD) was filed with the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH) on January 18, 2008 (SCH#: 2007082059);
B. T
he Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045) project (Project Modification), is consistent with the existing Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling Zone in Natomas Creek Planned Unit Development (R-1A-PUD), proposes to modify the previously approved Project from development as a 613 student school to a 79 unit single- family residential development as follows: General Plan Amendment from Public/Quasi-Public to Suburban Neighborhood Medium Density (SNMD); a PUD Schematic Plan Amendment to redesignate ± 8.21 gross acres from a school use to residential; Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide one parcel totaling ±8.21 gross acres into 79 residential parcels in the Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling and P age 2 of 4
Natomas Creek PUD (R-1A-PUD) zone; Tentative Subdivision Map Design Deviations for non-standard street elbows; and Site Plan and Design Review of the Tentative Subdivision Map and for construction of 79 single-unit dwellings with deviations to lot coverage, rear-yard and street-side yard setback development standards in the R-1A-PUD zone;
F. The addendum on t
he Project Modification determined that the proposed
changes to the original Project did not require the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration. The project modification, consistent with the existing zoning, was found to be less intensive than development of the original approved Project. An addendum to the previously adopted MND was prepared to address the modification to the Project.

S
ection 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the previously adopted MND for the Project, the addendum, and all oral and documentary evidence received during the hearing on the Project Modification. The City Council had determined that the previously adopted MND and the addendum constitute an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete review of the proposed Project Modification and finds that no additional environmental review is required based on the reasons set forth below:

A. N
o substantial changes are proposed by the Project Modification that will require major revisions of the previously adopted MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The Project would allow single-family dwelling development on the former elementary school lot. The previous MND analyzed the Project site for elementary school use. The impacts identified in the previous MND for the elementary school site will be reduced by the development of 79 single-dwelling units as compared to the development of a 613-student elementary school. The proposed Project would alter the uses originally proposed for the site, but those changes will not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
B. N
o substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project Modification will be undertaken which will require major revisions to the previously adopted MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. At the time of the adoption of the MND, the site was described as level, unoccupied and covered with grass. The site contains no special or unique features. The areas around the site (school and park) are neighborhood streets and recently built single-family residences. The current site conditions are nearly identical, but for the construction of Magnolia Park. The Project site has otherwise remained mass graded and undeveloped, featuring ruderal vegetation that is routinely disked. The existing surrounding uses include Magnolia Park to the north; single-family residences further to the P age 3 of 4
north, and single-family residences to the east, south, and west. There have been no substantial changes in the circumstances of the project as considered in the previous MND. For this reason, the proposed project would not result in any substantial physical changes to the circumstances for the project site from what was included in the original project approval that would affect any issue of environmental significance;
C. N
o new information of substantial importance has been found that shows any of the following:

1. T
he Project Modification will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously adopted MND. The addendum provides analysis of the of the current proposal or Project Modification that concludes there are no additional significant effects not discussed in the adopted MND;

2. Si gnif
icant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previously adopted MND. The addendum provides analysis of the of the current proposal or Project Modification that concludes there are no significant effects that will be substantially more severe than previously discussed in the adopted MND;

3. M
itigation measures previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project Modification. The addendum provides analysis of the of the current proposal or Project Modification that concludes there are no mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible would be feasible that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project Modification; or

4. M
itigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previously adopted MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. The addendum provides analysis of the of the current proposal or project modification that concludes there are no mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previously adopted MND that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. The two mitigation measures included in the original Project MND were specific to requirements for school development and for school operations and are not required to reduce impacts associated with development of the proposed single-unit development (Project Modification). These two mitigation measures are not applicable to the subject project.

S
ection 3. Based on its review of the previously adopted MND for the Project, the addendum, and all oral and documentary evidence received during the hearing on the Project Modification, the City Council finds that the MND and addendum reflect the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis, and approves the addendum for the Project Modification.

P age 4 of 4
Section 4. Pursuant to CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15074, and in support of its approval of the Project, the City Council adopts a Mitigation Monitoring Plan to require all reasonably feasible mitigation measures be implemented by means of Project conditions, agreements, or other measures, as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. The two mitigation measures included in the original Project MND were specific to requirements for school development and for school operations and are not required to reduce impacts associated with development of the proposed single-unit development (Project Modification). These two mitigation measures are not applicable to the subject project.

S
ection 5. Upon approval of the Project, the City Manager shall file or cause to be filed a Notice of Determination with the Sacramento County Clerk and, if the project requires a discretionary approval from any state agency, with the State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to section 21152(a) of the Public Resources Code and the State EIR Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto.

S
ection 6. Pursuant to Guidelines s ection 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its decision are located in and may be obtained from, the Office o f the City Clerk at 915 I Street, Sacramento, California. The City Clerk is the custodian of records for all matters before the City Council.

T
able of Contents:

Ex
hibit A: Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Monitoring Plan 1
Terrace Park Subdivison (P22-045)
Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045)
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible
Party Completed Initials Notes
(optional)
Hazards and Hazardous Waste
HAZ-1: Prepare a Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) and receive clearance from DTSC for the site (typically a no further action letter).

NOT APPLICABLE None ______
Traffic
TRA-1: School District will work with site designers/planners to provide adequate onsite parking, loading and unloading
zones and an onsite drop- off/pick-up area to avoid queuing on neighborhood streets.

NOT APPLICABLE None ______
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
Adopted by Sacramento City Council
May 23, 2023

AMENDING THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND URBAN FORM DIAGRAM FOR APPROXIMATELY 8.21 ACRES FROM PUBLIC QUASI TO SUBURBAN

NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE TERRACE PARK SUBDIVISION PROJECT, LOCATED AT 891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
(APN: 201-1070-076-0000) (P22-045)

BACKGROUND

A. On March 3, 2015, Council adopted the 2035 General Plan (Resolution 2015- 0061).

B. On April 27, 2023, the City Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing and forwarded to the City Council a recommendation to approve with conditions the Terrace Park Subdivision project (P22-045), which includes the proposed amendments to the 2035 General Plan Land Use and Urban Form Diagram, as set forth in Exhibit A.

C. On May 23, 2023, the City Council conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant to Sacramento City Code Section 17.812.010 (2)(b).

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The amendment is internally consistent with the goals, policies, and other provisions of the general plan in that: a) the proposed development provides additional housing choices and homeownership opportunities in the area; b) the proposed development engages public space with street and park-fronting development (“eyes on the street”); and c) the proposed development includes quality, architecture, design, and materials, thereby enhancing neighborhood character.

Section 2. The amendment promotes the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the city in that: a) the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding residential land uses and densities; b) offers natural surveillance (eyes on the street) with residences that face roadways and Magnolia Park, and; c) has been reviewed and conditioned by Fire and Police Departments to ensure appropriate emergency access.

Section 3. The proposed zoning classification of the site is Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling (R-1A-PUD) zone and is consistent with the proposed general plan land use designation of Suburban Neighborhood Medium Density (SNMD) because residential uses are allowed in this General Plan designation and the project density of 13 dwelling units per net acre is consistent with the density range of between 7 and 17 dwelling units per net acre allowed within the SNMD designation.

Section 4. Based on verbal and documentary evidence received at the hearing, the City Council approves the 2035 General Plan Land Use and Urban Form Diagram Amendment as set forth in Exhibit A.

Section 5. Exhibit A is part of this Resolution.

Table of Contents:

Exhibit A - General Plan Amendment Exhibit

Adopted by the City of Sacramento City Council on May 23, 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:

Attest:

O
O
O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
O
O

GREG THATCH CIRCLE

TRES PIEZAS DRIVE

LOS PUEBLOS WAY

GREG THATCH CIRCLE
LOT E
172 PM 16

8.208 ACRES (NET)

PORTION OF
EXISTING NATOMAS CREEK VILLAGE 2 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED EXISTINGNATOMASCREEKVILLAGE 1SINGLEFAMILYDETACHED
EXISTING THE HAMPTONS VILLAGE 1MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

PATIO HOMES
EXISTING DESIGNATION:

PUBLIC QUASI (PUB)

EXISTING MAGNOLIA PARK

LOLET WAY

SAGPOND WAY

ELDERDOWN WAY

LANDS OF

THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO
[20080620 O.R. 0276]
LOT 70[329 M 9]
LOT 69[329 M 9]
LOT 68[329 M 9]
LOT 67[329 M 9]
LOT 66[329 M 9]
LOT 65[329 M 9]
LOT 64[329 M 9]
LOT 63[329 M 9]
LOT 62[329 M 9]
LOT 61[329 M 9]
LOT 60[329 M 9]
LOT 59[329 M 9]
LOT 58[329 M 9]
LOT 57[329 M 9]
LOT 56[329 M 9]
O
O
O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
O
O

GREG THATCH CIRCLE

TRES PIEZAS DRIVE

LOS PUEBLOS WAY

GREG THATCH CIRCLE
PROPOSED DESIGNATION:SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODMEDIUM DENSITY (SNMD) LOT E
172 PM 16

8.208 ACRES (NET)

PORTION OF
EXISTING NATOMAS CREEK VILLAGE 2 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED EXISTINGNATOMASCREEKVILLAGE 1SINGLEFAMILYDETACHED
EXISTING THE HAMPTONS VILLAGE 1MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

PATIO HOMES

EXISTING MAGNOLIA PARK

LOLET WAY

SAGPOND WAY

ELDERDOWN WAY

LANDS OF

TERRACE PARK

NE CORNER OF GREG THATCH CIRCLE AND TRES PIEZAS DR

SACRAMENTO, CA

CIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENTCARTWRIGHT NOR CAL 3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 160ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661 T (916) 978-4001
WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM
C5.0SCALE: NTS
N

GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
May 23, 2023

AMENDING THE NATOMAS CREEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)

SCHEMATIC PLAN, FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL FOR RESIDENTIAL USES (APN: 201-1070-076-0000) (P22-045)

BACKGROUND
A. On April 27, 2023, the Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing and forwarded to the City Council a recommendation to approve with conditions the Terrace Park Subdivision project (P22-045), which includes the proposed amendment to the PUD Schematic Plan to designate the project site for residential uses.

B. On May 23, 2023, the City Council conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant to Sacramento City Code Section 17.812.010 (2)(b).

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Based on the verbal and documentary evidence received at the hearing on the Terrace Park Subdivision project, the City Council approves the schematic plan amendment to the Natomas Creek Planned Unit Development, attached as Exhibit A, based on the following findings of fact:

1. The amendment is consistent with the applicable general plan land use designation, use, and development standards; the goals, policies, and other provisions of the general plan; and any applicable specific plan or transit village in that the amended General Plan and the underlying Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling zoning (R-1A) designations both permit residential uses. The amendment is also consistent with the goals of the North Natomas Community Plan and Natomas Creek PUD to achieve diversity in housing type and creativity in architecture.

2. The amendment promotes the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the city by developing vacant underutilized land with additional housing ownership opportunities.

3. The underlying zoning classification of the subject parcel, the Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling zoning (R-1A), is consistent with the amendment in that this zone allows for residential development by-right.

Table of Contents:

Exhibit A: Natomas Creek PUD Schematic Plan Amendment

Adopted by the City of Sacramento City Council on May 23, 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:

Attest:

O
O
O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
O
O

GREG THATCH CIRCLE

TRES PIEZAS DRIVE

LOS PUEBLOS WAY

GREG THATCH CIRCLE
EXISTING NATOMAS CREEK VILLAGE 2 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED EXISTINGNATOMASCREEKVILLAGE 1SINGLEFAMILYDETACHED
EXISTING THE HAMPTONS VILLAGE 1MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

PATIO HOMES
EXISTING DESIGNATION:

SCHOOL

EXISTING MAGNOLIA PARK

LOLET WAY

SAGPOND WAY

ELDERDOWN WAY
LOT 70[329 M 9]
LOT 69[329 M 9]
LOT 68[329 M 9]
LOT 67[329 M 9]
LOT 66[329 M 9]
LOT 65[329 M 9]
LOT 64[329 M 9]
LOT 63[329 M 9]
LOT 62[329 M 9]
LOT 61[329 M 9]
LOT 60[329 M 9]
LOT 59[329 M 9]
LOT 58[329 M 9]
LOT 57[329 M 9]
LOT 56[329 M 9]
LOT E
172 PM 16

8.208 ACRES (NET)

PORTION OF

LANDS OF

THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO
[20080620 O.R. 0276]
O
O
O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
O
O

GREG THATCH CIRCLE

TRES PIEZAS DRIVE

LOS PUEBLOS WAY

GREG THATCH CIRCLE
PROPOSED DESIGNATION:MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING NATOMAS CREEK VILLAGE 2 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED EXISTINGNATOMASCREEKVILLAGE 1SINGLEFAMILYDETACHED
EXISTING THE HAMPTONS VILLAGE 1MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

PATIO HOMES

EXISTING MAGNOLIA PARK

LOLET WAY

SAGPOND WAY

8.208 ACRES (NET)

PORTION OF

LANDS OF

THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO
[20080620 O.R. 0276]
DATE: 01/13/2023DRAWN BY: FS

TERRACE PARK

NE CORNER OF GREG THATCH CIRCLE AND TRES PIEZAS DR

SACRAMENTO, CA

CIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENTCARTWRIGHT NOR CAL 3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 160ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661 T (916) 978-4001
WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM
C4.0SCALE: NTS
N

PUD SCHEMATIC PLAN EXHIBIT

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
May 23, 2023
Adopting Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval to Approve the Terrace Park Subdivision Project (P22-045) (APN: 201-1070-076-0000)
Background
A. On April 27, 2023, the City Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing and forwarded to the City Council, a recommendation to approve the Terrace Park Subdivision Project.

B. On May 23, 2023, the City Council conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given under Sacramento City Code Section 17.812.010(2)(b).

Based on the facts set forth in the Background, the City Council resolves as follows:

Section 1. Based on the verbal and documentary evidence received at the hearing on the Terrace Park Subdivision (Project), the City Council approves the Project entitlements based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval as set forth below.

A. Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide one parcel totaling ±8.21 gross acres into 79 residential parcels in the Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling and Natomas Creek Planned Unit Development (R-1A-PUD) zone is approved based on the following findings:

1. None of the conditions described in City Code section 17.828.090 and Government Code section 66474 exist with respect to the proposed subdivision as follows:
a. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan, all applicable community and specific plans, Title 17 of the City Code, and all other applicable provisions of the City Code.
b. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, all applicable community and specific plans, Title 17 of the City Code, and all other applicable provisions of the City Code as conditioned.
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

e. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
f. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
g. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

2. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan, all applicable community and specific plans, Title 17 of the City Code, and all other applicable provisions of the City Code (Gov. Code §66473.5).

3. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing community sewer system will not result in a violation of the applicable waste discharge requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Board, Central Valley Region, in that existing treatment plants have a design capacity adequate to service the proposed subdivision (Gov. Code §66474.6).

4. The design of the proposed subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities (Gov. Code §66473.1).

5. The City has considered the effect of the approval of this Tentative Parcel Map on the housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources (Gov. Code §66412.3).

B. Tentative Subdivision Map Design Deviation for non-standard street elbows is approved based on the following Findings of Fact:

1. The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, or that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that is impossible, impractical, or undesirable in the particular case to conform to the strict application of these regulations.

2. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulation is not the sole reason for granting the deviation.

3. The deviation will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity.

4. That granting the deviation is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations and is consistent with the general plan and with all other applicable specific plans of the city.

C. Site Plan and Design Review of the Tentative Subdivision Map and for construction of 79 single-unit dwellings with deviations to lot coverage, rear-yard and street-side yard setback development standards in the Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling and Natomas Creek Planned Unit Development (R-1A-PUD) zone is approved based on the following findings:

1. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the proposed development are consistent with the Suburban Neighborhood Medium Density general plan designation in that this designation allows for small-lot single-unit dwellings at the proposed density of 13 dwelling units per net acre. There is no applicable specific plan or transit village plan.

2. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of proposed development are consistent with applicable design guidelines and with all applicable development standards or, if deviations from development standards are approved, the proposed development is consistent with the purpose and intent of those standards. This project is requesting deviations to 55 lots and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planning and Development Code in that: 1) the lot widths and depths are sufficient to accommodate the proposed housing; 2) the reduced setbacks and lot coverage do not disturb neighborly privacy or hamper access to light and air; 3) the project otherwise meets applicable development standards within the R-1A zone including height, and front and side-yard setbacks; and 4) the project meets applicable Single-Unit Dwelling and Duplex design guidelines including the provision of porches which attractively identify entry features, a variety of exterior materials, colors and design elements are included providing visual interest and recessed garages minimizing the visual impact on the building façade.

3. All streets and other public access ways and facilities, parking facilities, and utility infrastructure are adequate to serve the proposed development and comply with all applicable design guidelines and development standards in that the proposed project provides onsite and offsite improvements to sufficiently serve the project and its users through appropriate stormwater management, extension of necessary public and private utility infrastructure, and parking and landscaping improvements.

4. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the proposed development are visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in that houses orient toward public spaces and the proposed design creates a distinctive sense of place for the new project while

respecting the scale of the existing developments.

5. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the proposed development ensure energy consumption is minimized and use of renewable energy sources is encouraged in that the project will utilize existing road and utility networks and position residences within walking distance of routine destinations.

6. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the proposed development are not detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare of persons residing, working, visiting, or recreating in the surrounding neighborhood and will not result in the creation of a nuisance in that houses are oriented toward public and common spaces, creating natural “eyes on the street” safety surveillance.

D. 200-Year Flood Protection Finding Consistent with State Law (SB 5) and Planning and Development Code Section 17.810:

1. State Law (SB 5) and Planning and Development Code chapter 17.810 require that the City must make specific findings prior to approving certain entitlements for projects within a flood hazard zone. The purpose is to ensure that new development will have protection from a 200-year flood event or will achieve that protection by 2025. The project site is within a flood hazard zone and is an area covered by SAFCA’s Improvements to the State Plan of Flood Control System, and specific findings related to the level of protection have been incorporated as part of this project. Even though the project site is within a flood hazard zone, the local flood management agency, SAFCA, has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will ensure protection from a 200-year flood event or will achieve that protection by 2025. This is based on the SAFCA Urban level of flood protection plan, adequate progress baseline report, and adequate progress toward an urban level of flood protection engineer’s report that were accepted by City Council Resolution No. 2016-0226 on June 21, 2016, and the SAFCA 2022 Adequate Progress Annual Report accepted by City Council Resolution No. 2022-0313 on October 11, 2022.

Conditions of Approval
A. The Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide one parcel totaling ±8.21 gross acres into 79 residential parcels is approved subject to the following conditions of approval:

NOTE: These conditions shall supersede any contradictory information shown on

the Tentative Map or any contradictory provisions in the PUD guidelines approved for this project (P22-045). The design of any improvement not covered by these conditions or the PUD Guidelines shall be to City standard.

