intersection. This and all the other pages are deceiving because the surrounding streets and driveways related to traffic flow are not shown. Attachment 1 is a map that shows a slightly larger area surrounding 707 CD. I have added existing driveways, the 2 existing stop signs, the proposed driveway, and indicated with an “X” the corner and intersection of concern. As you can see from this larger view, there are numerous driveways near this intersection, and there is a heavy non-resident traffic flow with people driving along CD and turning onto CCR toward University Ave. and the reverse. The proposed driveway would be close to that intersection, and with increased parking along both of those streets by residents and guests, the visibility would be limited.
Also,
cars stopped to make left turns into driveways would create potentially dangerous situations.
I understand the developers have plans to create similar units at 350 University Ave. While I don't think this design and concept would be compatible with the buildings along University Ave., perhaps they should consider both parcels together so there would be more options for parking and traffic flow, as well as trees, green space, and amenities.
TRASH CANS ON STREET – Unnecessary to place on street
The location of trash cans along CCR and CD did not appear until the second and third revisions of the proposal. However, the location of the cans along the streets is entirely unnecessary. All homeowners throughout Campus Commons, with a very few exceptions where I think there are mobility problems, put their trash cans by their garages or in their parking cul-de-sacs. This has worked successfully for over 50 years since Campus Commons was developed. If the interior driveways for the proposed development are adequate for fire trucks, there is certainly enough room for garbage trucks to enter and exit. And the cans can be moved forward from the 2 driveways that end at the property line with 350 University Ave. if it is difficult for the garbage trucks to turn around in that driveway. This keeps the garbage cans off the streets and offers a significant advantage to the homeowners in ease of access for putting out trash cans.
3 IN additionk, the location proposed for the trash cans on the street is problematic for several reasons, but primarily because the space is inadequate. Page 5 of the plan shows the trash pick up locations with the cans clustered in groups of 3 along CCR and CD. Just looking at the placement of the cans, it can be seen that this does not meet the City requirement that cans have 3 feet of clearance on all sides.
Attachment 2 shows a comparison of the space needed and space available to place the trash cans on the street. The space needed is 348 feet but the space available is 292 feet and possibly less if clearance space is needed on the CCR side of the corner. Clearly this is does not meet the City requirements.
Placing trash cans on the street will cause a traffic hazard for cars, bicyclists and pedestrians before, during and after trash pick up. People will not be able to easily see around the cans especially at driveways and when turning the corner at CCR and CD.
Would the City have to put up signs prohibiting parking on CCR and CD from 6 PM the day before trash pick up to 3 pm on trash pick up day? If not the traffic hazard will be even worse. If so, there will be a shortage of parking spaces for residents of 707 Commons Drive.
Also, there are invariably a few trash cans which are tipped over during the pick up process as well as some garbage that does not get into the truck. This is a problem that is easily remedied within the Campus Commons community where the cans are on interior driveways and not on busy streets.
But the main point is that putting the cans on the street is unnecessary. The cans can be safely placed in the driveways without creating an assortment of new problems that will occur weekly and may require City resources to resolve.
LANDSCAPE – Error on plans, some poor tree choices, and placement too close to buildings and walkways The Landscape Plan contains at least one error, not all of the trees are good choices, and the space is inadequate for healthy tree growth for many of the trees.
The Landscape Plan on page 9 includes 20 trees which is an improvement in terms of the number of trees over the previous revision. However, I have the following concerns regarding the several of the trees.
1. On the top right of the Landscape Plan, there is a list of the trees and other plants that would be included. The plan lists 8 Tulip Poplar trees however there are only 7 in the schematic drawing that I can find after looking several times very carefully. So the total number of trees based on the drawings should be 19.