The applicant shall satisfy each of the following conditions prior to filing the Final Map unless a different time for compliance is specifically stated in these conditions.

Any condition requiring an improvement that has already been designed and secured under a City Approved improvement agreement may be considered satisfied at the discretion of the Department of Public Works.

The City strongly encourages the applicant to thoroughly discuss the conditions of approval for the project with their Engineer/Land Surveyor consultants prior to City Planning and Design Commission approval. The improvements required of a Tentative Map can be costly and are completely dependent upon the condition of the existing improvements. Careful evaluation of the potential cost of the improvements required by the City will enable the applicant to ask questions of the City prior to project approval and will result in a smoother plan check process after project approval:

Public Works

A1. The applicant shall participate in the North Natomas Financing Plan, adopted by Resolution No. 94-495 on August 9, 1994, as it is updated, and shall execute any and all agreements, which may be required in order to implement this condition.

A2. Comply with and meet all the requirements of the Development Agreement to the satisfaction of the City of Sacramento.

A3. Comply with the PUD guidelines approved for this project (P22-045) to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Department of Public Works.

A4. Show all existing and proposed/required easements on the Final Map.

A5. Pursuant to City Code Section 17.500.190, indicate easements on the Final Map to allow for the placement of centralized mail delivery units. The specific locations for such easements shall be subject to review and approval of the Department of Public Works after consultation with the U.S.

Postal Service.

A6. Prior to submittal of improvement plans for any phase of this project, the developer’s design consultant(s) shall participate in a pre-design conference with City staff. The purpose of this conference is to allow City staff and the design consultants to exchange information on project design requirements and to coordinate the improvement plan review process. Contact the Department of Public Works, Plan Check Engineer at 808-7915 to schedule

the conference. It is strongly recommended that the conference be held as early in the design process as possible.

A7. Submit a Geotechnical Analysis prepared by a registered engineer to be used in street design. The analysis shall identify and recommend solutions for groundwater related problems, which may occur within both the subdivision lots and public right-of-way. Construct appropriate facilities to alleviate those problems. As a result of the analysis street sections shall be designed to provide for stabilized subgrades and pavement sections under high groundwater conditions.

A8. Construct standard subdivision improvements as noted in these conditions pursuant to section 17.504.050 of the City Code. Any public improvement not specifically noted in these conditions or on the Tentative Map shall be designed and constructed to City standards. This shall include the repair or replacement/reconstruction of any existing deteriorated curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the subject property along Greg Thatch Circle and Tres Piezas Drive per City standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

A9. Dedicate and construct all internal residential streets (X Way and Y Way and Z Circle) consistent with the City’s residential street standards (53-foot Right of way) to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Z circle along the park frontage shall have attached sidewalks to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works and PPDD.

A10. All proposed street elbows shall be constructed per City standards (DPM plate # 15-16) to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

A11. City standard ornamental streetlights (acorn style or alternate decorative style approved by the Planning and Electrical Divisions) shall be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance with Electrical Division requirements to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

A12. The City may, at its discretion, require the inclusion of traffic calming devices along residential streets, to be constructed as part of the public improvements. These devices may include, but are not limited to, speed humps/lumps, additional 4-way intersections, etc. Speed humps will be required on certain streets adjacent to school/park combinations, as determined by the Department of Public Works.

A13. The design and placement of walls, fences, signs and Landscaping near intersections and driveways shall allow stopping sight distance per Caltrans standards and comply with City Code Section 12.28.010 (25' sight triangle).

Walls shall be set back 3' behind the sight line needed for stopping sight distance to allow sufficient room for pilasters. Landscaping in the area required for adequate stopping sight distance shall be limited 3.5' in height.

The area of exclusion shall be determined by the Department of Public Works.

A14. Developer is required to install permanent street signs to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

A15. The applicant shall provide a signing and striping improvement plan if new signage or striping is proposed; or if existing signing and/or striping is removed or relocated. The plans shall be to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

A16. The applicant shall make provisions for bus stops and shelters etc. to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works after consultations with Regional Transit.

SMUD

A17. SMUD has existing underground 12kV facilities Tres Piezas Way that will need to remain. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all CalOSHA and State of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 128 safety clearances during construction and upon building completion. If the required clearances cannot be maintained, the Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of relocation.

A18. Structural setbacks less than 14-feet shall require the Applicant to conduct a pre-engineering meeting with all utilities to ensure property clearances are maintained.

A19. Any necessary future SMUD facilities located on the Applicant’s property shall require a dedicated SMUD easement. This will be determined prior to SMUD performing work on the Applicant’s property.

A20. In the event the Applicant requires the relocation or removal of existing SMUD facilities on or adjacent to the subject property, the Applicant shall coordinate with SMUD. The Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of relocation or removal.

A21. SMUD reserves the right to use any portion of its easements on or adjacent to the subject property that it reasonably needs and shall not be responsible for any damages to the developed property within said easement that unreasonably interferes with those needs.

A22. The Applicant shall not place any building foundations within 5-feet of any SMUD trench to maintain adequate trench integrity. The Applicant shall verify specific clearance requirements for other utilities (e.g., Gas, Telephone, etc.).

A23. In the event the City requires an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) for future roadway improvements, the Applicant shall dedicate a 12.5-foot public utility easement (PUE) for overhead and/or underground facilities and appurtenances adjacent to the City’s IOD.

A24. The Applicant shall comply with SMUD siting requirements (e.g., panel size/location, clearances from SMUD equipment, transformer location, service conductors). Information regarding SMUD siting requirements can be found at: https://www.smud.org/en/Business-Solutions-and- Rebates/Design-and-Construction-Services.

A25. The Applicant shall provide separate SMUD service points to each parcel to the satisfaction of SMUD.

A26. The Applicant shall dedicate a 12.5-foot public utility easement for overhead and/or underground facilities and appurtenances adjacent to all public street rights-of-ways. Lots 10, 27, 43, 53, 54, 64, 65, and 72 shall require a 5-foot public utility easement dedication.

A27. The Applicant shall dedicate any private drive, ingress and egress easement, (and 10-feet adjacent thereto) as a public utility easement for (overhead and) underground facilities and appurtenances. All access roads shall meet minimum SMUD requirements for access roads.

A28. The Applicant shall dedicate and provide all-weather vehicular access for service vehicles that are up to 26,000 pounds. At a minimum: (a) the drivable surface shall be 20-feet wide; and (b) all SMUD underground equipment and appurtenances shall be within 15-feet from the drivable surface.

Sacramento Area Sewer District

A29. Prior to the APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS: Each owner is responsible for installing collector sized sewer pipeline and appurtenances across the parcel frontage as a condition of approval. These improvements must be shown on the plans.

A30. Prior to the APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS: To obtain sewer service, construction of SacSewer sewer infrastructure will be required.

Current SacSewer Standards and Specifications apply to any offsite or onsite public sewer construction or modification. These improvements must be shown on the plans. Field modifications to new or existing precast manhole bases are not allowed.

A31. Prior to the APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS: SacSewer requires each building on each lot with a sewage source to have a separate

connection to SacSewer’s sewer system. If there is more than one building in any single parcel and the parcel is not proposed for split, then each building on that parcel must have a separate connection to a private onsite sewer line or a separate connection to the SacSewer public sewer line.

These improvements must be shown on the plans.

A32. Prior to the APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS: Lower Laterals must not directly connect to main lines more than 19 feet deep / directly to trunk lines (lines with flow greater than 1 MGD). Connection to the 36 inch diameter sewer on Greg Thatch Circle will not be allowed.

A33. Prior to the APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS: Construction of sewer mainlines are prohibited within 100-year flood plains. The location of the 100-year flood plain must be shown on the improvement plan.

A34. Prior to the APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS: All onsite sewer plans and offsite sewer plans must be submitted separately to SacSewer for review and approval.

A35. Prior to the APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS: Alignment of all main lines and structures must provide a minimum of 1 foot vertical clearance and 5 feet horizontal clearance from all other utilities and improvements.

Sewer is to be located a minimum of 10 feet (measured horizontally) from any structure or footing. Show public sanitary sewer and water supply facilities in accordance with the Health and Safety Code.

A36. Prior to the ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: The owner must contact Permit Services Unit at [email protected] or by phone at (916) 876-6100 to determine if sewer impact fees are due. Fees are to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.

A37. HYDRAULIC MODEL RESULT: The proposed density has been modeled by SacSewer and our system has sufficient capacity for this development.

The project must connect to the SacSewer mainline on Tres Piezas Drive or the 8 inch mainline on Greg Thatch Circle.

Regional Sanitation

A38. Prior to the ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: The owner must contact the Regional San Permit Services Unit at [email protected] or by phone at (916) 876 -6100 to determine if sewer impact fees are due.

Fees are to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.

Department of Utilities (DOU)

A39. Applicant shall participate in the North Natomas Development Fee District Finance Plan and pay all required fees.

A40. All existing easements and all existing right-of-ways shall be shown on the Final Map, except for all abandoned easements and right-of-ways.

A41. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of improvement plans, prepare a project specific water study for review and approval by the DOU. The water distribution system shall be designed to satisfy the more critical of the two following conditions: (1) at maximum day peak hour demand, the operating or "residual" pressure at all water service connections shall be at least 30 pounds per square inch, (2) at average maximum day demand plus fire flow, the operating or "residual" pressure in the area of the fire shall not be less than 20 pounds per square inch. The water study shall determine if the existing and proposed water distribution system is adequate to supply fire flow demands for the project. A water supply test may be required for this project. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Sacramento Utilities Department Development Review Section (916-808-7890) at the early planning stages to address any water related requirements. Failure to submit the water study may delay review and approval.

A42. Two points of service for the public water distribution system for this subdivision or any phase of this subdivision are required. All water lines shall be placed within the asphalt section of public right-of-ways as per the City’s Design and Procedures Manual.

A43. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the building permit application, the applicant shall prepare a project specific drainage study meeting the criteria specified in the most current Basin 11 Drainage Master Plan.

Changes from the Drainage Master Plan shall require mitigation conforming to current Onsite Design Manual and/or the Design and Procedures Manual.

Either a static or dynamic analysis for mitigating sizing and drainage system design may be used. Using the static analysis and per the DOU onsite project storage method, an estimated 10,600 cubic feet of detention must be provided per each additional acre of impervious area. The maximum discharge rate must be limited to an estimated 0.10 cfs/acre. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Sacramento Utilities Department Development Review Section (916-808-7890) at the early planning stages to address any drainage related requirements. Failure to submit the drainage study may delay review and approval. (Note: A maintenance agreement may be required for detention and Low Impact Development (LID) features.)

A44. Finished floor elevations shall be a minimum of 1-foot above the 100-year HGL or 1.5–feet above the overland flow release elevation, whichever is higher or as approved by the DOU.

A45. All lots shall be graded so that drainage does not cross property lines or private drainage easements shall be dedicated.

A46. This project will disturb more than one acre of land; therefore, the project is required to comply with the State’s “Construction General Permit”. To comply with the State Permit, the applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) through the State’s Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). A valid WDID number must be obtained and provided to the DOU prior to the issuance of any grading permits.

A47. The applicant must comply with the City of Sacramento's Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. This ordinance requires the applicant to show erosion and sediment control methods on the construction drawings.

These plans shall also show the methods to control urban runoff pollution from the project site during construction.

A48. Post construction (permanent), stormwater quality control measures shall be incorporated into the development to minimize the increase of urban runoff pollution caused by development of the area. The project is an area served by an existing regional water quality control facility, therefore only source control, and Low Impact Development (LID) measures are required.

Improvement plans must include the measures selected for the site. Refer to the latest edition of the “Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento Region” Chapter 4 for appropriate source control measures and chapter 5 for appropriate LID and HMP measures. (Note: A maintenance agreement is required for all on-site water quality measures.)

Parks

A49. Payment of In-lieu Park Fee: Pursuant to Sacramento City Code Chapter

17.512 (Parkland Dedication) the applicant shall pay to City an in-lieu park fee in the amount determined under SCC §§17.512.030 and 17.512.040 equal to the value of land prescribed for dedication under 17.512.020 and not satisfied by dedication. (See Advisory Note)

A50. Maintenance District: The applicant shall initiate and complete the formation of a parks maintenance district (assessment or Mello-Roos special tax district) or annex the project into an existing parks maintenance district. The applicant shall pay all city fees for formation of or annexation to a parks maintenance district. (Contact Infrastructure Finance, Jessica Steinhauer, (916) 808-8243).

Tentative Subdivision Map Advisory Notes:

The following advisory notes are informational in nature and are not a requirement of this Tentative Map:

1. If unusual amounts of bone, stone, or artifacts are uncovered, work, in the area within the distance required by federal and state regulations, will cease

immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to develop, if necessary, further mitigation measures to reduce any archaeological impact to a less than significant effect before construction resumes. A note shall be placed on the final improvement plans referencing this condition.

2. House plans shall comply with City Code Chapter 17.508 regarding single family homes driveways.

3. ONGOING: Public lower laterals must not be smaller than the upper laterals, sized according the California Plumbing Code requirements. (SASD)

4. The proposed development is located within Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD). Satisfy all SASD requirements. (DOU)

5. Water meters shall be located at the point of service, which is back of curb for separated sidewalks, back of walk for connected sidewalks or at the inside edge of the right-of-way for public alleys.

6. Water meter boxes located in driveways shall be traffic rated per the requirements of the City Standard Specifications.

7. The proposed project is located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), designated as A99 zone Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). FEMA does not require elevating or flood proofing in A99 zone. City Code Chapter 15.108.40 Floodplain Risk Notifications require that any new construction of and/or substantial improvement to any structure located in A99 zone requires a Hold Harmless Agreement regarding risk of flooding on property. (DOU)

8. The Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) is responsible for providing local sewer service to the proposed project site via their local sanitary sewer collection system. Regional San is responsible for the conveyance of wastewater from the SacSewer collection system to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP). SacSewer will respond via separate correspondence. (Regional San)

9. As per City Code, the applicant will be responsible to meet his/her obligations regarding:

a. Title17, 17.512 Park Dedication / In Lieu (Quimby) Fees, due prior to recordation of the final map. The Quimby fee due for this project is estimated at $279,186. This is based on the creation of 79 new parcels at an average land value of $310,000 per acre for the North Natomas Community Plan Area, plus an additional 20% for off-site park infrastructure improvements. Any change in these factors will change the amount of the Quimby fee due. The final fee is calculated using factors at

the time of payment. The fee is due at the time of the final map.

b. Title 18, 18.56 Park Development Impact Fee, due at the time of issuance of building permit. The Park Development Impact Fee due for this project is estimated at $512,797. The Park Development Impact Fee due for this project is based on the Remainder Zone rate of $3.39 per square foot for residential projects, with a minimum rate of $2,549 for units under 750 square feet and a maximum of $6,797 for units over 2,000 square feet.

Any change in these factors will change the amount of the PIF due. The fee is calculated using factors at the time that the project is submitted for building permit.

c. Community Facilities District 2002-02, Neighborhood Park Maintenance CFD Annexation.

d. A six foot high masonry wall as approved by the City PPDS on property lines separating public park and the designated open space areas from adjacent private uses. The masonry wall shall be split face block or similar material (to discourage graffiti) with decorative top cap and on-center pilasters, or as otherwise approved by PPDS.

e. Where possible, buildings should be oriented to front onto the neighborhood park to provide visual access to the park and keep eyes on the park for safety.

Planning
C1. The project shall be constructed per the approved plans and these conditions of approval.

C2. Any modification to the project shall be subject to review and approval by Planning staff (and may require additional entitlements) prior to the issuance of building permits.

C3. No houses of the same floor plan and elevation design shall be allowed on adjacent lots.

C4. Building materials and finishes shall be provided in accordance with the materials and colors shown on the plans. The building shall be constructed

with the following materials where provided in the approved plans:

a. Smooth-painted stucco exterior siding;
b. Fiber cement siding and board and batten exterior siding; c. Decorative window trim, and shutters;
d. Decorative front-entry doors;
e. Dimensional composition shingle roofing and metal accent roofing; f. Wood porch columns
C5. All building elevations shall have a form and design consistent with the final approved plans.

C6. Landscaping shall be provided as indicated on the approved plans, including street trees, ornamental trees, and shrubs as shown on the landscape plan.

C7. Outdoor heating and cooling mechanical equipment (HVAC) shall be ground- mounted and not visible/screened from any street or pedestrian views.

C8. This project is within the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan area.

The project applicant/developer shall complete the pre-construction surveys for potential special status species not less than 30 days or more than 6 months prior to construction activities in accordance with the 2003 NBHCP.

The pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, botanist, or related expert and will be reviewed by EPS, CDFW, USFWS, and the Natomas Basin Conservancy.

C9. The applicant shall participate in the North Natomas Financing Plan, adopted by Resolution No. 94-495 on August 9, 1994, and as updated periodically, and shall execute any and all agreements, which may be required in order to implement this condition.

C10. The applicant shall provide opaque windows on the second-story-western- elevation on the home placed on Lot 1.

Environmental Planning Services
C11. In the event that archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during construction, work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease until a notice to proceed is issued by the City. The applicant shall notify the City of Sacramento Manager of Environmental Planning Services (phone 311 or (916) 799-1531; email [email protected]) and shall comply with City direction, and federal and State regulations and guidelines regarding the treatment of cultural resources and human remains.

The Coroner shall be notified in the event human remains are discovered; the applicant shall be responsible for the employment of a qualified

archaeologist to advise regarding treatment of any artifacts.

C12. The project applicant shall conduct any tree removal activities required for project construction outside of the migratory bird and raptor breeding season (February 1 through August 31) where feasible. All trees slated for removal during the nesting season shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than 48-hours before removal to ensure that no nesting birds are occupying the tree.

C13. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Basic Construction Emission Control Practices apply and compliance is required. See www.airquality.org. Other air district rules may apply and the air district should be consulted.

Public Works
C14. Construct standard public improvements as noted in these conditions pursuant to Title 17 of the City Code. Improvements shall be designed to City Standards and assured as set forth in Section 17.502.130 of the City Code. Any public improvement not specifically noted in these conditions shall be designed and constructed to City Standards. This shall include the repair or replacement/reconstruction of any existing deteriorated curb, gutter, and sidewalk adjacent to the subject property along Greg Thatch Circle and Tres Piezas Drive per City standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

C15. Dedicate and construct all internal residential streets (X Way and Y Way and Z Circle) consistent with the City’s residential street standards (53-foot Right of way) to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Z circle along the park frontage shall have attached sidewalks to the satisfaction of the Departments of Public Works and PPDD

C16. All right-of-way and street improvement transitions that result from cha nging the right-of-way of any street shall be located, designed, and constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

C17. All new driveways shall be designed and constructed to City Standards and compliant with City Code section 17.508 to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

C18. The site plan shall conform to A.D.A. requirements in all respects. This shall include the construction of new curb ramps or replacement of any curb ramp that does not meet current A.D.A. standards with in the project’s site to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

C19. The applicant shall record the Final Map, which creates the lot pattern shown on the proposed site plan prior to obtaining any Building Permits.

C20. This project will require the in stallation of streetlights on all public streets fronting this property to the satisfaction of Public Works. The number and locations of these lights will be determined when development plans are submitted for review.

C21. The applicant shall provide a signin g and striping improvement plan if new signage or striping is proposed; or if existing signing and/or striping is removed or relocated. The plans shall be to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

C22. The design of walls fences and signage near intersections and driveways shall allow stopping sight distance per Caltrans standards and comply with City Code Section 12.28.010 (25' sight triangle). Walls shall be set back 3' behind the sight line needed for stopping sight di stance to allow sufficient room for pilasters. Landscaping in the area required for adequate stopping sight distance shall be limited 3.5' in height at maturity. The area of exclusion shall be determined by the Department of Public Works.

C23. The applicant shall participate in the North Natomas Financing Plan, adopted by Resolution No. 94 -495 on August 9, 1994, as it is updated, and shall execute any and all agreements, which may be required in order to implement this condition.

C24. Comply with and meet all the requirements of the Development Agreement to the satisfaction of the City of Sacramento.

C25. Comply with the PUD guidelines approved for this project (P22 -045) to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Department of Public Works. The design of any imp rovement not covered by these conditions, or the PUD Guidelines shall be to City standard.

Department of Utilities
C26. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of improvement plans, prepare a project specific water study for review and approval by the DOU. The water distribution system shall be designed to satisfy the more critical of the two following conditions: (1) at maximum day peak hour demand, the operating or "residual" pressure at all water service connections shall be at least 30 pounds per square inch, (2) at average maximum day demand plus fire flow, the operating or "residual" pressure in the area of the fire shall not be less than 20 pounds per square inch. The water study shall determine if the existing and proposed water distribution system is adequate to supply fire flow demands for the project. A water supply test may be required for this

project. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Sacramento Utilities Department Development Review Section (916-808-7890) at the early planning stages to address any water related requirements. Failure to submit the water study may delay review and approval.

C27. Two points of service for the public water distribution system for this subdivision or any phase of this subdivision are required. All water lines shall be placed within the asphalt section of public right-of-ways as per the City’s Design and Procedures Manual.

C28. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the building permit application, the applicant shall prepare a project specific drainage study meeting the criteria specified in the most current Basin 11 Drainage Master Plan. Changes from the Drainage Master Plan shall require mitigation conforming to current Onsite Design Manual and/or the Design and Procedures Manual. Either a static or dynamic analysis for mitigating sizing and drainage system design may be used. Using the static analysis and per the DOU onsite project storage method, an estimated 10,600 cubic feet of detention must be provided per each additional acre of impervious area. The maximum discharge rate must be limited to an estimated 0.10 cfs/acre. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Sacramento Utilities Department Development Review Section (916-808-7890) at the early planning stages to address any drainage related requirements. Failure to submit the drainage study may delay review and approval. (Note: A maintenance agreement may be required for detention and Low Impact Development (LID) features.) C29. Finished floor elevations shall be a minimum of 1-foot above the 100-year HGL or 1.5–feet above the overland flow release elevation, whichever is higher or as approved by the DOU.

Police Department

Lighting:

C30. Exterior lighting shall be white light using LED lamps with full cutoff fixtures to limit glare and light trespass. Color temperature shall be between 2700K and 4100K with a color rendering index of 80 or higher and a light loss factor of .95 or better. When choosing lamps, the applicant shall look for efficiency of 110 lumens per watt or better. All existing exterior fixtures shall be replaced with fixtures that meet this requirement.

C31. Light poles, if applicable, shall be no higher than 16’.

C32. Broken or damaged exterior lighting shall be repaired or replaced within 48 hours of being noted.

Landscaping:

C33. All mature landscaping shall follow the two-foot, six-foot rule. All landscaping should be ground cover, two feet or less and lower tree canopies of mature trees shall be above six feet. This increases natural surveillance, eliminates hiding areas within the landscape, and provides for tenants and users a safer environment.

C34. Tree canopies shall not interfere with or block lighting. This creates shadows and areas of concealment. The landscaping plan shall allow for proper illumination and visibility regarding lighting and surveillance cameras through the maturity of trees and shrubs.

During Construction:

C35. The applicant shall enclose the entire perimeter of the project with a chain link fence with necessary construction gates to be locked after normal construction hours.

C36. The location shall be monitored by security after normal construction hours during all phases of construction. This can be done via remote camera monitoring.

C37. Adequate security lighting shall be provided to illuminate vulnerable equipment and materials. Lighting shall be white light with full cut off fixtures.

Site Plan and Design Review Advisory Notes:

1. Water meters shall be located at the point of service, which is back of curb for separated sidewalks, back of walk for connected sidewalks or at the inside edge of the right-of-way for public alleys.

2. Water meter boxes located in driveways shall be traffic rated per the requirements of the City Standard Specifications.

3. The proposed project is located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), designated as A99 zone Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). FEMA does not require elevating or flood proofing in A99 zone. City Code Chapter 15.108.40 Floodplain Risk Notifications require that any new construction of and/or substantial improvement to any structure located in A99 zone requires a Hold Harmless Agreement regarding risk of flooding on property.

4. Timing and Installation. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection, is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. California Fire Code Section 501.4

5. Provide a water flow test. (Make arrangements with the Department of Utilities at 916-808-7890 or by email at
[email protected] California Fire Code Section 507.4

6. Per the most recently adopted California Residential Code, all new residential construction including 1 and 2 family dwellings and townhouses shall be provided with an approved NFPA 13 D sprinkler system.

7. City of Sacramento permits must be obtained for private patrol, alarms, and camera systems.

8. Refer to the Sacramento Tree Foundation Shady 80 Tree List for tree planting recommendations - https://sactree.org/best-trees-for-sacramento/

9. Alternate Water Systems Requirement. Pursuant to Chapter 15.24.030,

15.24.040 and 15.24.050 of Sacramento City Code, beginning on July 1, 2023, new buildings that are 10,000 square feet or greater must include a gray water system to provide subsurface irrigation and buildings that are 50,000 square feet or greater must include installation of a separate, additional piping system for an on-site treated non-potable gray water system for water closets and urinals. Limited exceptions apply. Please see City webpage for more details. Complete building permit applications (including payment of all required fees) filed with and accepted by the City’s Building Division prior to July 1, 2023, will not be subject to Alternate Water Systems requirements. Applicants are advised to plan for alternate water systems beginning with initial early design. For more information, please visit the City’s website: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community- Development/Planning/Major-Projects/General-Plan/About-The- Project/Climate_Change/Onsite-Water-Reuse-Study

Adopted by the City of Sacramento City Council on _____, 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:

Attest:

DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

0.1 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
TERRACE PARK | SACRAMENTO, CA

PROJECT DIRECTORY

APPLICANT

NEXT GENERA

TION CAPITAL, LLC
11211 GOLD COUNTRY BLVD. #103
GOLD RIVER, CA 95670
CONTACT: BRIAN HANLY
PHONE: 916-730-9783
EMAIL: [email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

CARTWRIGHT NOR CAL
3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT , SUITE 160
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
CONTACT: MONICA WUEBKER-JARWIN
PHONE:916-978-4001
EMAIL: [email protected]

SHEET INDEX

ARCHITECTURAL DRA
WINGS
A0.1 – TITLE SHEET
A0.2 – STREETSCAPE ELEVATION 1 & 2
A0.4 - PERSPECTIVE VIEW
A0.5 – EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
A1.1 – PLAN 1A & 1B – FIRST FLOOR PLANS
A1.2 – PLAN 1A & 1B – SECOND FLOOR PLANS
A1.3 – PLAN 1A – ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN
A1.4 – PLAN 1B – ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN
A1.5 – PLAN 2A & 2B – FIRST FLOOR PLANS

CIVIL DRAWINGS

TM - TENTATIVE MAP
C0.0 - PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
C1.0 - PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C2.0 - PRELIMINARY WATER AND SERWER PLAN
C3.0 - PRELIMINARY STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
C4.0 - PUD SCHEMATIC PLAN EXHIBIT
C5.0 - GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT
TOTAL SHEETS: 6

LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
SHEET L1 - CONCEPTUAL SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN
SHEET L2 - ENLARGED CONCEPTUAL LOT LANDSCAPE PLANS
SHEET L3 - PLANT PICTURES
TOTAL SHEETS: 3

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT L

OCATION
N

GREG THATCH CIRCLE
TRES PIEZAS DR.

ARCHITECTURE PROJECT INFO.

NAME:

L
OCATION:

PROJECT TYPE:

OCCUPANCY
GROUP:

TYPE OF
CONSTRUCTION:

BUILDING CODE:

TERRACE PARK
891 GREG THA
TCH CIRCLE & TRES PIEZAS DR.

SACRAMENTO, CA

SINGLE FAMILY DETACH
R3

TYPE VB

CALIFORNIA RSIDENTIAL CODE

SEE CIVIL FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PLANNING PROJECT INFO.

SITE ACREAGE (GROSS):

SITE ACREAGE (NET):

L
OTS/UNITS:

DENSITY:

EXISTING LAND USE:

PROPOSED LAND USE:

EXISTING/ PROPOSED
ZONING:

8.21 ACRES

6.07 ACRES
79 13.0 DU/ACRE

PUBLIC/QU

ASI-PUBLIC

SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD

MEDIUM DENSITY
R-1A-PUD

TITLE SHEET
A1.6 – PLAN 2A & 2B – SECOND FLOOR PLANS
A1.7 – PLAN 2A – ELEV

ATIONS & ROOF PLAN
A1.8 – PLAN 2B – ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN
A1.9 – PLAN 3A & 3B – FIRST FLOOR PLANS
A1.10 – PLAN 3A & 3B – SECOND FLOOR PLANS
A1.11 – PLAN 3A – ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN
A1.12 – PLAN 3B – ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN
A2.1 – COLOR SCHEMES 1 & 2 - ELEVATION A
A2.2 – COLOR SCHEMES 3 & 4 - ELEVATION A
A2.3 – COLOR SCHEMES 5 & 6 - ELEVATION B
A2.4 – COLOR SCHEMES 7 & 8 - ELEVATION B
TOTAL SHEETS: 20

ARCHITECT
DAHLIN GROUP , INC.
5865 OWENS DRIVE
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
CONTACT: ZAID ALZAID

DON RICCI
PHONE: 925-251-7200
EMAIL: ZAID.ALZAID@DAHLINGROUP .COM
DON.RICCI@DAHLINGROUP .COM

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

TOM SMITHS ASSOCIATES
6921 ROSEVILLE RD.

SACRAMENTO, CA 95842
CONTACT: THOMAS G. SMITH
PHONE: 916-349-37376
EMAIL: [email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
CAR

TWRIGHT NOR CAL
3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT , SUITE 160
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
CONTACT: MONICA WUEBKER-JARWIN
PHONE:916-978-4001
EMAIL: [email protected]

ARCHITECT

DAHLIN GROUP
, INC.
5865 OWENS DRIVE
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
CONTACT: ZAID ALZAID

DON RICCI
PHONE: 925-251-7200
EMAIL: ZAID.ALZAID@DAHLINGROUP .COM
DON.RICCI@DAHLINGROUP .COM

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

TOM SMITHS ASSOCIATES
6921 ROSEVILLE RD.

SACRAMENTO, CA 95842
CONTACT: THOMAS G. SMITH
PHONE: 916-349-37376
EMAIL: [email protected]

DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

0.2 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
PERSPECTIVE STREETSCAPE 1
PERSPECTIVE STREETSCAPE 2
N

SITE PLAN KEY MAP
SECTION 1
PLAN 1A - CS1
PL
AN 3A - CS2
PLAN 2B - CS8
PLAN 2B - CS6
PLAN 3A - CS2
PLAN 1A - CS3
PLAN 1B - CS5
PLAN 3B - CS7
PLAN 2A - CS3
PLAN 2A - CS4
PLAN 3B - CS6
PLAN 3B - CS8
SECTION 2
DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

0.3 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
PERSPECTIVE STREETSCAPE 3
N

SITE PLAN KEY MAP
SCALE: NTS

DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

0.4 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 10/17/2022

EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
A
A
8 B
6 4
C
D
2 5
13 7
1 5
C 3 7
B 2 6
D 4 8
SCALE: NTS
N
DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

1.1 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
PLAN 1A & 1B - FIRST FLOOR PLANPL AN 1B - PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SQUARE FOOTAGE
PLAN 1A & 1B - FIRST FLOOR PLANS

DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

1.2 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
PLAN 1A & 1B - SECOND FLOOR PLANPL AN 1B - PARTIAL SECOND FLOOR PLAN PLAN 1A & 1B - SECOND FLOOR PLANS

SQUARE FOOTAGE

DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

1.3 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
PLAN 1A - ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN

REAR ELEV

ATIONRIGHT ELEVA TION

FRONT ELEVATION

LEFT ELEVATION
NOTE: COLORS SHOWN ARE REPRESENTATIONAL AND COULD BE APPLIED TO ANY PLAN WITH AN ‘A’ ELEVATION STYLE. SEE SHEETS A2.1 & A2.2 FOR ELEVATION ‘A’ COLOR SCHEME SELECTIONS & MATERIAL CALLOUTS.

NOTE: ALL WINDOW HEAD HEIGHTS CONSISTENT EXCEPT AT SOME FRONT ELEVATIONS.

SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”

ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
RIGHT / PARTIAL LEFT ELEVATION @ CORNER
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”

WOOD SHUTTER -

VERTICAL WOOD
SL
ATS

SHUTTERSX
X3

WINDOW & DOOR TRIM,
COL
UMNS. BELLY BAND TRIM

COLOR TBD BASED ON FINAL COLOR

SCHEME LAYOUT
ACCENT 13333
6'-0"

PRIVACY FENCING IN

FORGROUND AT CORNER
LOTS

B&B OR SIDING TO BE

APPLIED AT REAR POP OUT

AT CORNER ELEVATIONS
DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

1.4 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
PLAN 1B - ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN
NOTE: COLORS SHOWN ARE REPRESENTATIONAL AND COULD BE APPLIED TO ANY PL
AN WITH A ‘B’ ELEVATION STYLE. SEE SHEETS A2.3 & A2.4 FOR ELEVATION ‘B’ COLOR SCHEME SELECTIONS & MATERIAL CALLOUTS.ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”

REAR ELEVATIONRIGHT ELEV ATION

FRONT ELEVATION

LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
NOTE: ALL WINDOW HEAD HEIGHTS CONSISTENT EXCEPT AT SOME FRONT ELEVATIONS.

RIGHT / PARTIAL LEFT ELEVATION @ CORNER LOTS
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”

WOOD SHUTTER -

HORIZONT

AL WOOD
SLATS

SHUTTERSX

WINDOW, SHUTTERS, DOOR TRIM,
& BELL

Y BAND TRIM

COLOR TBD BASED ON FINAL

COLOR SCHEME LAYOUT
ACCENT 13
X3
6'-0"

PRIVACY FENCING IN

FORGROUND AT CORNER
LOTS

B&B OR SIDING TO BE

APPLIED AT REAR POP OUT

AT CORNER ELEVATIONS
DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

1.5 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
PL
AN 2A & 2B - FIRST FLOOR PLANPL AN 2B - PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN 2A & 2B - FIRST FLOOR PLANS

SQUARE FOOTAGE

DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

1.6 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
PL
AN 2A & 2B - SECOND FLOOR PLANPL AN 2B - PARTIAL SECOND FLOOR PLAN PLAN 2B & 2B - SECOND FLOOR PLANS

SQUARE FOOTAGE

DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

1.7 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
PLAN 2A - ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”

ROOF PL
AN
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
NOTE: COLORS SHOWN ARE REPRESENTATIONAL AND COULD BE APPLIED TO ANY PL
AN WITH AN ‘A’ ELEVATION STYLE. SEE SHEETS A2.1 & A2.2 FOR ELEVATION ‘A’ COLOR SCHEME SELECTIONS & MATERIAL CALLOUTS.

REAR ELEVATIONRIGHT ELEV ATION

FRONT ELEVATION

LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
NOTE: ALL WINDOW HEAD HEIGHTS CONSISTENT EXCEPT AT SOME FRONT ELEVATIONS.

DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

1.8 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
PLAN 2B - ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN

ROOF PL
AN
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
NOTE: COLORS SHOWN ARE REPRESENTATIONAL AND COULD BE APPLIED TO ANY PL
AN WITH A ‘B’ ELEVATION STYLE. SEE SHEETS A2.3 & A2.4 FOR ELEVATION ‘B’ COLOR SCHEME SELECTIONS & MATERIAL CALLOUTS.

REAR ELEVATIONRIGHT ELEV ATION

FRONT ELEVATION

LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
NOTE: ALL WINDOW HEAD HEIGHTS CONSISTENT EXCEPT AT SOME FRONT ELEVATIONS.

DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

1.9 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
SCALE:

SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
PL
AN 3A & 3B - FIRST FLOOR PLANPL AN 3B - PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN 3A & 3A - FIRST FLOOR PLANS

SQUARE FOOT
AGE

DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

1.10 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
SCALE:

SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
PL
AN 2A & 2B - SECOND FLOOR PLANPL AN 2B - PARTIAL SECOND FLOOR PLAN PLAN 3B & 3B - SECOND FLOOR PLANS

SQUARE FOOT
AGE

DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

1.11 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
PLAN 3A - ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN

REAR ELEVATIONRIGHT ELEV ATION

FRONT ELEVATION

LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
NOTE: ALL WINDOW HEAD HEIGHTS CONSISTENT EXCEPT AT SOME FRONT ELEVATIONS.

RIGHT / PARTIAL LEFT ELEVATION @ CORNER LOTS
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”

WOOD SHUTTER -

VERTICAL WOOD
SL
ATS

SHUTTERSX
X3

WINDOW & DOOR TRIM,
COL
UMNS. BELLY BAND TRIM

COLOR TBD BASED ON FINAL COLOR

SCHEME LAYOUT
ACCENT 13333
6'-0"

PRIVACY FENCING IN

FORGROUND AT CORNER
LOTS

B&B OR SIDING TO BE

APPLIED AT REAR POP OUT

AT CORNER ELEVATIONS
DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

1.12 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
PLAN 3B - ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN

REAR ELEVATIONRIGHT ELEV ATION

FRONT ELEVATION

LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
NOTE: ALL WINDOW HEAD HEIGHTS CONSISTENT EXCEPT AT SOME FRONT ELEVATIONS.