2. Attachment 3 shows information about the trees that are in the proposed plan. The table includes the following information about each type of tree:
a. Whether or not it is included in lists of trees recommended or that grow well in this area. The lists are provided by Sacramento City, Sacramento County, and the Sacramento Tree Foundation. The lists are obviously not exhaustive but intended to provide information to assist in landscape planning.
b. Recommendations on the space needed and the size of the mature tree. c. Estimated space available on the Landscape Plan. d. Specific problems with each type of tree
I have no expertise in landscaping planning but it seemed like this information would be helpful in looking at the proposal. I do have some knowledge and experience with some of the trees proposed here that have created problems in Campus Commons. On the attachment it is fairly easy to see which trees are being planted in spaces smaller than recommended, have invasive roots that break pavement, are susceptible to aphids causing sticky sidewalks, and require a lot of water. I have serious concerns about 5 of the 7 tree species as follows:
4 Silver Maple - brittle branches, aphids
Liquid Amber - invasive roots, litters seed pods Coast Redwood - site clearance
Tulip Poplar - insufficient space, aphids
Littleleaf Linden - insufficient space, aphids
I am hoping that the Urban Forestry Division reviews this plan and provides consultation on the tree choices.
In summary, most of these numerous problems are caused by the high density of the proposed housing which is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. Furthermore, the design and density are out of compliance with numerous city planning guidelines and codes, and environmental requirements. And, a last caution that the Conceptual Renderings do not present a realistic image of what this proposal would look like. The renderings present a picture of trees that are not on the plan and green space that doesn’t exist. Yes, more trees can be planted but the units are so close, and with the driveway and walkways there is not sufficient ground space in which to plant trees that would thrive or be of sufficient size to provide a tree canopy with shade and environmental benefit. This proposal would not in any way be an asset to the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Styc
[email protected]
700 Commons Drive
916-484-0881
Medium trash can width 19 inches
Large trash can width 25 inches
Average width 22 inches
Times 3 when all are collected 66 inches
Convert to feet 5.5 feet
City required clearance for 3 cans 9 feet
Total space required per house 14.5 feet
Times 24 equals total linear space
REQUIRED for 3 cans per house 348 feet
Curb distance on CCR 171 feet
Curb distance on CD 216 feet
Total 387 feet
Subtract
Existing red zone at CD corner 35 feet
Driveway 24 feet
Total 328 feet
Subtract
Clearance at sides of driveway 24 feet
Clearance at driveway on Village 1 side 12 feet
Total linear space AVAILABLE 292 feet
ATTACHMENT 2
Curb measurements based on Proposed Layout on page 6.
Driveway based on Site Plan measurements on page 4.
Red zone and driveway clearance based on measurements taken on site.
COMPARISON OF SPACE REQUIRED AND
SPACE REQUIRED FOR TRASH CANS
SPACE AVAILABLE FOR TRASH CANS
SPACE AVAILABLE FOR TRASH CANS
PLANTER PLANTER TREE
TREE NAME SCITY SCO STF WIDTH HT WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH ADDITIONAL NOTES, CONCERNS Silver Maple, Acer
Saccharinum No No No 40-60' 30-50' 25' 25' Brittle branches, susceptible to aphids.
Sweet Gum, Liquid
Amber Styraciflua No Yes No 8' 40' 25-30'
Varies 5-10'
from house, 3'
from walkway
Range of 5-
10' from side
of house
Invasive roots, can break pavement, site clearance
problem, avoid pedestrian traffic areas, litters
seed pods.
Japanese Flowering
Cherry, Prunus
Serrulata
Other
var. on
list Yes No 6' 30' 20-25' 6'
Trunk 6'
from house
Variety not noted in Plan, but County gives
information for "Kwanzan".
Coast
RedwoodSequoia
Sempervirens No Yes No 8' 90' 25-30' 12'
Trunk 6'
from fence Site clearance problem.
Chinese Fringe Tree,
Chionanthus retusus Yes No Yes 4' To 20' to 20' 15-20' 20' Plant 6' from foundation, 5' from hardscape, 12'
between trees
Tulip Poplar,
Liriodendrum
Tulipflora Yes Yes Yes 8' 55-80' 30-50' 4-5'
25' at front
and 30'at
back
Several varieties. Susceptible to aphids, plant 15'
from foundation, 8' from hardscape, 30' between
trees; high water needs
Littleleaf Linden, Tilia
Cordata
Yes,
several
var. Yes Yes 6' To 50' 25-30'
6' from house,
2' from walkway
18-19', trunk
6' from
house on
one side
Several varieties from small to medium-large.