WOOD SHUTTER -

HORIZONT

AL WOOD
SLATS

SHUTTERSX

WINDOW, SHUTTERS, DOOR TRIM,
& BELL

Y BAND TRIM

COLOR TBD BASED ON FINAL

COLOR SCHEME LAYOUT
ACCENT 13
X3
RIGHT / PARTIAL LEFT ELEVATION @ CORNER LOTS
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
6'-0"

PRIVACY FENCING IN

FORGROUND AT CORNER
LOTS

B&B OR SIDING TO BE

APPLIED AT REAR POP OUT

AT CORNER ELEVATIONS
DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

2.1 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
COLOR SCHEMES 1 & 2 - ELEVATION A
STUCCO
BRACING BLUE - SW 6242

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS
OR EQU
AL

BOARD & BATTEN
NORTH STAR - SW 6246

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

WINDOW & DOOR TRIM, BELLY

BAND TRIM
TIN LIZZIE - SW 9163

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS OR EQUAL

ENTRY & GARAGE DOOR
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL
BODY COLOR 1
BODY COLOR 2
ACCENT 1
ACCENT 2
COLOR SCHEME 2 - ELEVATION A
COLOR SCHEME 1 - ELEV

ATION A
1 2
C
D
E
G
3 4

MATERIALS
PLAN 1A - CS1 - FRONT PERSPECTIVE
PL
AN 1A - CS2 - FRONT PERSPECTIVE
1 2
3 A
4 B
H
BODY COLOR 1

BOARD & BA
TTEN
RED BARN - SW 7591

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL
STUCCO

HIGH REFLECTIVE WHITE-
SW 7757

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

ENTRY & GARAGE DOOR
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

WINDOW & DOOR TRIM,
COLUMNS. BELLY BAND TRIM
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS OR EQUAL
BODY COLOR 2
ACCENT 1
ACCENT 2
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
NOTE: COLORS SHOWN ARE REPRESENTATIONAL AND COULD BE APPLIED TO ANY PL
AN WITH AN ‘A’ ELEVATION STYLE.

CLOPLAY OR EQUAL

THERMA-TRU FIBER
GL
ASS

OR EQUAL
WHITE

BY PLYGEM

OR EQUAL

LIGHT SAND FINISH
1X2 BATTENS AT 16”
O.C. OVER SMOOTH

FIBER CEMENT
PANEL
6” LAPPED SHINGLE
SIDING

COMPOSITIONAL

SHINGLE ROOF BY

EAGLE ROOFING OR
EQUAL

METAL ACCENT ROOF

GARAGE DOOR

ENTRY DOOR

VINYL WINDOW
STUCCO

BOARD & BATTEN

FIBER CEMENT SIDING
ROOF
ROOF
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

MATERIALS
C
D
E
G
1 2
3 A
4 B
H
DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

2.2 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
COLOR SCHEMES 3 & 4 - ELEVATION A
PL
AN 2A - CS3 - FRONT PERSPECTIVE
PL
AN 2A - CS4 - FRONT PERSPECTIVE
BODY COLOR 1

BOARD & BATTEN
ALL
OY - SW 9569

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL
STUCCO
CHARCOAL BLUE - SW 2739

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL
STUCCO
REFLECTION - SW 7661

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

BOARD & BATTEN

HIGH REFLECTIVE WHITE -
SW 7757

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

ENTRY & GARAGE DOOR
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

WINDOW & DOOR TRIM, BELLY

BAND TRIM
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS OR EQUAL

WINDOW & DOOR TRIM, BELLY

BAND TRIM
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS OR EQUAL

ENTRY & GARAGE DOOR
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL
BODY COLOR 1
BODY COLOR 2
BODY COLOR 2
ACCENT 1
ACCENT 1
ACCENT 2
ACCENT 2
COLOR SCHEME 4 - ELEVATION A
COLOR SCHEME 3 - ELEV

ATION A
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4

MATERIALS
NOTE: COL

ORS SHOWN ARE REPRESENTATIONAL AND COULD BE APPLIED TO ANY PLAN WITH AN ‘A’ ELEVATION STYLE.

CLOPLAY OR EQUAL

THERMA-TRU FIBER
GL
ASS

OR EQUAL
WHITE

BY PLYGEM

OR EQUAL

LIGHT SAND FINISH
1X2 BATTENS AT 16”
O.C. OVER SMOOTH

FIBER CEMENT
PANEL
6” LAPPED SHINGLE
SIDING

COMPOSITIONAL

SHINGLE ROOF BY

EAGLE ROOFING OR
EQUAL

METAL ACCENT ROOF

GARAGE DOOR

ENTRY DOOR

VINYL WINDOW
STUCCO

BOARD & BATTEN

FIBER CEMENT SIDING
ROOF
ROOF
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

MATERIALS
C
D
E
G
1 2
3 A
4 B
C
D
E
G
1 2
3 A
4 B
DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

2.3 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
COLOR SCHEMES 5 & 6 - ELEVATION B
PL
AN 2B - CS5 - FRONT PERSPECTIVE
PL
AN 2B - CS6 - FRONT PERSPECTIVE
BODY COLOR 1

BOARD & BATTEN /

SHINGLE SIDING
ROCK
Y RIVER - SW 6215

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

BOARD & BATTEN /

SHINGLE SIDING
SPROUT - SW 6427

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL
STUCCO
ROMAN COLUMN - SW 7562

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL
STUCCO

HIGH REFLECTIVE WHITE-
SW 7757

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

ENTRY & GARAGE DOOR
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

WINDOW & DOOR TRIM, BELLY

BAND TRIM
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS OR EQUAL

WINDOW & DOOR TRIM, BELLY

BAND TRIM
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS OR EQUAL

ENTRY & GARAGE DOOR
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL
BODY COLOR 1
BODY COLOR 2
BODY COLOR 2
ACCENT 1
ACCENT 1
ACCENT 2
ACCENT 2
COLOR SCHEME 6 - ELEVATION B
COLOR SCHEME 5 - ELEV

ATION B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4

MATERIALS
NOTE: COL

ORS SHOWN ARE REPRESENTATIONAL AND COULD BE APPLIED TO ANY PLAN WITH A ‘B’ ELEVATION STYLE.

CLOPLAY OR EQUAL

THERMA-TRU FIBER
GL
ASS

OR EQUAL
WHITE

BY PLYGEM

OR EQUAL

LIGHT SAND FINISH
1X2 BATTENS AT 16”
O.C. OVER SMOOTH

FIBER CEMENT
PANEL
6” LAPPED SHINGLE
SIDING

COMPOSITIONAL

SHINGLE ROOF BY

EAGLE ROOFING OR
EQUAL

METAL ACCENT ROOF

GARAGE DOOR

ENTRY DOOR

VINYL WINDOW
STUCCO

BOARD & BATTEN

FIBER CEMENT SIDING
ROOF
ROOF
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

MATERIALS
C
D
E
G
1 2
3 A
4 B
C
D
E
G
1 2
3 F
F
A
4 B
DAHLIN ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING | INTERIORS

TERRACE P
ARK | SACRAMENTO, CA
WWW.DAHLINGROUP .COM891 GREG THATCH CIRCLE
A

2.4 SHEET

DAHLIN GROUP

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588
925-251-7200
PROJECT NO.: 1252.010
DATE: 01/16/2023
COLOR SCHEMES 7 & 8 - ELEVATION B
BOD
Y COLOR 1
STUCCO
SILVERPOINTE - SW 9163

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS
OR EQU
AL
STUCCO
SILVERPOINTE - SW 9163

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

BOARD & BATTEN
BASIL - SW 6194

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

BOARD & BATTEN
STURDY BROWN - SW 6097

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

WINDOW & DOOR TRIM, BELLY

BAND TRIM
TIN LIZZIE - SW 9163

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS OR EQUAL

WINDOW & DOOR TRIM, BELLY

BAND TRIM
TIN LIZZIE - SW 9163

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS OR EQUAL

ENTRY & GARAGE DOOR
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL

ENTRY & GARAGE DOOR
GREENBLACK - SW 6994

BY SHERMAN WILLIAMS

OR EQUAL
BODY COLOR 1
BODY COLOR 2
BODY COLOR 2
ACCENT 1
ACCENT 1
ACCENT 2
ACCENT 2
COLOR SCHEME 8 - ELEVATION B
COLOR SCHEME 7 - ELEV

ATION B
PLAN 3B - CS7 - FRONT PERSPECTIVE
PL
AN 3B - CS8 - FRONT PERSPECTIVE
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4

CLOPLAY OR EQUAL

THERMA-

TRU FIBER
GLASS

OR EQUAL
WHITE

BY PLYGEM

OR EQUAL

LIGHT SAND FINISH
1X2 BATTENS AT 16”
O.C. OVER SMOOTH

FIBER CEMENT
PANEL
6” LAPPED SHINGLE
SIDING

COMPOSITIONAL

SHINGLE ROOF BY

EAGLE ROOFING OR
EQUAL

METAL ACCENT ROOF

GARAGE DOOR

ENTRY DOOR

VINYL WINDOW
STUCCO

BOARD & BATTEN

FIBER CEMENT SIDING
ROOF
ROOF
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

MATERIALS
NOTE: COLORS SHOWN ARE REPRESENTATIONAL AND COULD BE APPLIED TO ANY PL
AN WITH A ‘B’ ELEVATION STYLE.

C
D
B
E
G
1 2
3 A
4 F
C
D
B
E
G
1 2
3 A
4 F
OOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOO
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwww
w
w
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwsswww
sd sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd sdsdsdsd
sd
ssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssss
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
e
eeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gg
sd
ss
sd
sssdsdsd
sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd
sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd
sdsdsdsdsdsd
213456789102728293031323334
12131415161718192021222324252611
3536373839404142
444546474849505152536463626160595857565554
666768697071797877767574736572
43 R55.5'
R55.5'

36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'

72.95'N11°53'30"E139.66'N89°44'10"E
S84°33'58"E666.32'
S11°53'30"W501.30'
346.78'N0°15'50"W
L23.56'R15.00'
N78°06'30"W710.60'
252222232324
2223
222324
212223
22222323
21 22
23 242323
22 22
21 2323
23 24

84.00'
105.34'107.17'109.00'110.83'
103.51'101.68'99.85'98.02'96.19'94.36'

80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'

84.00'84.00'84.00'84.00'86.92'

80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'

37.95'37.95'72.50'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'40.50'40.50'

84.07'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'38.00'

49.64'54.45'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'45.61'40.58'

40.50'56.50'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'56.50'36.25'

44.08'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'44.08'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'81.98'

80.00'80.00'80.08'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'

89.13'91.39'93.65'95.91'98.17'100.44'102.70'104.96'107.22'109.48' L11.00'R20.83'L11.00'R20.83'N11°53'30"E139.09'L23.56'R15.00' L12.23'R20.83'
S78°06'30"E284.41'
S78°06'30"E375.11'
L23.56'R15.00'N11°53'30"E193.50'L26.09'R15.50'
N84°33'58"W408.87'
L25.89'R15.50'150.39'S0°15'50"EL21.06'R15.50'
142.65'

80.51'

99.68'
53' ROW (TYP.)
53' ROW (TYP.)
PROPOSED 5' PUE
PROPOSED 12.5' PUE
PROPOSED 12.5' PUE
PROPOSED 5' PUE
PROPOSED 12.5' PUE
PROPOSED 12.5' PUE
PROPOSED 5' PUE
PROPOSED 12.5' PUE

GREG THATCH CIRCLE

TRES PIEZAS DRIVE

ELDERDOWNWAY

LOLET WAYSAGPONDWAY
PROPOSED 12.5' PUE
PROPOSED 5' PUE
EXISTING 12.5' PUE172 PM 161
X WAYY WAY53' ROW (TYP.)
A
BA C
A
D
54' ROW
52' ROW
EXISTING NATOMAS CREEK VILLAGE 2
EXISTINGNATOMAS CREEKVILLAGE 1
EXISTING THE HAMPTONS VILLAGE 1MAGNOLIA PARKEXISTING

41.1' EX. BACK OFCURB-BACK OF CURBEX.5.8'S/W0.6'EX.4.5'S/W

41.1' EX. BACK OFCURB-BACK OF CURBEX.4.7'S/W2'
EX.5.7'S/W0.5'

7.20'72.95'

45.31'

21.56'L14.87'41.50'65.00'74.09'31.37'

74.09'65.00'25.50'31.38'

33.19'11.76'L19.32'L26.24'L26.78'L3.06'L18.08'18.49'

29.08'65.00'74.09'34.96'

65.00'69.70'

97.00'96.50'41.00'

23.36'75.19'75.19'L74.62'70.66'17.57'R55.5'

25.50'

37.83'29.08'

36.43'

41.62'
L78.57'80.00'

Z CIRCLE

84.3°

83.54°
90°
90°
90°
90°
102.16°
N30'15'0'60'SCALE:1"=30'
TENTATIVE MAP FORTERRACE PARKAPN: 201-1070-076 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIAVICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEN LEGENDEXISTING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING PARCEL LINEADJACENT PROPERTY LINEEXISTING RIGHT OF WAYPROPOSED RIGHT OF WAYEXISTING CENTER LINEPROPOSED LOT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEPROPOSED EASEMENT LINEEXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINEEXISTING STORM DRAIN LINEEXISTING WATER LINEEXISTING GAS LINEEXISTING ELECTRICAL LINEEXISTING 1-FT CONTOUR LINEEXISTING 5-FT CONTOUR LINEssss TENTATIVE MAP NOTES:SUBDIVISION NAME: TERRACE PARKASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(APN): 201-1070-076PROPERTY OWNER / SUBDIVIDER:CAPITAL VALLEY INVESTORS, LLC AND TERRACE PARK SAC, LLCNICK FOSTER11211 GOLD COUNTRY BLVD., SUITE 103GOLD RIVER, CA 95670PHONE: [email protected]/CIVIL ENGINEER:CARTWRIGHT NOR CAL, INC.MONICA WUEBKER-JARWIN, PE3010 LAVA RIDGE CT, SUITE 160ROSEVILLE, CA 95661PHONE: [email protected] SURVEYOR:BARBER SURVEYING, INC.SHANE R. BARBER261 BOEING COURTLIVERMORE, CA [email protected] OF SURVEY: AUGUST 2022FLOOD PLAIN:ZONE A99, AREA TO BE PROTECTED FROM 1% ANNUAL FLOODBY A FEDERAL FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM UNDERCONSTRUCTION; NO BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS DETERMINED.CITY OF SACRAMENTO 060266COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER 060266 0045 J - JUNE 2015FIRE DISTRICT:CITY OF SACRAMENTOPOLICE DISTRICT:CITY OF SACRAMENTOSCHOOL DISTRICT:TWIN RIVERS UNIFIEDPARK DISTRICT:CITY OF SACRAMENTOWATER DISTRICT:CITY OF SACRAMENTO WATERREFUSE DISTRICT:SACRAMENTO COUNTY SOLID WASTE SERVICESSTORM DRAIN DISTRICT:CITY OF SACRAMENTO DEPT OF UTILITIESSANITARY SEWER DISTRICT:SACRAMENTO AREA SEWER DISTRICTEXISTING/PROPOSED ZONING:R-1A-PUD - SINGLE FAMILY ALTERNATIVE/PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTEXISTING USE:VACANTPROPOSED USE:SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING, RESIDENTIAL - 79 LOTSEXISTING PLAN DESIGNATION:PUBLIC QUASI (PUB)PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIUM DENSITY (SNMD)EXISTING PARCEL AREA(S):(APN): 201-1070-76 = 357,530 S.F. / 8.21 ACPROPOSED PARCEL AREA(S):PROPOSED PARCEL AREA,LOTS 1-79 = 264,500 S.F. / 6.07 ACPROPOSED ROW DEDICATIONS = 92,998 S.F. / 2.14 ACPROPOSED NET AREA = 264,500 S.F. / 6.07 ACTOTAL AREA = 357,530 S.F. / 8.21 ACPROPOSED DENSITY:13.0 DU/ACRE (NET) sdsdww232230
5 995WESTLAKECREEKSIDEHERITAGE PARKNATOMASREGIONAL PARK

GREENBRIARE COMMERCE WAYNATOMAS BLVD

DEL PASO RDPROJECTSITEW ELKHORN BLVD
VILLAGE 5
CITY OF SACRAMENTODATE: 10/25/2022DRAWN BY: FSREVISIONSDELTADATEDESCRIPTIONREV STREET NAMES1/13/2312345 CIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENTCARTWRIGHT NOR CAL3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 160ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661T (916) 978-4001WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM REV SECTION C, &DEVIATION NOTE.3/30/231.CURRENT ON-SITE CONDITION IS UNDEVELOPED. THE EXISTINGSTRUCTURES, UTILITIES, ETC. THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THEPROPOSED OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE REMOVED/RELOCATED.2.EXISTING SITE IS RELATIVELY FLAT WITH DRAINAGE SHEET FLOWSLIGHTLY FROM WEST TO EAST.3.SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED BY EXISTINGPUBLIC MAIN LINES IN GREG THATCH CIRCLE AND TRES PIEZAS DRIVE.SANITARY SEWER MAIN IN GREG THATCH CIRCLE WILL BE EXTENDED TOPROVIDE SEWER SERVICES TO LOTS 1-6.4.THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED FROM INFORMATION FURNISHED IN APRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT, PREPARED BY FIDELITY NATIONAL TILECOMPANY DATED JUNE 07, 2022, ORDER NO. 01006611-010-PA-SL0,AMENDED JULY 19, 2022, AMENDMENT NO. 2. NO LIABILITY ISASSUMED FOR MATTERS OF RECORD NOT STATED IN SAIDPRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT THAT MAY AFFECT THE BOUNDARY LINES,EXCEPTIONS, OR EASEMENTS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY.5.THE BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHOWN HEREON WASPERFORMED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF SHANE R. BARBER, LS 9097.6.NO SHRUBS, TREES, VERNAL POOLS OR WETLANDS EXIST ON THE SITE.GENERAL MAP NOTES:DATUM NOTE:BASIS OF BEARINGS: NORTH 78°06'30" WEST TAKEN ON THE CENTERLINEOF GREG THATCH CIRCLE AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN FINAL MAP OFTHE HAMPTONS VILLAGE 1 FILED FOR RECORD ON APRIL 07, 2005 INBOOK 339 OF MAPS AT PAGE 13, SACRAMENTO COUNTY RECORDS.VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 CITY OF SACRAMENTO BM 256-J4D (21.895')ON-STREET PARKING IS PROPOSED ALONG X WAY, Y WAY, AND Z CIRCLE.PARKING NOTE:

PROPOSED Y WAY -31.33' PUBLIC DRIVEPROPOSED5.83'PLANTER PROPOSED5.83'PLANTER
⅊
⅊℄PROPOSEDVERTICAL CURBAND GUTTERPROPOSEDVERTICAL CURBAND GUTTERPROPOSED5' SIDEWALK PROPOSED5' SIDEWALKPUBLIC ROAD SECTION - X WAYBNOT TO SCALEPROPOSED12.5' PUE PROPOSED12.5' PUE
PROPOSED Y WAY -31.33' PUBLIC DRIVEPROPOSED5.83'PLANTER PROPOSED5.83'PLANTER
⅊
⅊℄PROPOSEDVERTICAL CURBAND GUTTERPROPOSEDVERTICAL CURBAND GUTTERPROPOSED5' SIDEWALK PROPOSED5' SIDEWALKPUBLIC ROAD SECTION - X WAY / Z CIRCLEANOT TO SCALEPROPOSED12.5' PUE PROPOSED5' PUE
PROPOSED Y WAY -37.17' PUBLIC DRIVEPROPOSED5.83'PLANTER⅊ ⅊℄PROPOSEDVERTICAL CURBAND GUTTER
PROPOSEDVERTICAL CURBAND GUTTERPROPOSED5' SIDEWALK
PROPOSED5' SIDEWALKPUBLIC ROAD SECTION - Z CIRCLECNOT TO SCALEPROPOSED12.5' PUE PROPOSED Y WAY -31.33' PUBLIC DRIVEPROPOSED5.83'PLANTER PROPOSED5.83'PLANTER
⅊
⅊℄PROPOSEDVERTICAL CURBAND GUTTERPROPOSEDVERTICAL CURBAND GUTTERPROPOSED5' SIDEWALK PROPOSED5' SIDEWALKPROPOSED12.5' PUE
PROPOSED5' PUEPUBLIC ROAD SECTION - Y WAYDNOT TO SCALE
THIS PROJECT MAY BE PHASED.PHASING NOTE:

ZONING/PUD DEVIATIONSDEVIATIONTOTAL
REAR SETBACK LESS THAN12.5'11' MIN.36 LOTS
SIDE YARD (ADJACENT TOLOCAL STREET) SETBACKLESS THAN 12.5'7'-8" - 9'-3"5 LOTS 40% MAX. LOT COVERAGE(2-STORY HOMES)VARIES 41% - 49%50 LOTS NOTE: REFER TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN (SHEET C0.0) IN THEENTITLEMENT PLANS FOR MORE INFORMATION. 53' ROW
53' ROW53' ROW
53' ROW
ggee

EXISTINGMAGNOLIA PARK
1 1

21.5'2215.67'
DEVIATION FOR ROADWAY ELBOW ANGLE GREATER THAN 90°, ±10°.TENTATIVE MAP DEVIATION:2

21.2'
OOO
OOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOO
LOT 56[329 M 9]LOT 57[329 M 9]LOT 58[329 M 9]LOT 59[329 M 9]LOT 60[329 M 9]LOT 61[329 M 9]LOT 62[329 M 9] THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO[20080620 O.R. 0276]LANDS OF
LOT 56[329 M 9]LOT 57[329 M 9]LOT 58[329 M 9]LOT 59[329 M 9]LOT 60[329 M 9]LOT 61[329 M 9]LOT 62[329 M 9] THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO[20080620 O.R. 0276]LANDS OF

WHWH WHWH WH WH

WHWHWHWHWH

WH WH WHWH WHWH

WHWHWHWHWHWH WH WHWH WH WHWH WH

WH WH WHWH WHWH
WH
WH
WHWH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH

WHWHWHWH WHWHWHWHWH
WH
WH
WH
WH
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxx xxx
xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx213456789102728293031323334 12131415161718192021222324252611
3536373839404142
444546474849505152536463626160595857565554
666768697071797877767574736572 PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 3 PLAN 3
PLAN 3
PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3
PLAN 3PLAN 3
PLAN 3PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2 PLAN 2PLAN 3
PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 1PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 1
PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3
PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 1PLAN 1PLAN 1PLAN 1PLAN 1
PLAN 1PLAN 1
PLAN 1PLAN 1
PLAN 1PLAN 1
PLAN 3
PLAN 1
PLAN 1
PLAN 1
PLAN 1PLAN 1
PLAN 1
43PLAN 3

84.00'
53' ROW (TYP.)53' ROW (TYP.)
105.34'107.17'109.00'110.83'
103.51'101.68'99.85'98.02'96.19'94.36'

80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'

84.00'84.00'84.00'84.00'86.92'

80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'

37.95'72.50'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'40.50'

84.07'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'38.00'

49.64'54.45'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'36.30'36.32'45.61'40.58'

40.50'56.50'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'56.50'36.25' PROPOSED 5' PUE
PROPOSED 12.5' PUE
PROPOSED 12.5' PUE
PROPOSED 5' PUE
PROPOSED 12.5' PUE
PROPOSED 12.5' PUE

44.08'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'36.25'44.08'
PROPOSED 5' PUEPROPOSED 12.5' PUE80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'81.98'

GREG THATCH CIRCLE

TRES PIEZAS DRIVE

ELDERDOWNWAY

SAGPOND WAY

80.00'80.00'80.08'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'89.13'91.39'93.65'95.91'98.17'100.44'102.70'104.96'107.22'109.48'

72.95'N11°53'30"E139.66'S89°44'10"W
S84°33'58"E666.32'
N00°15'50"W346.78'
L23.56'R15.00'
N78°06'30"W710.60'L11.00'R20.83'L11.00'R20.83'L23.56'R15.00' L12.23'R20.83'
L23.56'R15.00'L26.09'R15.50'
L25.89'R15.50'L21.06'R15.50'PROPOSED 12.5' PUE
PROPOSED 5' PUE
EXISTING 12.5' PUE172 PM 16
X WAYY WAY53' TYP
6' TRANSITION - VERT TOROLLED CURB FORDRIVEWAYS6' TRANSITION - VERTICAL TOROLLED CURB FOR DRIVEWAYS 6' TRANSITION - VERTICAL TOROLLED CURB FOR DRIVEWAYS

PROPOSED VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER (TYP)

PROPOSED ROLLED CURB AND GUTTER(TYP THROUGH STREET ELBOW)PROPOSED ROLLED CURB AND GUTTER(TYP THROUGH STREET ELBOW)

PROPOSED ROLLED CURB AND GUTTER(TYP THROUGH STREET ELBOW) EXISTING NATOMAS CREEK VILLAGE 2
EXISTINGNATOMAS CREEKVILLAGE 1
EXISTING THE HAMPTONS VILLAGE 1MAGNOLIA PARKEXISTING
15'11' REAR SETBACK (TYP)
15'
15'

12.5'
11' REAR SETBACK (TYP)
15'

11.43'
11' REAR SETBACK (TYP)15'15'11' REAR SETBACK (TYP)15'

9.25' SIDE SETBACK

9.25'

9.25' 16.1' REAR SETBACK

12.5' FRONT SETBACK (TYP)

12.5' FRONT SETBACK (TYP)
20' GARAGE SETBACK (TYP)
20' GARAGE SETBACK (TYP)
20' OR 23' GARAGE SETBACK (TYP)12.5' FRONT SETBACK (TYP) 20' SETBACK (TYP)

12.5' FRONT SETBACK (TYP)20' GARAGE SETBACK (TYP)

12.5' OR 15.5' MIN FRONT SETBACK (TYP)
20' OR 23' GARAGE SETBACK (TYP)16.4'12.5' FRONT SETBACK (TYP)20' GARAGE SETBACK (TYP) 5' SIDE SETBACK (TYP)
5' SIDE SETBACK (TYP)12.83' SIDE SETBACK
5' SIDE SETBACK (TYP)

5.17'
5' SIDE SETBACK (TYP)12.83' SIDE SETBACK20' GARAGE SETBACK (TYP)12.5' FRONT SETBACK (TYP) 15' REAR SETBACK (TYP)
5' SIDE SETBACK (TYP)

6.75'

6.7'14.77'
41' EX. BACK OFCURB-BACK OFROLLED CURB4.5'S/WEX.4.5'S/W

41.1' EX. BACK OFCURB-BACK OF CURBEX.4.7'S/W2'
EX.5.7'S/W0.5'PROPOSEDROLLED CURB6' TRANSITION - VERTICAL TOROLLED CURB FOR DRIVEWAYS

PROPOSED ROLLED CURB

10.06'5' SIDE SETBACK (TYP)10'15.25'
15'
11' REAR SETBACK (TYP)15'5' SIDE SETBACK (TYP)

14.5'5' SIDE SETBACK (TYP)15'11' REAR SETBACK (TYP)

5.18'5'4.48'15' 19'

7.67'18.12'7.5'29.58'21'20.37'24.89'29.81'25.51'28.55'24.88'36.89'

12.5' OR 15.5' FRONT SETBACK (TYP)32.2'37.12'35.86'33.79'39.15'39.16'42.41'11.8' (17.86')
6-FT TALL BLOCK SCREEN WALL(WHERE ADJACENT TO PARK)
6-FT TALL BLOCK SCREEN WALL(WHERE ADJACENT TO PARK)11.96'

Z CIRCLE
142.65'80.51'
L74.62'99.68'

69.70'N11°53'30"E501.30'65.00'
L23.56'R15.00'
L78.57'L14.87'R55.50'

45.31'

70.66'17.57'
EX 12.5' PUE(172 PM 16)
EX 27' IOD172 PM 16
EX 27' IOD172 PM 16

29.43'37.93'28.69'

44.2'
5' SIDE SETBACK

7.5'
DATE: 03/30/2023DRAWN BY: FS
TERRACE PARKNE CORNER OF GREG THATCH CIRCLE AND TRES PIEZAS DRSACRAMENTO, CACIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENTCARTWRIGHT NOR CAL3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 160ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661T (916) 978-4001WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM LOT SUMMARY:EXISTING USE:VACANTPROPOSED USE:SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING, RESIDENTIAL - 79 LOTSEXISTING PLAN DESIGNATION:PUBLIC QUASI (PUB)PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIUM DENSITY (SNMD) EXISTING PARCEL AREA(S):(APN): 201-1070-76 = 357,530 S.F. / 8.21 ACPROPOSED PARCEL AREA(S):PROPOSED PARCEL AREA,LOTS 1-79 = 264,500 S.F. / 6.07 ACPROPOSED ROW DEDICATIONS = 92,998 S.F. / 2.14 ACTOTAL PROPOSED NET AREA = 264,500 S.F. / 6.07 ACTOTAL PROPOSED GROSS AREA = 357,530 S.F. / 8.21 ACPROPOSED DENSITY:13.0 DU/ACRE (NET) PROJECT SUMMARY:SUBDIVISION NAME: TERRACE PARKASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(APN): 201-1070-076EXISTING/PROPOSED ZONING:R-1A-PUD SINGLE FAMILY ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIALBUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE:PLAN 1 - 1,755 SF, 19 LOTSPLAN 2 - 1,923 SF, 29 LOTSPLAN 3 - 2,070 SF, 31 LOTS C0.0SCALE: 1"=30'30'15'0'60'SCALE:1"=30'N

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
LEGENDEXISTING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING PARCEL LINEADJACENT PROPERTY LINEEXISTING RIGHT OF WAYPROPOSED RIGHT OF WAYEXISTING CENTER LINEPROPOSED LOT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEPROPOSED EASEMENT LINEPROPOSED FENCE (SEE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PLANS FOR DETAILS)MASONRY SCREEN WALLxxxxx VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEN5 5WESTLAKECREEKSIDEHERITAGE PARKNATOMASREGIONAL PARK

GREENBRIARE COMMERCE WAYNATOMAS BLVD

DEL PASO RDPROJECTSITEW ELKHORN BLVD
VILLAGE 5
99VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEN5 5WESTLAKECREEKSIDEHERITAGE PARKNATOMASREGIONAL PARK

GREENBRIARE COMMERCE WAYNATOMAS BLVD

DEL PASO RDPROJECTSITEW ELKHORN BLVD
VILLAGE 5
99ON-STREET PARKING IS PROPOSEDALONG X WAY, Y WAY, AND Z CIRCLE.PARKING NOTE:ZONING/PUD DEVIATIONSDEVIATIONTOTAL REAR SETBACK LESS THAN12.5'11' MIN.36 LOTS
SIDE YARD (ADJACENT TOLOCAL STREET) SETBACKLESS THAN 12.5'7'-8" - 9'-3"5 LOTS 40% MAX. LOT COVERAGE(2-STORY HOMES)VARIES 41% - 49%50 LOTS sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd sd
sd
sd
sdsdsd
sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd
sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd
sdsdsdsdsdsd
sdsd
THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO[20080620 O.R. 0276]LANDS OFTHE CITY OF SACRAMENTO[20080620 O.R. 0276]LANDS OFTHE CITY OF SACRAMENTO[20080620 O.R. 0276]LANDS OF DD
D D
D
D
D

WHWH WHWH WH WH

WHWHWHWHWH

WH WH WHWH WHWH

WHWHWHWHWHWH WH WHWH WH WHWH WH

WH WH WHWH WHWH
WH
WH
WHWH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH

WHWHWHWH WHWHWHWHWH
WH
WH
WH
WH
D
D
D
SDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
213456789102728293031323334
12131415161718192021222324252611
3536373839404142
444546474849505152536463626160595857565554
666768697071797877767574736572
43SD

X WAYY WAYZ CIRCLE

2.5%2.5%

2.6%2.6%2.7%2.7%2.7%2.7%

2.7%2.7%2.7%2.7%

2.6%2.6%

2.5%2.5%2.7%2.7%2.7%2.7%

24.23FL24.80FL25.01FL24.94FL24.77FL24.57FL24.07FL

24.51FL HP24.49FL23.78FL23.61FL21.60FL

22.16FL22.57FL22.19FL22.19FL23.14FL

24.64C

24.89C
(23.87)S
(23.20)S
2121
22 22
22 2323
21 22
25222324
2223
222324
212223
2323

GREG THATCH CIRCLE

TRES PIEZAS DRIVE

ELDERDOWNWAY

SAGPONDWAY

23.72RIM

25.54FL HP25.54FL HP

21.88RIM21.88RIM LP

23.72RIM

20.80RIM20.80RIM

20.99RIM
1+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
5+00
6+00
7+008+009+0010+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+0015+0016+0017+0017+22
1+002+003+003+13

23.61RIM LP23.47RIM LP

21.42FL

21.09FL

21.61FL HP

22.33FL

22.34FL HP(22.13)FL(21.03)FL(21.00)FL21.12FL
(22.33)FL

20.79RIM20.79RIM

2.6%2.6%2.6%

24.02FL24.12C(24.06)S
23 2323
23 2424
23 24
23 2525
25 25
23 23
24 24
24 24
22 222323
2222
23 2222

24.66FL HP25.17C(23.49)S
DATE: 03/30/2023DRAWN BY: FS
TERRACE PARKNE CORNER OF GREG THATCH CIRCLE AND TRES PIEZAS DRSACRAMENTO, CACIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENTCARTWRIGHT NOR CAL3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 160ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661T (916) 978-4001WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM EXISTING 1-FT CONTOUREXISTING 5-FT CONTOURPROPOSED 1-FT CONTOURPROPOSED 5-FT CONTOUREXISTING EASEMENTPROPOSED EASEMENTPROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINEPROPOSED SWALE FLOWLINEPROPOSED DRAIN INLETPROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLEDIRECTION OF GUTTER FLOWPROPOSED OVERLAND RELEASE POINTGRADING LEGEND:35343534DCONCRETE ELEVATIONFLOWLINE ELEVATIONPAVEMENT ELEVATIONRIM ELEVATIONGROUND ELEVATIONTOP OF CURB ELEVATIONBUILDING FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONPROPOSED GROUND SLOPEEXISTING GROUND SLOPERIDGE LINE/ HIGH POINTX.X%(X.X%)RRFF=??????C???FL???P???RIM???S???TC1.FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS (FFE) ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.NOTES:
<<<<

LEGENDPROPERTY LINEEXISTING EASEMENTPROPOSED LANDSCAPE/PARK (PERVIOUS AREA) 30'15'0'60'SCALE:1"=30'NC1.0SCALE: 1"=30'

PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
PROPOSED LOT AREA: 357,530 S.F. / 8.21 ACPROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA: 144,446 SF/3.32 AC (40%)PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA:213,083 SF/4.89 AC (60%)*PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA LESS THAN 4.90 AC*; NO DETENTION REQUIRED.*PER THE NORTH NATOMAS MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN FOR BASIN 1, THIS SITE ISWITHIN SUB-BASIN 1A, WITH A NET IMPERVIOUS ACREAGE OF 4.90 ALLOWED.PARCEL AREA(S):SD O
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
wwww
w
w
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd sdssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssss
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gg
sd
ss
sd
sssdsdsd
sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd
sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd
sdsdsdsdsdsd
sdsd
THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO[20080620 O.R. 0276]LANDS OFTHE CITY OF SACRAMENTO[20080620 O.R. 0276]LANDS OFTHE CITY OF SACRAMENTO[20080620 O.R. 0276]LANDS OF

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
DD

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWW
W
W
D D
D
D
D
S
S
S
M
M

SSSSSSSSSSSSS

MM MMMM MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
M
M
M
MM
MM
M
MM
M
M

WHWH WHWH WH WH

WHWHWHWHWH

WH WH WHWH WHWH

WHWHWHWHWHWH WH WHWH WH WHWH WH

WH WH WHWH WHWH
WH
WH
WHWH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH

WHWHWHWH WHWHWHWHWH
WH
WH
WH
S
WH

JTJTJTJTJTJT

JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT

JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT

JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT

JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT
D
D
M
MS
D
MSDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
213456789102728293031323334
12131415161718192021222324252611
3536373839404142
444546474849505152536463626160595857565554
666768697071797877767574736572
43SM
MM
MM
MM
MM
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

MMM MMM MS
MM
M
M
MM
M
M
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
M
M
M
M
M