Aphid drip, plant 15' from foundation, 6' from
hardscape, 6' from fence, 20' between trees; mod-
high water need
TREE WIDTH - Space needed for branches and foliage.
ATTACHMENT 3
TREES LISTED IN LANDSCAPE PLAN OF 707 COMMONS DRIVE THIRD REVISION
RECOMMENDATION SPACE AVAILABLE
MATURE SIZE
SCI - Sacramento City
SCO - Sacramento County Landscape Tree List
STF - Sacramento Tree Foundation
ON TREE LIST
PLANTER WIDTH - Space needed at ground level.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: lo_shar68 <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 5:13 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Concern about lack of planning for garbage, recycling, and organic waste container space in revised 707 Comons Drive plan...
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
D
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I live in Campus Commons Village 2. My neighbors and I share many concerns about the revised development plans for 707 Commons Drive that were filed with the City on July 25, 2023 (Project No. Z22‐079). In this letter I will describe one of our concerns: the difficulties cr eated for all of us, including residents of the proposed development, by garbage, recycling, and organic waste containers for the new units. The developers apparently plan to crowd 48 weekly and 72 bi‐ weekly containers onto Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road rather than design alleys wide enough for garbage trucks.
The July 25 plans show pickup lo
cations for up to 72 containers along Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road (2 containers every week and 3 on alternate weeks for 24 units). City collection guidelines call for placing containers 3 feet apart and 6 feet from cars and obstructions. The July 25 revised plans show groups of 3 ref use containers with no space between the individual cans (for a space of maybe 135 linear feet, thus hiding the true proportions of the problem.
When all 3 cans are used (including the required space between each one) at least 348 linear feet of curb space will be needed for 72 cans on Thursday evening and much of Friday.
There is no more than 280 feet of curb space available in front of and alongside the development and complying with ci ty guidelines and requirements the proposed development would need at least 348 feet of curb space:
• Each container is 19"‐24" wide. The approx. combined width of 3 containers = ~5.5ft. • Add 9 ft to each set of 3 containers to meet the City’s spacing guidelines. • ~5.5 ft + 9 ft = ~14.5 ft. Th
is is the curb space needed for each of the 24 units.
• 24 units x ~14.5 ft = ~348 ft. A football field is 360 ft. including end zones. • Residents may order more and larger containers, requiring even more curb space.
On Thursday evenings much or all of the curb space needed for containers will probably already be occupied by parked cars because of tandem garages for 12 units, garages used for storage, cars belonging to optional studio units, and absence of visitor parking.
With curb space taken up by parked cars, Campus Commons neighbors can expect to find containers, some fallen, and debris spread out for hundreds of feet along Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. If containers do find curb space on a Thursday, it will be the home‐bound cars that are spread out along neighborhood streets ins tead. These scenarios increase the potential for accidents, injury, and loss of life.
Campus Commons was developed with space for refuse pickup in the alleys. There is clearly no space ‐ or plan ‐ for both trash and parking on Commons Drive or Campus Commons Road. Developers must widen driveways and alleys to allow for containers and for refuse vehicles to safely mane
uver in the interior of the complex. Not only will alley pickup improve safety but also improve the complex’s appearance and help promote the shared neighborhood identity (see the City General Plan LU 2.1.3).
2 Thank you for your consideration of these concerns and I request City staff to respond to this letter explaining how they will address this concern with the developer.
Sincerely,
Lorene Sarne
889 Commons Drive.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mary Ann <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 5:13 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: 707 Commons Drive, Project Z22-079. Condition of the trees Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr, Dahla,
I am writing to you in frustration about the state of the private protected trees at 707 Commons Drive, the site of a proposed housing development (Project Z22-079). The developer has submitted 3 revisions to the original plans and not one of the revisions shows any evidence that the existing private protected trees will be saved. Why hasn’t the City insisted that the revisions include an intention to preserve these trees?