MMMMMM SDSS
X WAYY WAYZ CIRCLE2
2 2
2 2
2 3
3 4
4 4
4 2
2 2 22
2 3
3 3
3 3
3 4
2 2
2 2
2 2

GREG THATCH CIRCLE

TRES PIEZAS DRIVE

ELDERDOWNWAY

SAGPONDWAY
1TYP
1TYP1TYP
1TYP
2 1TYP
1TYP
1TYP
1TYP 1TYP
5 5
7 1TYP
1TYP
1TYP
1TYP
1TYP1TYP5
1TYP
1TYP
1TYP
3 21
1 6
3 3 3
3 33
3 3
33 33
3 3
3 34
4 3
2 2
2 22
56 5
5 EX 27' IOD(172 PM 16)
EX 27' IOD(172 PM 16)
PROPOSED5' PUE
PROPOSED12.5' PUE
PROPOSED12.5' PUEPROPOSED5' PUE
PROPOSED12.5' PUEPROPOSED12.5' PUE
PROPOSED12.5' PUE
PROPOSED5' PUE
PROPOSED12.5' PUE
PROPOSED5' PUE
PROPOSED12.5' PUE
EX 12.5' PUE(172 PM 16)
EX 12.5' PUE(172 PM 16)
DATE: 03/30/2023DRAWN BY: FS
TERRACE PARKNE CORNER OF GREG THATCH CIRCLE AND TRES PIEZAS DRSACRAMENTO, CACIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENTCARTWRIGHT NOR CAL3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 160ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661T (916) 978-4001WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM WATER KEYNOTES:PROPOSED 1" WATER SERVICE AND METER.PROPOSED 8" PUBLIC WATER LINE.CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN.PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT.EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN.PROPOSED IRRIGATION SERVICE, METER, AND BACKFLOW.EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO BE REMOVED AND RELOCATED.SEWER KEYNOTES:PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AND CLEANOUT.PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE.PROPOSED 8" PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER LINE.CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MAIN WITH NEW SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE.CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE.EXISTING SEWER STUB TO BE REMOVED.PRELIMINARY DRY UTILITY NOTES:EXISTING GAS LINE TO REMAIN.APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED ELECTRICAL, CABLE, AND PHONE JOINT TRENCH.LOCATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY SMUD AND OTHER DRY UTILITY PURVEYORS.PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION TO MEET ALL SMUD REQUIREMENTS. LOCATIONSHOWN IS APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SMUD.EXISTING STREET LIGHT TO BE REMOVED AND RELOCATED.EXISTING STREET LIGHT TO REMAIN.123456712345612345 30'15'0'60'SCALE:1"=30'NC2.0SCALE: 1"=30'

PRELIMINARY WATER AND SEWER PLAN

LEGENDEXISTING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING PARCEL LINEADJACENT PROPERTY LINEEXISTING RIGHT OF WAYPROPOSED RIGHT OF WAYEXISTING CENTER LINEPROPOSED LOT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEPROPOSED EASEMENT LINEEXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINEEXISTING STORM DRAIN LINEEXISTING WATER LINEEXISTING GAS LINEEXISTING ELECTRICAL LINEPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINEPROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINEPROPOSED WATER LINEPROPOSED JOINT TRENCHPROPOSED TRANSFORMERPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MANHOLEPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUTPROPOSED GATE VALVEPROPOSED WATER METERPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTEXISTING FIRE HYDRANTPROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLEPROPOSED STORM INLET sssssdsdwwSSSSSSWWSMD
JTJTSDWggee
sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd sdsdsdsd
sd
sd
sd
sdsdsd
sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd
sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd
sdsdsdsdsdsd
sdsd
THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO[20080620 O.R. 0276]LANDS OFTHE CITY OF SACRAMENTO[20080620 O.R. 0276]LANDS OFTHE CITY OF SACRAMENTO[20080620 O.R. 0276]LANDS OF DD
D D
D
D
D

WHWH WHWH WH WH

WHWHWHWHWH

WH WH WHWH WHWH

WHWHWHWHWHWH WH WHWH WH WHWH WH

WH WH WHWH WHWH
WH
WH
WHWH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH

X WAYY WAYZ CIRCLEGREG THATCH CIRCLE

TRES PIEZAS DRIVE

LOS PUEBLOS WAYELDERDOWN WAY

SAGPOND WAY
DMA 16.08 AC
DATE: 03/30/2023DRAWN BY: FS
TERRACE PARKNE CORNER OF GREG THATCH CIRCLE AND TRES PIEZAS DRSACRAMENTO, CACIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENTCARTWRIGHT NOR CAL3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 160ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661T (916) 978-4001WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM LEGENDPROPERTY LINERIGHT OF WAYDMA BOUNDARYPROPOSE STORM DRAIN LINEPROPOSED DRAIN INLETPROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLEDMA NO. AND AREADMA XXX.XX AC 30'15'0'60'SCALE:1"=30'NC3.0SCALE: 1"=30'

PRELIMINARY STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE INFORMATIONGROSS AREA: 8.21 AC (± 357,542 SF)NET AREA: 6.08 ACRES (± 264,758 SF) [EXCLUDES PUBLIC ROW]EXISTING ON-SITE IMPERVIOUS SURFACINGIMPERVIOUS AREA:
0 ACRES- 0% OF NET

TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS
0 ACRES - 0% OF NET
EXISTING ON-SITE PERVIOUS SURFACINGNATURAL GROUND AREA:
±6.08 ACRES - 100% OF NET

TOTAL EXISTING PERVIOUS
±6.08 ACRES - 100% OF NET
PROPOSED ON-SITE IMPERVIOUS SURFACINGPAVED/BUILDING AREA:
±3.18 ACRES - 52% OF NET

TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS
±3.18 ACRES - 52% OF NET
PROPOSED ON-SITE PERVIOUS SURFACINGLANDSCAPE AREA:
±2.90 AC - 48% OF NET

TOTAL PROPOSED PERVIOUS
±2.90 AC - 48% OF NET
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE NOTES:1.DETENTION IS PROVIDED BY A REGIONAL DETENTION BASIN PER DRAINAGEREPORT "NORTH NATOMAS DRAINAGE BASIN NO. 1 DRAINAGE ANALYSIS"PREPARED BY WOOD RODGERS INC. PER DRAINAGE REPORT, 4.9 ACRES OFIMPERVIOUS AREA WAS ASSUMED FOR THE PROJECT AREA SUB-BASIN.PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA IS 4.9 ACRES (INCLUDES PROPOSED ROAD),THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL DETENTION IS ANTICIPATED.2.LID CREDITS WERE CALCULATED VIA THE RESIDENTIAL LID SPREADSHEET. 100LID CREDIT MINIMUM WAS ACHIEVED VIA DISCONNECTED ROOF DRAINS (ALLBUILDINGS), INTERCEPTOR TREES (ASSUMED 79, 1 PER LOT), AND REGIONALDETENTION BASIN/LANDSCAPE AREA CREDITS FOR A TOTAL OF 129 LIDCREDITS. IMPERVIOUS AREA IN THE PUBLIC ROW WAS EXCLUDED FROM LIDCALCULATIONS.SDD OOO
OOOOOO

WHWH WHWH WH WH

WHWHWHWHWH

WH WH WHWH WHWH

WHWHWHWHWHWH WH WHWH WH WHWH WH

WH WH WHWH WHWH
WH
WH
WHWH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH

WHWHWHWH WHWHWHWHWH
WH
WH
WH
WH
213456789102728293031323334
12131415161718192021222324252611
3536373839404142
444546474849505152536463626160595857565554
666768697071797877767574736572
43 GREG THATCH CIRCLE

TRES PIEZAS DRIVE

ELDERDOWNWAY

SAGPOND WAY

X WAYY WAY
EXISTING NATOMAS CREEK VILLAGE 2
EXISTINGNATOMAS CREEKVILLAGE 1
EXISTING THE HAMPTONS VILLAGE 1MAGNOLIA PARKEXISTINGZ CIRCLE 20' TYP.
20' MIN.
20' TYP.
20' TYP.
20' TYP.
104'
99'
438'
181'
94'
150'
91'
DATE: 04/26/2023DRAWN BY: FS
TERRACE PARKNE CORNER OF GREG THATCH CIRCLE AND TRES PIEZAS DRSACRAMENTO, CACIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENTCARTWRIGHT NOR CAL3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 160ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661T (916) 978-4001WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM C0.0SCALE: 1"=30'30'15'0'60'SCALE:1"=30'N

PARKING EXHIBIT
LEGENDEXISTING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING PARCEL LINEADJACENT PROPERTY LINEEXISTING RIGHT OF WAYPROPOSED RIGHT OF WAYEXISTING CENTER LINEPROPOSED LOT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEPROPOSED EASEMENT LINEVICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEN5 5WESTLAKECREEKSIDEHERITAGE PARKNATOMASREGIONAL PARK

GREENBRIARE COMMERCE WAYNATOMAS BLVD

DEL PASO RDPROJECTSITEW ELKHORN BLVD
VILLAGE 5
99VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEN5 5WESTLAKECREEKSIDEHERITAGE PARKNATOMASREGIONAL PARK

GREENBRIARE COMMERCE WAYNATOMAS BLVD

DEL PASO RDPROJECTSITEW ELKHORN BLVD
VILLAGE 5
99PARKING TABLEGARAGE PARKING158OFF-STREETPARKING139ON-STREETPARKING77TOTAL3744.7/LOT

GREG THATCH CIRCLE

TRES PIEZAS DRIVE

WAYELDERDOWNGREG THATCH CIRCLE

TRES PIEZAS DRIVE

WAYELDERDOWN
M
213456789102728293031323334
12131415161718192021222324252611
3536373839404142
44434546474849505152536463626160595857565554
666768697071797877767574736572
PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3 PLAN 3
PLAN 3
PLAN 3PLAN 3
PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3
PLAN 3PLAN 3
PLAN 3PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2 PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 2PLAN 3
PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 1PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 1
PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 3PLAN 2PLAN 3
PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 1PLAN 1PLAN 1PLAN 1PLAN 1
PLAN 1PLAN 1
PLAN 1PLAN 1
PLAN 1PLAN 1
PLAN 3
PLAN 1
PLAN 1
PLAN 1PLAN 1
PLAN 1

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OO
OOO
OOOOOO
OOO

OOO OOO
OO
OO OO
OOOOOO
OOO
OO OO
O

OOOO OOO
OOOO

OOO OOO
OOO
OOOO
OOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO
OOOOOO
OO OO

OOO OOO
OOOOOO

OOO OOO
OOOO

OOO OOO
OO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOO
OOO
OO
OOO
OO
OOO
OO
OOO
OO
OOO
OOO
OO
OOO
OOOO
OO
OOOO
OOO
OOOO
OOO
OOOOO
OOOOO
OOOO
OOOOO
OOOO
OOOOO
OOOO
OOOOO
OOOOO
OOOOO
OOOO
OOOOO
OOOOO
OOOO
OOO
OOOO
OOOO
OO
O
484950
PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 1
OOO
N30'15'0'
60'SCALE:1"=30'DATE: 10/25/2022DRAWN BY: TS
RText (RText)RText (RText)RText (RText)
TERRACE PARKNE CORNER OF GREG THATCH CIRCLE AND TRES PIEZAS DRSACRAMENTO, CACIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENTCARTWRIGHT NOR CAL3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 160ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661T (916) 978-4001WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM SCREENING SHRUBS SUCH AS:ARCTOSTAPHYLOS HYBRID GAL. 4’/6’ LOW,‘SUNSET’- NATIVES. MANZANITABUXUS MICROPHYLLA 1 GAL. 4’/6’ MEDIUMJAPONICAJAPANESE BOXWOODDIETES BICOLOR 1 GAL. 2’/3’ LOWAFRICAN IRISMUHLENBERGIA RIGINS 1 GAL. 4’- 4’ LOW,DEER GRASS NATIVELOW TO MEDIUM SHRUB COVER SUCH AS:CAREX DIVULSA 1 GAL. 2’2’ MEDIUMGRASSLAND SEDGECOTONEASTER DAMMERI 1 GAL. 1’/8’ LOW‘LOWFAST’-LOWFAST COTONEASTERMYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM 1 GAL. 1’/8’ LOWCREEPING MYOPORUMSALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA 1 GAL. 2.5’/10’ LOW,‘SAL SPREADER’- NATIVEE. S. SAGE REMARKSBOTANICAL & CONTAINER HEIGHT/COMMON NAME SIZE SPREAD WATER USESITE ENTRY ACCENT GROUND COVERSUCH AS:FESTUCA GLAUCA LINERS 1’/2’ LOW‘ELIJAH BLUE'-E. B. FESCUEGAZANIA FLATS 10”/4’ MEDIUM‘MITSUA SUPER YELLOW’-M.S.Y. GAZANIA GROUND COVER LEGENDPLANTWATERSIZEUSE SHRUB LEGENDCOMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAME/USE DESCRIPTION &CONTAINERHT/SPRAN AUTOMATED IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE PROVIDED. IT WILL FOLLOW THECITY LOW WATER USE CONSERVATION GUIDELINES INCLUDING ITEMS SUCH AS:1. GROUPING OF PLANTS WITH SIMILAR WATER USE LEVEL WITHIN THEIR REMOTECONTROLVALVE/HYDROZONE SYSTEM.2. SMART CONTROLLERS WITH WATER SAVINGS FEATURES.3. LOW WATER FLOW WITH DRIP TYPE APPLICATION.4. ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM WATER USE CALCULATIONS.5. WATERING SCHEDULES ARE TO BE PROVIDED FOR BOTH ESTABLISHING AND ESTABLISHED PLANT MATERIALS.IRRIGATION NOTES REFER TO SHEET L3 FOR PLANT PICTURESNOTE:

L1
BUILDING ENTRY TREEACER PALMATUM 15 GAL. 18’/14’ RED LEAF‘BLOODGOOD’ COLORB. JAPANESE MAPLEBUILDING SHADE TREEACER RUBRUM 15 GAL. 40’/15’ NARROW,‘ARMSTRONG’ GOOD COLORB. RED MAPLESTREET/BUILDING SHADE TREEACER RUBRUM 15 GAL. 40’/35’ GOOD FALL ‘OCTOBER GLORY’- COLORO.G. RED MAPLESITE ACCENT TREECERCIS OCCIDENTALIS 15 GAL. 20’/20’ MAGENTAWESTERN REDBUD FLOWERSSTREET TREEPISTACIA CHINENSIS 24” BOX 45’/30’ DROUGHTCHINESE PISTACHE TOLERANTSTREET/BUILDING SHADE TREETILLIA CORDRATA 15 GAL. 40’/30’ PYRAMIDAL‘GREENSPIRE’- CANOPYB. LINDENBUILDING SHADE /FOUNDATION TREEPYRUS CALLERYANA 15 GAL. 35’/17’ NARROW,‘CHANTICLEER’- FASTIGIATEB. FLOWERING PEARSTREET/BUILDING SHADE TREEULMUS PROPINQUA 15 GAL. 35’/25’ UPRIGHT‘EMERALD SUNSHINE’- VASEE. S. ELM SHAPEDLARGE SITE SHADE TREEZELKOVA SERRATA 15 GAL. 65’/35’ UPRIGHT,‘GREEN VASE’- VASEG.VS. ZELKOVA SHAPED COMMON NAMETREE LEGEND (NOTE: TREE SYMBOLS HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY UP TO 43%)PLANTSYMBOLSIZEBOTANICAL NAME/QTYUSE DESCRIPTION &CONTAINERMINIMUMHT./ BUILDING FOUNDATION SHRUBS SUCH AS:LOROPETALUM CHINENSIS 1 GAL. 4’/6’ LOW’EMERALD SNOW -E. S. FRINGE FLOWERPRUNUS ILICIFOLIA GAL. 6’/5’ LOW,HOLLY LEAF CHERRY NATIVERHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 1 GAL. 4’/6’ LOW,‘MOUND SAN BRUNO’- NATIVEM. S. B. COFFEEBERRYSALVIA CLEVELANDI 1 GAL. 5’/8’ LOW,CALIF. BLUE SAGE NATIVESITE ACCENT SHRUBS SUCH AS:ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUS 1 GAL. 2’/3’ LOW,SANTA BARBARA DAISY NATIVEERIOGONUM GRANDE 1 GAL. 2’/3’ LOW,RUBESCENS NATIVERED BUCKWHEATIRIS DOUGLASIANA 1 GAL. 2’/3’ LOW,DOUGLAS IRIS NATIVETULBAGHIA VIOLACEA 1 GAL. 1.5’/2’ LOWSOCIETY GARLIC

PLANTSIZESHRUB LEGENDSYMBOLCOMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAME/USE DESCRIPTION &CONTAINERWATERUSEHT/SPR

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
REFER TO ENLARED PLAN, SHEET L2
Y WAY
X WAY

Z CIRCLE
6'-0" CMU WALL
6'-0" WOODFENCE, TYP.
6'-0" WOOD FENCE, TYP.6'-0" WOOD FENCE, TYP.
6'-0" CMU WALL

Z CIRCLE
49 50
51 52
53 O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

OOO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
49 50
N
DATE: 10/25/2022
DRAWN BY: TS
RText (RText)RText (RText) RText (RText)

TERRACE PARK

NE CORNER OF GREG THATCH CIRCLE AND TRES PIEZAS DR

SACRAMENTO, CA

CIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENTCARTWRIGHT NOR CAL 3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 160
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
T (916) 978-4001
WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM
L2
FESTUCA GLAUCA ‘ELIJAH BLUE’ - E. B. FESCUE
SOFT SILVER-BLUE EVERGREEN CLUMPING COOL SEASON GRASS THAT GROWS UP TO 10” TALL WITH A SPREAD OF 2’. LOW WATER USE.

GAZANIA ‘YELLOW CLUMPING’- Y. C. GAZANIA
CLUMPING EVERGREEN UP TO 12” HIGH WITH AN 18” SPREAD. BRIGHT YELLOW FLOWERS FROM SPRING THROUGH SUMMER. MEDIUM WATER USE.

ACCENT GROUND COVERS
BUILDING FOUNDATION SHRUBS SUCH AS:

LOROPETALUM CHINENSIS ’EMERALD SNOW - E. S. FRINGE FLOWER GROWS TO 3’ HIGH WITH A 4’ SPREAD. LOW WATER USE. LIGHT GREEN FOLIAGE AND WHITE FLOWERS.

SHADE TOLERANT.

RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA ‘MOUND SAN BRUNO’- M. S. B. COFFEEBERRY GROWS TO 4’ WITH A 6’SPREAD.

DARK TO YELLOWISH GREEN FOLIAGE.

LOW WATER USE NATIVE.

SITE ACCENT SHRUBS SUCH AS:

ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUS - SANTA BARBARA DAISY
GROWS TO 2’ HIGH WITH A 3’SPREAD. SMALL WHITE DAISIES COVERS BUSH YEAR-ROUND. NATIVE WITH LOW WATER USE. SUN OR SHADE.

ERIOGONUM GRANDE RUBESCENS - RED BUCKWHEAT
GROWS TO 2’ HIGH WITH A 3’SPREAD. GRAY-GREEN LEAVES AND PINKISH RED FLOWERS IN SUMMER.

NATIVE WITH LOW WATER USE.

SCREENING SHRUBS SUCH AS:

BUXUS MICROPHYLLA JAPONICA - JAPANESE BOXWOOD
GROWS TO 4’ HIGH WITH A 4’SPREAD. SHADE TOLERANT AND MEDIUM WATER USE.

BRIGHT GREEN LEAVES THAT WILL TAKE SHEARING.