Not only have the developers neglected to preserve the private protective trees in their plans, but they also appear to be letting these trees die from neglect. It is apparent that irrigation to the property has been off for some time, possibly since early summer. The expansive lawn is dead, the shrubs are browning, dead branches hang from the trees, and it’s possible that some of the tree roots are harmed. The trees may become so heat stressed and dehydrated that an arborist will judge them too unhealthy to save. The developers do not have an approved permit to destroy these trees, yet their inaction could achieve the same result. If the trees are heat stressed and dehydrated, will it be easier for the developers to get the permit they need to destroy them?
The Sacramento City Code has a straightforward requirement that property owners maintain private protected trees:
Chapter 12.56 Tree Planting, Maintenance, and Conservation. Section 12.56.080 Maintenance responsibility and liability of property owners, public utilities, and public agencies performing flood protection work.
A. A property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all private protected trees on the property owner’s property.
If the City does not protect designated trees through enforcement of this section of the Code, developers can take that as permission to destroy any private protected trees that stand in their way. I doubt that this is a message the City wants to convey.
As officials in the City of Trees know, there’s a high cost to losing a mature urban forest to development. We all pay that cost in terms of increased atmospheric CO2, increased building temperatures, hotter and drier soil, less carbon sequestration, rain runoff lost to sewers, more pollution from more residential vehicles, reduced benefits to physical and mental health from natural open spaces, less food, shelter, resting and nesting sites for birds and small mammals, and more. And we will be paying that cost on into the future, long after new developments fall into disrepair. Smaller tree species simply cannot offer the same benefits as larger species, and even larger species take decades to form a canopy.
In the long term and in more than strictly financial terms, the City has more to gain by saving these trees than by allowing them to be destroyed. Not least among the gains is a greater confidence and trust in the government agencies that demonstrate their commitment to livable neighborhoods.
Please apply your energy and expertise to saving the trees at 707 Commons Drive.
Thank you for your attention,
Mary Ann Robinson
Campus Commons Village 3
Date: August 10, 2023
To: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner, City of Sacramento (via email [email protected]) CC: Vice Mayor Eric Guerra
From: Inderjit Rye, Campus Commons Resident ([email protected]) Re: Z22-079 (707 Commons Dr)
I have read Title 17 (all text pertinent to the proposed development at 707 Commons Dr) and believe the latest plans still fall short of what is allowed.
First, I should state: the parcel that the 707 Commons Dr proposed development sits on (295-0402-015- 0000) is zoned OB-PUD (see Sacramento County’s online Assessor Parcel Viewer), and, from an exhibit related to a 1987 resolution regarding signs in the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (hereafter CCPUD) area, the parcel is well within the area designated as the CCPUD. Now:
I see that according to 17.104.020: Land use regulations specify land uses permitted or conditionally permitted in each zoning district, and may include special requirements for specific uses. One of the five types of land use regulations is Planned Unit Developments (PUD).
And I see that according to 17.104.030: A project must receive site plan and design review approval and be consistent with the land use designations of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and with the zoning district in which it is located. If the use proposed for the development requires special consideration to be compatible with surrounding uses, a conditional use permit is required. If the development request does not fully comply with the regulations of this title, approval of a deviation from design guidelines or development standards, or a variance, is required.
And I see that 17.104.100-D states: When conflicts occur between the requirements of this title and development guidelines adopted for a PUD, the requirements of the PUD development guidelines apply.
Per 17.104.110: the zoning administrator is responsible for and has the authority to interpret the provisions of this title.
Per 17.104.120: An interpretation of this title by the zoning administrator is subject to appeal to the planning and design commission under section 17.812.060. The zoning administrator may refer any interpretation of this title to the planning and design commission for a determination.
In 17.600.100: For purposes of site plan and design review, and whenever design review is otherwise required under this title, the design guidelines applicable to a development project are as follows…:
D. Planned unit developments. The guidelines and schematic plan adopted for a planned unit development apply to development in that planned unit development.
Moreover, per 17.452.020: A building permit shall not be issued for any building or structure within the boundaries of a planned unit development until the plans submitted for the building permit have been reviewed by the planning director to determine if the plans conform to the schematic plan and development guidelines adopted for the planned unit development and the site plan and design review approved for the project.
17.452.030: The planned unit development (“PUD”) designation appearing on the official zoning map means the property is subject to the requirements of this chapter and the schematic plan and development guidelines adopted for the planned unit development, in addition to the indicated land use zone (underlying zone).
17.452.040-B: Contents of the schematic plan and development guidelines.
1. The schematic plan and development guidelines shall contain the development standards applicable to development within the planned unit development and shall include specific details, elements, conditions and restrictions as the council may deem warranted to carry out the purpose of this chapter, including conditions and restrictions related to size, timing, and sequence of development.
2. In approving a schematic plan and development guidelines for a planned unit development, the city council may modify zoning regulations relating to height, setback and area requirements, and other provisions of this title otherwise applicable to the property; provided that the following standards shall be applied:
a. Design standards. The schematic plan and development guidelines provide overall standards of open space, circulation, off-street parking and other conditions in such a way as to form a harmonious, integrated project of such quality to justify exceptions to the normal regulations of this title. c. Density standards. The density standards of the zone in which the property is located shall apply to residential uses, except that the schematic plan and development guidelines may authorize a greater density if the proposed design will result in a development project that provides greater open spaces and other desirable features not a regular requirement of the zone. d. Uses. Property within a planned unit development may be used only for the uses that are permitted in the underlying zone in which it is located and that are authorized by the schematic plan and development guidelines adopted for the property.
Application of Title 17:
Current City staff have provided Resolution No. 79, dated November 25, 1969 (hereafter 11-25-69 Resolution) and the accompanying CCPUD Revised Schematic Development Plan document, dated November 10, 1969 (hereafter 11-10-69 Document) as documents they are looking to for guidance, since the 707 Commons Dr proposed project is included within the area designated in the 11-10-69 document.
The 11-10-69 Document states that in 1965 “the Commission approved the schematic concepts of (the) overall plan as a guide for future consideration of specific development projects as more detailed plans were developed and submitted for each project”.
Prior to November 1969, the following were built: Village One, Village Two, and the office building at 707 Commons Dr.
It appears that the home lots in Village Four and a portion of Village Three (all of the patio homes and the townhomes at 244 to 292 Hartnell and at 504 to 536 Hartnell) were planned by November 1969 but built after.
After November 1969 the following were positioned and built from 1971 to 1979 (listed in order of build years): the rest of Village Three, Nepenthe’s American River Dr, Commons Dr, Adelphi Ct, Colby Ct, Vanderbilt Way, Swarthmore Dr, Dunbarton Cir, Elmhurst Cir. Village 10, on Hartnell Cir, was built in 1975 and Village 5, off Commons Dr, in 1977 to 1979.
We have not seen written schematic concepts. The City appears to have misplaced or lost portions of the November 1969 approved supporting CCPUD documents. In the absence of such written concepts, it is proper to look at the final product: the Campus Commons neighborhood itself, all of the aforementioned villages and streets. We invite the City staff to walk this area with us. The staff would see exceptional environmental characteristics of:
- Generous street to building setbacks to allow for park-like landscaping: berms and sculptured rolling land, flowering plants, bushes, canopy trees, and shared green areas, - As a result of that: a semi-rural or park-like appearance, not at all an urban appearance, - Entrances from Howe Ave and Fair Oaks Blvd, where when one enters and reaches the main throughfare street of Commons Dr, the intersections have setbacks to allow for an inviting, and safe, entry into the residential neighborhood,
- Separate but linked villages, linked by walking trails maintained by the homeowners (I live in Village Two and walk on walk ways in other villages but that is okay because I contribute monetarily to the maintenance of Village Two walk ways that other villages’ residents walk on), - Housing that is tucked away, in the park-like setting. (Please note:
- The setback along Commons Dr to the east of the subject property is 39 feet, - The setback across Campus Commons Rd from the subject property is 25 feet, - Canopy trees are planted along the entire residential portion of Commons Dr, and the lack of them in front of 707 Commons Dr is currently offset by the many trees in the front half portion of the subject parcel,
- Common Dr was designed to curve (quite a bit) east of the subject property, and the absence of any building in the front half portion of the subject parcel greatly provides safe travel for bikers and drivers, because of (current) adequate visibility, from and to Campus Commons Rd, and along Commons Dr,
- All development, from before 1969 through 1979, provided adequate space off the street for garbage bins and green waste bins and recycle bins.)