DIETES BICOLOR - AFRICAN IRIS
GROWS TO 2’ HIGH WITH 3’ SPREAD. IRIS LIKE PLANT WITH FANS OF STIFF, NARROW GREEN LEAVES. LOW WATER USE.

MUHLENBERGIA RIGINS - DEER GRASS
GROWS TO 4’ HIGH WITH A 6’SPREAD. NARROW GRAY GREEN LEAVES. NATIVE WARM SEASON BUNCH GRASS WITH LOW WATER USE. SUN OR SHADE.

MEDIUM HEIGHT SHRUB COVERS SUCH AS:

CAREX DIVULSA - GRASSLAND SEDGE
GROWS TO 2’ HIGH WITH A 3’ SPREAD. BRIGHT GREEN CLUMPING NARROW FOLIAGE MEDIUM WATER USE.

SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA ‘SAL SPREADER’- S. S. SAGE
GROWS 2’ HIGH WITH A 10’ SPREAD. GRAY GREEN LEAVES AND PALE LAVENDER FLOWERS. NATIVE WITH LOW WATER USE.

LOW SHRUB COVERS SUCH AS:

COTONEASTER DAMMERI ‘LOWFAST’- LOWFAST COTONEASTER
GROWS 8” HIGH WITH A 10” SPREAD. TRAILING BRANCHES OF GLOSSY GREEN FOLIAGE.

SPRING SMALL WHITE FLOWERS FOLLOWED BY RED ¼” BERRIES. LOW WATER USE.

MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM - CREEPING MYOPORUM
GROW TO 1’ HIGH WITH A 9’ SPREAD. FAST GROWING AND TRAILING WITH LIGHT GREEN LEAVES AND SMALL WHITE FLOWERS IN SUMMER. LOW WATER USE.

SHRUBS

SITE LOW ACCENT GROUND COVER
SUCH AS: ACER PALMATUM ‘BLOODGOOD’- B. JAPANESE MAPLE

MULTI- STEMMED, BUILDING ENTRY TREE WITH
VIGOROUS, UPRIGHT GROWTH TO 18’ WITH A 14’ SPREAD.

DEEP RED SPRING COLOR AND SCARLET IN FALL.

ACER RUBRUM ‘ARMSTRONG’ - A. RED MAPLE
NARROW SHAPE TO 40’ HIGH WITH A 15’ SPREAD. PROVIDES
SHADE FOR SOUTH AND WEST FACING BUILDING WALLS. FAST
GROWING.

ACER RUBRUM ‘OCTOBER GLORY’- O. G. RED MAPLE
ROUNDED HEAD TO 40’ HIGH WITH A 30’ SPREAD. FAST

GROWING STREET AND SHADE TREE FOR SOUTH FACING
BUILDING WALLS. HAS EXCELLENT FALL COLOR.

CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS - WESTERN REDBUD
CALIFORNIA NATIVE TO 20’ HIGH WITH A 20’ SPREAD. SITE

ACCENT TREE WITH MAGENTA FLOWERS IN SPRING AND
GOOD FALL LEAF COLOR. VERY DROUGHT TOLERANT
ULMUS PROPINQUA ‘EMERALD SUNSHINE’- E. S. ELM
HAS ERECT VASE SHAPED FORM TO 35’ HIGH WITH A 25’
SPREAD. PROVIDES SHADE FOR SOUTH AND WEST FACING
BUILDING WALLS. LARE GLOSSY DEEP GREEN. DROUGHT
TOLERANT.

ZELKOVA SERRATA ‘GREEN VASE’- G.V. ZELKOVA

TALL UPRIGHT SITE AND WEST FACING BUILDING WALL
SHADE TREE UP TO 60’ HIGH WITH A 35’ SPREAD. HAS

FOREST GREEN DECIDUOUS FOLIAGE WITH GOOD
COPPERY-BRONZE FALL COLOR.

TREES
TREE DIAMETERS HAVE BEEN REDUCED UP TO XX PERCENT.

ENLARGED CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
REFER TO SHEET L3 FOR PLANT PICTURES
NOTE:

FENCE
FENCE
GATE
8'
4'
0'
16'
SCALE:
1/8" = 1'-0"

Z CIRCLE
X WAY

CONCRETE

STEPPING PADS

PRECAST
SHRUBS
TREES
BUILDING FOUNDATION SHRUBS:

CALIFORNIA BLUE SAGE
SITE ENTRY ACCENT SHRUBS:

DOUGLAS IRIS
SCREENING SHRUBS:

AFRICAN IRIS

SANTA BARBARA DAISY

JAPANESE BOXWOOD

GROUND COVERS
SITE ENTRY ACCENT GROUND COVER:

YELLOW GAZANIA
LOW SHRUB COVERS:

BLOODGOOD

JAPANESE MAPLE

ARMSTRONG

RED MAPLE

CHINESE PISTACHE OCTOBER GLORY

RED MAPLE

WESTERN REDBUD CHANTICLEER

FLOWERING PEAR

EMERALD SUNSHINE ELM

HOLLYLEAF CHERRYSAN BRUNO COFFEEBERRY

RED BUCKWHEAT

DEER GRASS SUNSET MANZANITA
S.S. SAGEELIJAH BLUE FESCUE
DATE: 10/25/2022

TERRACE PARK

NE CORNER OF GREG THATCH CIRCLE AND TRES PIEZAS DR

SACRAMENTO, CA

CIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENTCARTWRIGHT NOR CAL 3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 160
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
T (916) 978-4001
WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM

GREENSPIRE LINDENGREN VASE ZELKOVA

EMERALD SNOW FRINGE FLOWER

SOCIETY GARLIC

LOWFAST COTONEASTERCREEPING MYOPORUM GRASSLAND SEDGE
L3

PLANT PICTURES

CARTWRIGHT NOR CAL

CIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENT

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3010 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 160, Roseville, CA 95661
WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM
916-978-4001

Page 1 of 1 ends

City of Sacramento April 3, 2023
Attn: Anis Ghobril
300 Richards Blvd.

Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 808-5367
[email protected]

RE: Terrace Park (P22-045)
Tentative Subdivision Map Deviation Request

Mr. Ghobril,
This letter is to re quest approval of a Tentat ive Subdivision M ap Deviation regarding the roadway geometry of the X Way/ Z Ci rcle elbow at Lot 43 . Per the C ity of Sacramento Design and Procedures Manual Section 15 - Street Design Standards , Plate 15-16, ‘Typical 90-degree Elbow’, the angle of thi s elbow is noted as 90 -degrees +/- 10-degrees. The angle at Lot 43 is 102. 16-degrees. The deviation is being requested to match the angle of the existing western and southern property line angle. The wider elbow angle will provide greater sight distance than a 90-degree +/- 10-degree angle, therefore additional striping or signage of ‘no parking’ areas are not being proposed.

Sincerely,

Monica Wuebker-Jarwin, PE
Sr. Project Manager

TERRACEPARK
FUTURENORTHLAKETK-8 SCHOOL

CITY OF SACRAMENTO LIMITS

TWIN RIVERS UNIFIED DISTRICT
EXISTINGREGENCY PARKTK-8 SCHOOL
DATE: 04/27/2023SCALE: 1:1200DRAWN BY: FS
TWIN RIVERS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARYTERRACE PARKAPN: 201-1070-076SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIACIVIL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENTCARTWRIGHT NOR CAL3010 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 160ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661T (916) 978-4001WWW.CARTWRIGHTENGINEERS.COM N

Page 1 of 2 ends

Date: November 27, 2022

To: Deja Harris
Assistant Planner | North Area | Planning Division
Community Development Department
City of Sacramento

Subject: Comments, P22-045 Terrace Park

Dear Ms. Harris,

Our North Natomas Community Coalition (NNCC) thanks Mr. Nick Avdis for presenting this project at our November 9, 2022 NNCC meeting. NNCC is a community-based group consisting of residents from many neighborhoods and Home Owner Associations (HOAs) in the North Natomas area. Our goal is to analyze new projects and determine how they may or may not benefit our area.

This project is to be off of Greg Thatch Circle between Tres Peizas Dr. & Los Pueblos Way. These 79 lots on 8.21 acres are to hold 79 single-unit dwellings in the Single-Unit or Duplex Dwelling (R-1A-PUD) zone within the Natomas Creek Planned Unit Development. Homes will be in the 1,700 to 2,000 square foot range.

At our meeting, NNCC members discussed this project and have the following comments:

• We support this infill project since the vacant land has been a parking lot for RVs and big rigs.
• Since this Terrace Park project is located just north of the future Cal Northstate University hospital, we are disappointed that it may not support the needs of the well-paid 1,000 Doctors, 500 Nurses and 1,494 Hospital Staff employees estimated in the approved Innovation Park Hospital project, P18-077*. These employees will want to live close to where they work so that they can walk/bike to work vs commuting long distances by car.

• Exterior Style and Materials: The exterior style of the homes is a modern farmhouse style, which is compatible with the nearby Mediterranean style homes. We appreciate the fact that the front faces of the homes are intentionally designed to, as much as possible, look different from each other. It does appear that the designers have used variety in materials and textures with vertical siding and stucco along with various frontages. Color schemes are extensive. Homes in the area have tile roofs, but this project plans to use composition shingle roofs.

• Overflow parking: These lots are narrow. There will be 10’ between houses. There will be two garage parking spaces per unit. Some garages are reported to be single loaded tandems; however, most units will have driveways that accommodate two cars in width. Presuming that the project’s internal streets can

Page 2 of 2 ends

accommodate parking on both sides, the narrowness of the lots combined with the width of the driveways makes for little curb space for parking. The many curves in the street make parking untenable there as well.

• Parking on Surrounding Streets: Given that many families have more than two vehicles and that the curb space will be limited, we question where the overflow parking can occur. It seems that overflow parking may spill over to the streets surrounding the development (e.g. Greg Thatch Circle, Tres Piezas Dr., and Los Pueblos Way.)

• Vehicle Blight: Parked-up streets are the number one cause of blight in neighborhoods. It seems that heavy street parking, and street-storage of vehicles, may plague this project from the first day of full occupancy.

• Garage Door Heights: The garage door heights that we see on new developments are no higher than in older residential developments. The garage door heights on the homes in this project appear, from viewing the elevations, to be in the usual 7 ½ foot range. We feel that garage door heights are never high enough to accommodate modern SUVs and tall vans. These vehicles, which cannot park in the garage, will be forced to park on the residential streets where, as previously stated, they will blight the neighborhood.

• Public Streets: We are told that the streets will be public and that there will not be an HOA, but that there will be CC&Rs. Presumably the city will have to handle any parking consequences. Competition for street parking will probably drive endless complaints regarding 72-hour parking to city code enforcement.

• Vehicle Circulation: We presume that internal traffic circulation has been reviewed in terms of waste management and Fire Department vehicular traffic. We would like a traffic engineer to review the vehicular ingress and egress of the project, as there are two entrances, neither of which is near an intersection.

Sincerely,
Lisa Pray
President, North Natomas Community Coalition (NNCC)

Notes:
• Reference: Table 4 (PDF page 31), Planning & Design Commission Staff Report, Innovation Park PUD & Cal Northstate Hospital, dated 1/3/2022.

909 12th Street, Su te 125, Sacramento, CA 95814
916 446 9255 • www.c v cthread.org

April 13, 2023 VIA EMAIL
Deja Harris, Assistant Planner
Planning Division, Community Development Department
300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811

RE: Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045)

Civic Thread is a non-profit organization dedicated to improving health equity through community-centered policy and systems change in land use, transportation, and community development. We have contributed to Safe Routes to School and advocacy work towards advancing active transportation and transit as an equitable and sustainable alternative to use of private vehicles.

We are submitting this letter to express our discontent and recommendation for the Sacramento City Planning and Design Commission to not grant the General Plan Amendment and retain the site’s original land-use designation in support of a school.

The proposal is in direct conflict with the CEQA Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form, Greenhouse Gas Emissions VII. B. As stated, the proposal has the potential to generate significant impact in conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses. The proposal conflicts at minimum with two stated policies within the North-Natomas Community Plan. Policy NN.LU 1.6 Neighborhood Schools, states: The City shall locate an elementary school as the focal point near the center of each neighborhood serving 1,500 to 3,000 dwelling units.

Page 2 of 3 ends

909 12th Street, Su te 125, Sacramento, CA 95814
916 446 9255 • www.c v cthread.org

There insufficient alternative school sites to comply with this policy should the amendment move forward.

The justification for enacting a policy like this is significant. Primarily, In addressing the stated CEQA concerns of GHG emissions, policy NN.ERC 1.14 School Location Criteria, states: “The City shall concentrate residential dwellings sufficiently to allow for all students to be within walking distance of the schools and locate school facilities to minimize the transporting of students by bus. Walking access standards for school facilities should not exceed the district’s recommended walking distance (one way) from the most remote part of the attendance area: ■ One-Way Walking Standards:

Kindergarten (½ mile), Grades 1 to 6 (¾ mile), Grades 7 and 8 (2 miles), and Grades 9 to 12 (3 miles).” By granting the amendment and providing housing rather than a school, students who live in the already high concentration of residential uses will be significantly more prone to be driven by their parents both as a matter of the resulting distance and lack of connectivity to alternative school sites. E. Commerce Way is a 4 to at times, 5- lane high-capacity road that school children would now be expected to cross via walking, biking, or rolling in the absence of being driven which the City has enacted numerours policies to incentivize against. In addition, the surrounding schools are bifurcated by a canal which proves as a second significant obstacle for students who otherwise would have walked, biked, or rolled to school.

By eliminating the need to drive, significant improvements not only in GHG reductions will result, but in safety as well. The region is accelerating its decline in traffic safety scores and removing key destinations from the places we live, exacerbates the prevalence of people driving and opportunities for traffic deaths and serious injuries to occur, largely, due in part to roadway designs like E. Commerce Way which induce speeding and the movement of vehicles with little to no consideration of pedestrian safety.

Again, we strongly urge the staying of the existing General Plan zoning.

Civic Thread is working to support increased physical activity such as walking and bicycling in local neighborhoods as well as helping to create community environments that support walking and bicycling. The benefits include improved public health and physical fitness, better air quality, a stronger sense of cohesion and safety in neighborhoods, and more sustainable communities and local economies.

Page 3 of 3 ends

909 12th Street, Su te 125, Sacramento, CA 95814
916 446 9255 • www.c v cthread.org

Sincerely,

David Moore
Community Planning Specialist

909 12th Street, Su te 125, Sacramento, CA 95814
916 446 9255 • www.c v cthread.org

April 27, 2023 VIA EMAIL
Deja Harris, Assistant Planner
Planning Division, Community Development Department
300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811

RE: Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045)

Dear Deja Harris,
Thank you for notifying Civic Thread of the hearing notice for Terrace Park Subdivision, P22-045 which seeks a request to amend the General Plan land use designation from Public/Quasi-Public to Suburban Neighborhood Medium Density, redesignating 8.21 acres from a school to 79 single-unit dwellings. Given the continuation at the Planning Commission hearing on April 13, 2023, please consider this letter in place of our previous letter sent on April 13, 2022.

We are submitting this letter, not in favor nor opposition to amending the general plan designation from Public/Quasi-Public to Suburban Neighborhood Medium Density, but to express our concerns with the planning decisisons and safety implications that have led to the current hearing and in our opinion, the negative consequences that result from it and similar instances.

Civic Thread recognizes the previous designation by the Twin Rivers Unified School District to consider the proposed school site as surplus which lead to the subsequent public auction of the land and purchase by the current owners proposing the 79 single- unit dwellings.

Page 2 of 3 ends

909 12th Street, Su te 125, Sacramento, CA 95814
916 446 9255 • www.c v cthread.org

Our concern is that the “surplus” designation is a direct result of the City’s inability to implement land use policies that would support the concentration of residential dwellings that would be needed to support, not only additional school sites, but school sites that are within close enough proximity to support walking, biking, and rolling. The North Natomas Community Plan policy NN.ERC 1.14 School Location Criteria states:

“The City shall concentrate residential dwellings sufficiently to allow for all students to be within walking distance of the schools and locate school facilities to minimize the transporting of students by bus. Walking access standards for school facilities should not exceed the district’s recommended walking distance (one way) from the most remote part of the attendance area: ■ One-Way Walking Standards: Kindergarten (½ mile), Grades 1 to 6 (¾ mile), Grades 7 and 8 (2 miles), and Grades 9 to 12 (3 miles).”
The nearest elementary school in the Twin Unified School District is Regency Park Elementary School, 2 miles away. This is nearly three times the distance stated in the NN.ERC 1.14 policy and is the longest generally acceptable distance to bike as an adult.

The result of this in combination with unsafe street design standards impedes any realistic opportunity for students to safely access the school site, alone or with their family by any mode but a private vehicle.

Noting street design standards which contribute to the safety concerns we feel result from these outcomes, E. Commerce Way is a 4, at times, 5-lane high-capacity road that school children would be expected to cross via walking, biking, or rolling even if the school site was in closer proximity. Crossing these arterials can be dangerous and particularly for our youth, prohibitive to cross. Updating our planning and design practices to support densities, mixed-use zoning, and street design that allow for the safe and efficient multi-modal travel of people of all ages and abilities allows for a multitude of benefits.

Page 3 of 3 ends

909 12th Street, Su te 125, Sacramento, CA 95814
916 446 9255 • www.c v cthread.org

Sincerely,

David Moore
Community Planning Specialist

1 Deja Harris
From: Ailee Washington
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 12:28 PM
To: Deja Harris
Subject: P22-045 Terrace Park Subdivision
Hi Deja,

I am reaching out to you in regards to the Project Plan P22‐045 ‐ Terrace Park Subdivision. I am happy to see that this part of land is going to good use and am excited for the new plans to come to fruition. I would like to suggest an idea of adding a Community Pool in this area. Si
nce we do not have access to "The Club at Natomas Park" it would be nice for our neck of the woods to have our own community pool.

I understand that there are 79 proposed housing units and have looked at the drawing and as a loyal resident am in hopes that a pool can get squeezed in som
ehow or be attached to Magnolia Park in some way.

Please feel to reach me with any questions or concerns or replies you may have.

Sincerely,

Ailee Washington

1 Deja Harris
From: Planning
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 10:57 AM
To: Deja Harris
Subject: FW: P22-045
Hi Deja,
This appears to be a comment regarding P22‐045.

Best regards,

Andrew Leung
Assistant Planner
Direct: (916) 808‐5590
[email protected]

Advisory: All‐electric NEW construction requirements begin on January 1, 2023!

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Comcast <
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 7:59 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: P22‐045

Good morning,
I am a home owner in the area. I would like
to have a clubhouse. More homes is not needed in this already crowded area. I’m concerned about the number of people trying to evacuate in case of an emergency (i.e, fire or flooding).