The Schematic Concept section of the 11-10-69 Document states:
1. The original Campus Commons design concept integrated site features to produce a community with exceptional environmental characteristics. The Commission approved this Planned Unit Development concept to promote the development of different types of environments through a more flexible application of standard zoning regulations.
2. The revised schematic plan indicates a more conventional development pattern, with development occurring parcel by parcel. The key to the success of this method of development is attention to design and details. The developers have exercised this attention in the design of existing projects, and it is strongly recommended that this approach continues.
3. It is suggested that the developers consider a thematic approach to development of various areas within this project if development is to occur on a parcel by parcel basis.
The 11-25-69 Resolution, further, states:
This design concept is intended to promote the development of this area as a community with exceptional environmental characteristics.
And: It is recognized that the development of a large area over a period of time may require modifications based on changing circumstances. Any proposed change, however, should reflect the original schematic concepts, and should enhance the overall environmental character of this area. In its consideration of any proposed changes, the Commission shall carefully consider all basic elements of community development: land use, traffic circulation, recreation, and public facilities.
And: The schematic development plan indicates the proposed parcelization of multiple-family residential and commercial areas into smaller development segments. The key to the successful development of areas consisting of many separate parcels is careful attention to design and details. The developer is therefore encouraged to exercise this attention in order to ensure that these areas are developed as integrated areas, rather than groups of unrelated projects.
The developer may contend that the schematic plan and development guidelines do not preclude the proposed development. I disagree.
First, the 707 Commons Dr proposed development looks like a completely unrelated project.
The schematic plan and development guidelines in the City’s files, provided to CC residents, do not state street to building setbacks and do not specify the landscape details, but there are no buildings as close to the street as the developers want and there are no buildings on Campus Commons Rd and Commons Dr that have street level grading. Further, the minimal setbacks of the 707 Commons Dr proposal will not allow for any of the exceptional environmental characteristics described above.
The schematic plan and development guidelines in the City’s files, provided to CC residents, do not state that the 707 Commons Dr lot serves the purpose of a transition from the residential portion of the CCPUD to the University Ave commercial portion of the CCPUD, but it does.
There is real and probable danger that approval of the project would adversely affect the commercial portion of the CCPUD along Campus Commons Rd and University Ave. Anyone who crosses the H St bridge and takes the first right onto Campus Commons Rd (a great many do both) sees wide streets with buildings that are setback from the street to allow for the exceptional environmental characteristics described above. Moreover, many of the berms contain mature, healthy redwoods, in addition to other mature trees and plantings. All of these redwoods, and other trees and foliage, are in danger of being removed if the 1.09 acre parcel at the corner of Campus Commons Rd and Commons Dr becomes the new model for development in the CCPUD area.
Again, it is not impossible to conclude that the final build-out of CC is consistent with written (and possibly lost or misplaced) schematic plans. From the form of the final build-out it is clear that the setbacks and grading should be consistent and extend to the proposed 707 Commons Dr development. (And again, setbacks consistent with the rest of Commons Dr and Campus Commons Rd would provide ample space for landscape grading consistent with the neighborhood, both in the residential section and the commercial section. The consistent setback will also allow the planting of canopy trees that currently line the rest of Commons Dr.)
If any developer builds the latest style of housing at 707 Commons, but with setbacks and grading consistent with the current residential neighborhood, that corner would still be a transition to the University Ave of the future (the current owners of 707 Commons told us that they and family will be redeveloping along University Ave). I, as countless others in CC, will miss the 707 Commons Dr office building if it is demolished. I, as countless others in CC, believe the 707 Commons Dr office building is an architectural treasure, a building that makes residential Campus Commons a jewel because it is architecturally consistent with the nearby villages, and is therefore worthy of retaining and maintaining.
One Campus Commons resident, who until recently was a long-term tenant of 707 Commons Dr, does not believe the building is in poor condition, and believes the building and its surrounding landscaping is entirely appropriate for that 1.09 acre at a major entrance to residential Campus Commons. I agree.