Thank you

Sent from my iPhone

1 Deja Harris
From:

Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 10:20 AM
To: Deja Harris
Subject: Postponed meeting for Terrace Park Subdivison
Deja,
We (the residents of Terrace Park) have not received any notices of a postponed meeting for the Terrace Park Subdivison (P22-045).

I have already received 5 calls from people who showed up last night and found out that the meeting had been postponed.
.

I presume a new Notice will be sent out in a timely manner to notify the residents nearby abouy the new meeting date and time.

If you wonder why there is such interest n this project, it is becauses we have long term hoemowners here, who have already fought and won, to stop any higher density housing from being built on this land. Now we fidnout thta the "surplus land" was offered without us being notified AND after the Twin Rivers School district, the city and our council member at that time (Angelique Ashby) all promised that the land woudl remain vacan tunles they had our approval on any plans to develop it or convert it into a larger, more useful park.

The person working on the development has contacted me, but this does not resolve the issue of the broken promise that we would have input into the decision.

I am in the process if reinstating our Homeowners Association, that somehow was taken off the list of H/Os associations that we were on for YEARS.

Please respond as soon as possible so that I can respond to the people who called me.

Thank you
Carlene DeMarco, Chairperson
Terrace Park Neighborhood Assoc.

1 Deja Harris
From: Jashan Kaur >
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 7:09 PM
To: Deja Harris
Subject: Terrace Park Neighborhood Association - Concern Regarding the New Proposal Dear Ms. Harris,

I am wriƟng to you to express my disapproval of the projected land proposal for 79 units near the Greg Thatch region. As an individual who lives in this area, creaƟng such a high‐density unit will only create more problems for our community such as high traﬃc condiƟons . I would be pleased if the project was to create a dog park, a sports ﬁeld, a small school that would promote more community bonding, encourage individuals to get out of the house more oŌen, allow people to enjoy the greenery the area oﬀers, and much more. The pr oject of 79 units is not convincing for me to allow for such a proposal to conƟnue further . As a concerned resident, I am not in agreement with this project and do not support it.

Best,

Resident of the Tres Piezas and lower Greg Thatch Region

1 Deja Harris
From: Amelyn Bermudez Tadeo >
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:44 AM
To: Deja Harris
Subject: Terrace Park Neighborhood - North Natomas
Hello Deja Harris,

Thank you for hearing our concerns regarding the intent of developer DR Horton to build a 79 unit development next to Magnolia Park.

We are the Tadeo family on Los Pueblos Way here in North Natomas. We moved into the neighborhood when we bought our house in Los Pueblos Way in 2018. One of the bigger selling points we considered when purchasing the
house was the close proximity of the Magnolia park ( ) to the house. We have two young sons who have enjoyed the amenities of the park and tennis courts. Since moving here we also adopted two pups and had hoped that one day the adj
acent empty lots would soon be turned into a dog park or basketball court to further enhance our families day to day living in the Terrace Park Neighborhood.

The intended plans for developer DR Horton to come in and build 79 units on the empty lots will disrupt the quality of life and day to day
living in our quiet neighborhood. Already we feel the strain of the overcrowded streets, speeding cars, and the occasional trash being illegally dumped along Greg Thatch Circle.

We plead with the City of Sacramento to halt this intended development of hig h density‐ 79 units! It was not made
aware to the neighborhood until much further in planning, and input towards this development was not received by the City from homeowners until now.

We wish to maintain our neighborhood as is. Please consider this, a larger park to accommodate sports games, or small dog park eve
n would be a welcome addition to our neighborhood. Do not allow big corporate developer DR Horton to build their project, we fear it will only have negative effects to the neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kindly,
The Tadeo Family

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

1 Deja Harris
From: Daljit Bajwa <
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 9:15 PM
To: Deja Harris
Subject: subdivision perposal
Hi madam/sir WE still like to some playground or school at the corner of tres piezas &lower greg thatch cir my address is thanks

Daljit Bajwa

1 Deja Harris
From: Jennifer Bluemel
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 4:55 PM
To: Deja Harris
Subject: Terrace Park Neighborhood/DR Horton
Ms. Harris,

I am wriƟng in regards to my concerns on the proposed development of 79 homes in the Terrace Park Neighborhood project at the corner of Tres Piezas and Lower Greg Thatch Cir . This community cannot withstand a build like this. We can barely ﬁt 2 cars down the street at the same Ɵme right now nor do we eve n have enough space to park cars on the streets because they are so packed with current homeowners and tenants. This neighborhood should remain as it is currently. It would be great if they could develop that piece of land with something geared towar ds family ouƟngs, ie:
bigger park, basketball courts, splash pad etc. This community is so overrun with vehicles that it is becoming unsafe. The amount of units that is being proposed to be built on this site is completely overboard for the size of land and the area surrounding it. Please, as a homeown
er in this neighborhood, we plead for this to not be built the way that it is being proposed at this Ɵme. If you have any quesƟons, please feel free to reach out to me.

Thank you,

Jennifer Bluemel

Sent from my I phone

1 Deja Harris
From: Joseph Bautista
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 3:34 AM
To: Deja Harris
Subject: Greg Thatch Circle 79 units
I am the original owner of my home on Greg Thatch Circle. My family and I have resided in Natomas since 2005. We were told that Magnolia Park was going to expand for recreation, that never happened. The strip of land that runs parallel to the freeway, directly across the street from my house, was supposed to be developed into a trail, that never happened. We pay
the most taxes of any home owners in Sacramento. Upon doing my research, I found out that building houses in this area, should have never happened. We weathered the storm that was brought on by the recession, we witnessed Foreclosure signs on at least 1/3 of our block and worried when our house value went all the
way down to the 1/2 of what we purchased it at. Now, it's 2023 and we are finally seeing equity in our investment.

Adding the 79 unit housing was not on the agreement when we pu rchase our home and shouldn't be even thought of put the basketball court that was suppose to go there or a gymnasium baseball field something of that nature that was promised . Thank you
Sincerely One of few Original Owners of our home on Greg Thatch Circle .

1 Deja Harris
From: Sarah Blair
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 10:41 AM
To: Deja Harris
Subject: 79units!
Please don’t put 79 units on Greg thatch circle! The city could really use more pickle ball courts. The sport is growing exponentially.

My husband and I wouldn’t even mind regular single family homes as long as the park remains the same.

Thanks for considering.

Around the corner from the park

Sarah and Kent Blair
‐‐
Sarah Blair
Splash Games

1 Deja Harris
From: Timothy Hooper
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 8:49 PM
To: Deja Harris
Subject: Terrace Park Neighborhood
I am emailing regarding the proposal of 79 high density units to be placed in our neighborhood. As a member of the neighborhood I can speak for myself and my local neighbors who have discussed this. We DO NOT wish to have apartments built. It will cause unnecessary traffic. We believe this will effect the quality of our neighborhood. We did not receive any notifi
cation or hear of any plans of this until a neighborhood resident made us aware. We would much rather the space be used for a school or a baseball field etc.

Thank you for your time

Timothy Hooper

1 Deja Harris
From: Sohniia Shergill
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 5:25 PM
To: Deja Harris
Subject: DISAPPROVAL for 79 units near greg thatch
Hello Ms. Harris,

I am wriƟng to express my disapproval of the projected land proposal for 79 units near Greg thatch region in natomas.

This would cause morning chaos, traﬃc pile up, and more traﬃc constant throughout the day leading to annoyed residents. We are hoping for a dog park instead bec ause we don’t have one that’s near by our community. We have to walk to the other side always. Even a sports park or a small daycare would be okay. But PLEASE NO NEW HOUSES OR APARTMENTS OR RESIDENTS!!!!!! That’s going to be TERRIBLEEEE! I would be very irritated and dissaƟsﬁed as a resident of Greg thatch for 15 years! Please help us make our community happier and beƩer by creaƟng a nice friendly dog park instead!

Thanks,

Residents of Greg Thatch region
Sohniia

Planning & Design Commission [Updated 4/6/2023 @ 3:00 p.m.] Meeting Time: 04-13-23 17:30
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Planning & Design Commission [Updated
4/6/2023 @ 3:00 p.m.]
04-13-23
17:30
19 2 0 2 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment

Planning & Design Commission [Updated 4/6/2023 @ 3:00 p.m.] 04-13-23 17:30
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral

4. Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045) (Noticed 03/31/2023). File ID:
2023-00444
1 0 1 0
eComments Report (eComments remain open through the meeting; eComments received after 11:43 a.m. will be available after the meeting) 1 0 1 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 4. Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045) (Noticed 03/31/2023). File ID: 2023-00444 Overall Sentiment
Kuljeenpal Bhullar
Location:

Submitted At: 5:35pm 04-07-23
This Parcel Land was originally assigned to build the School.

We request you Not to change this use for Housing.

Thank Y ou
Kuljeen Bhullar
This comment is for:

Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045) (Noticed 03/31/2023). File ID: 2023-00444

Agenda Item: eComments for eComments Report (eComments remain open through the meeting; eComments received after 11:43 a.m. will be available after the meeting)
Overall Sentiment
David Moore
Location:

Submitted At: 4:25pm 04-13-23
See attached. Thank you.

909 12th Street, Su te 125, Sacramento, CA 95814
916 446 9255 • www.c v cthread.org

April 13, 2023 VIA EMAIL
Deja Harris, Assistant Planner
Planning Division, Community Development Department
300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811

RE: Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045)

Page 2 of 3 ends

909 12th Street, Su te 125, Sacramento, CA 95814
916 446 9255 • www.c v cthread.org

There insufficient alternative school sites to comply with this policy should the amendment move forward.

Again, we strongly urge the staying of the existing General Plan zoning.

Page 3 of 3 ends

909 12th Street, Su te 125, Sacramento, CA 95814
916 446 9255 • www.c v cthread.org

Sincerely,

David Moore
Community Planning Specialist

Planning & Design Commission
Meeting Time: 04-27-23 17:30
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Planning & Design Commission 04-27-23
17:30
13 8 1 6 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment

Planning & Design Commission
04-27-23 17:30
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral

1. Approval of Planning and Design Commission Minutes. File ID: 2022- 02422
1 0 1 0

2. Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045) (Noticed 04/14/2023) [Continued from 04/13/2023]. File ID: 2023-00269
7 1 5 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 1. Approval of Planning and Design Commission Minutes. File ID: 2022-02422 Overall Sentiment
Michael Allen
Location:

Submitted At: 9:12pm 04-26-23
I oppose the Terrace Park development.

As a homeowner in the Terrace Park neighborhood area, I am frustrated and at a loss regarding WHY another development has been proposed for the vacant land on Greg Thatch Circle, not far from East Commerce.

We had block neighbors pass out door to door flyers and talked to people, so that Measure P would pass. We were successful. Measure P was supposed to provide the funding necessary to build the Elementary school on the land that was left after Magnolia Park was built.

We are still obviously paying on Measure P ., but no school has been built, as promised, on that land. How did this designated school land become "surplus land", that the city could just sell? Now a developer wants to build higher density housing on the vacant land instead of a school or even a similar project for public use.

Don't you think that we, as Taxpayers, who are paying for these things, should have a say about HOW the land should be utilized?
I barely received a Notice about this and was told that a sign had been placed as a notice a while ago. I saw the sign only after diligently looking for it. One (1), small solitary sign was placed in the far corner of the vacant lot, where it could hardly have been seen at all, but especially in the wet winter months, when almost no one walks outside.

A more robust noticing plan was seriously needed, to say the least, so that residents affected knew what was being proposed.

Mike A. , An Angry Taxpayer fromTerrace Park
Agenda Item: eComments for 2. Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045) (Noticed 04/14/2023) [Continued from 04/13/2023]. File ID:
2023-00269
Overall Sentiment
Matthew Kessing
Location:

Submitted At: 1:02pm 04-26-23
The housing supply shortage in the Sacramento region, and California in general, has reached the crisis point we're at today because of opposition to housing projects just like this one by NIMBYs like these ones. This project will make us 79 units closer to achieving our housing production goals for the year, a goal we missed by almost 50% last year. Personally, I'd like to see unit density higher than 13 units per net acre, and more varied floorplans that include smaller units to encourage a greater range of affordability, but let's not let perfect get in the way of good enough.

The proposal plans to add 150,000 square feet of new building floor area, and at $250/sqft and 1% per year property tax, the project represents a $383,000/year opportunity cost by the City and County if we allow that land to continue to sit vacant and unproductive. Let's put this land to use for the good of our community by building housing for people.

Julio Perez
Location:

Submitted At: 5:04pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose this project P22-045. My family and I are original homeowners as of March 2005 and specifically bought our home from DR Horton with the promise that the vacant land would be used for a park & school. The park was completed and has been a great asset for young children to have a place to run and play due to the small lot sizes of Terrace Park. It would be great to see the park expanded with a baseball field, soccer field and even a dedicated area for dog owners so they can let their animals run free if a school is not going to be built. This land should be used to enrich the lives of the children that live in this community, not more homes, traffic and ultimately crime. Last I checked there are hundreds of homes being built on the other side of Highway 99 and they have the land to accommodate, where our little neighborhood can not! How is DR Horton not being sued or held accountable for selling homes on a false pretense? Marisela Delgado
Location:

Submitted At: 8:51pm 04-24-23
I oppose the proposition of the new housing development. Living off of Ayala & Skarda Ct. it is impossible to see oncoming traffic due to the amount of vehicles that park illegally on the street, making it impossible to leave this neighborhood safely.

Secondly, with Natomas [alone] booming with unnecessary houses by the grove, lack of safety WILL increase immensely. My family & I lived off of Calabria & Club Center for 5 years until we relocated due to the drastic crime increase. Allowing this behavior to flood into other safe, quiet neighborhoods is absolutely absurd and embarrassing. Living within the Greg Thatch community brings a calm knowing I'm in a safe & quiet neighborhood. Being able to walk at night as a young woman is such an immense privilege I am grateful for everyday.

Thirdly, stripping away safety from the amount of families within this community is something I cannot amend too.

Council members already knowing crime will be driven here boils my blood. Neighbors are constantly feeling unsafe in certain parts of their neighborhood, don't strip them away here by brining in God knows what kind of neighbors that you'll cause your neighbors to live in fear, anxiety and hiding from no longer feeling safe in their homes. Why put families, children, and elders in this situation? It is cruel beyond measures.

Lastly, making neighbors suffer absurd property taxes by brining in an apartment complex is beyond inexcusable.

Apartments have zero value within a community. They raise rent & taxes through the roof, bring a lot of plumbing issues along with rodents. Homes in Sacramento are already outrages to purchase in addition to basic necessities. Please. don't make Natomas natives suffer behind selfish acts that will have zero benefit in the long run.

In conclusion, please do not move forward with this act. Instead, extend the park, add an active course (volleyball, basketball, a dog park) that bring neighbors TOGETHER. Or, better yet, extend the grass from the park throughout the remaining field much like Regency Park. The structure of Regency Park here at Greg Thatch would be wonderful! Apartment complexes will hurt this neighborhood tremendously and please don't let us, the neighbors- hate where we live due to nescience that will come if apartments are built here.

Thank you.

Angela Lewitz
Location:

Submitted At: 1:30pm 04-24-23
I oppose this project. My family and I are original homeowners and bought our home from DR Horton with the promise that the vacant land would be used for a park & school. The park has Been finished and after attending multiple school board and city council meetings, we were ensured the remaining vacant parcel would be used to build a school. This land should be used to enrich the lives of the children that live in this community, not more homes and traffic. Follow thru with your promises school board and council members.

Zainab During
Location:

Submitted At: 10:22am 04-24-23
Hello, I am writing to oppose this project as the street is already so crowded and cars parked everywhere. We bought our home three years ago and our property taxes increased because of a melarose tax for the park. If we are paying taxes for the park it is only fair that we enjoy the benefit. Please consider extending the park to include a soccer field, perhaps basketball and baseball field like the Kokoma park on East Commerce. Building additional housing will cause more congestion and a decline in overall wellness of our children.

Carlene DeMarco
Location:

Submitted At: 10:04am 04-21-23
#That developer says that their project is compatibale with the current land use. It is NOT. They are apparently looking at the KB homes PUDs project comparing it to our neighborhood (Terrace Park Subdivision). We are all single family homes and NOT part of the KB homes subdiviison. #2. THis land is still designated as a school site, which was promised to the residents by the prior developer (DR Horton) as part of thier sale pitch in selling their homes. Terrace Park homeowners won this battle as late as 2008 for the site to remain a school and a park (instead of the 69 units DR Horton wanted to build. #3. As late as 2018 (prior COVID) our City Council member at that time (Angelique Ashby) our shcool board member Basim Elkarra, assured us that the land would remain vacant unless our Terrace Park Neighborhood Assoc. approved the project.
#4. SInce the land was intentionally planned as a community asset for children and their families (a school), and Mayor Steinburg supports the youth in our community, why isn't this land beng used to extend the park for a level soccer field, a base ball field, a dog run, etc. that would actually benefit the city's youth thier families. There are currently almost no "level" soccer fields for soccer practice (yet we support getting a National Soccer league in Sacramento?). This land would be well used by the youth in our area and the small amount if dog runs avalable could be remedied (without dogs pooping on the normal walking land in Magnolia Park) Again, remember the original purpose was for a school, something to support the youth, it should retain its original intent ot imporve the lives of our children.
#5. The building of 79 units on this sall opiece of land will nto only dvalue the other homes, btu itwill create more traffic thta ia lareayd aoccurrin o the lower part of Greg Thatch Circle. Someone needs to ask the homeowners affected about the many issues they already have with traffic AND lack of street parking.

Lilly Velazquez
Location:

Submitted At: 4:35pm 04-20-23
My family and I object to the Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045) Project. We are original homeowners of this community and we were first promised a school, then we were promised nothing was going to be built on the vacant lot after we fought for no more homes to be built on the vacant land about 10 years ago.

We don't need more homes and traffic in our community. We are a small community where kids and families enjoy playing at the park, going on walks, playing tennis and bike riding. We would like to continue enjoying this safe and active community.

In case you are not aware, there are plenty of new apartments in Natomas for housing, especially on both sides of I-5 & Arena Blvd. What we need is for Magnolia Park to be expanded into a full park with a soccer field and/or volleyball, small dog park or just anything that will keep our community active. I know first hand that we need more and better soccer fields. Our kids play soccer in Davis because Natomas does not have enough public parks with soccer fields and the few siccer fields that we do have are in horrible condition (bald, patchy, uneven, muddy, sandy). It's pretty embarrassing and not safe to play on.

Please put our tax dollars at work by adding more recreational activities.

DO NOT approve the Terrace Park Subdivision (P22-045). If you want more residential homes/duplexes in Natomas, put them in your neighborhood, just not ours.

Sacramento City CouncilMay 23, 2023

Sacramento City Council
May 23, 2023