Before anything is destroyed on the 707 Commons Dr lot, and since the 707 Commons Dr developers at a November 28, 2022 morning meeting, with Village Two residents, stated that they and their family will be redeveloping along University Ave, this is a very prudent time for the City to pause, pull together all stake holders:
- Current owners of residential property within the CCPUD, - Current owners of office buildings within the CCPUD who do not plan to demolish their building and plan to retain their current commercial use,
- New owners of office buildings within the CCPUD who plan to demolish and rebuild… to decide how new development will occur within the CCPUD, especially along University Ave and definitely near the very busy corner at University Ave and Campus Commons Rd.
In Conclusion:
It appears that this particular proposed development represents not just a breach of the intent of this PUD’s original design concepts, but also that of the PUD section of the Code more generally. Certainly, this is a somewhat unique situation with one parcel of a non-conforming use (but stylistically conforming) protruding into the residential area of a PUD. Nevertheless, it raises the prospect that any new development that seems to achieve an otherwise laudable housing goal can justify setting aside all of a PUD’s guidelines and understood intentions (design, foliage coverage, set-backs, density, etc.) This would set a terrible precedent. The City should engage in much further review and discussion before heading down this path and opening up all PUDs to indiscriminate reinterpretation. (Disclosure: This is the conclusion of a professional who reviewed my letter… I could not have said it better.) Because I agree with this individual’s conclusion, I request City staff to respond to this letter.
Mr. Zach Dahla, Associate Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
[email protected]
August 29, 2023
Dear Mr. Dahla,
At this point, I am quite certain that the City of Sacramento recognizes the significance of trees in our environment to boost the immune system, lower blood pressure, reduce stress, improve sleep, renew health and well being for people as well as animals, and reduce overall outdoor temperatures.
The exceptional focus “The City of Trees: A Love Letter” of the March/April, 2023 Sactown Magazine highlighted these benefits and more. Those of us who live in Campus Commons chose to live here to benefit from the healthy environment allowed by trees and open space.
The 707 Project Proposal destroys significant tree-scape and despoils the concepts of open space that characterize Campus Commons. There is insufficient space remaining in the proposed Project to allow for replaced landscaping. The clear-cutting of mature shade trees to crowd in 25 homes, flies in the face of ECOS’ “Trees for Sacramento” and the SMUD/ Tree Foundation collaboration to plant more shade trees. These collaborations are intended to offset the high energy costs of cooling homes and offer shady refuge during Sacramento’s longer and hotter summers.
I am writing to appeal to you and your colleagues to relocate the proposed project and honor the natural environment created through Campus Commons since its inception.
Sincerely and with hope,
Mary Anna Tamraz
1010 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (209) 217-4026
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Pat Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 7:19 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project Z22-079; 707 Commons Dr.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dr . Mr . Dahla,
Replacing the vacant office at 707 Commons with housing could be viable if it were compaƟble with the structures and landscaping of Campus Commons. However, the current proposal is in stark contrast.
One glaring discrepancy is the lack of alleys with access for garbage and recycling tru cks. The alleys throughout Campus
Commons free the streets from garbage cans. The architect’s rendering shows garbage cans lining the streets within the perimeter of their proposed development. Check the validity of these calculaƟons to insure this design allows for the required three‐foot space between each can. If it does not, these ca ns would extend beyond the length of their property. Forty‐eight weekly and seventy‐two bi‐monthly cans lining their development would be incongruous, unsightly and a traffic hazard. Spreading them into the rest of the community should not be an opƟon.
Sincerely,
Pat Thompson
Campus Commons re
sident
1 Zachary Dahla
From: SARAH BACKUS <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 2:22 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Mr. Dahla and Mr. Guerra,
I am a resident of Campus Commons. I strongly oppose the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive. These developers are planning something that is completely incompatible with the current neighborhood and does not comply with the PUD of record for the area. Their intent to remove all the mature and priceless trees in an effort to squeeze more condominiums into this small site is unconscionable. I cannot believe that the city is even considering this preposterous development. Were the developers to reduce the density by 20 percent, it would go a long way toward showing good faith and an intention to be good neighbors. However, for the developers to insist that they need 24 $900,000 homes on a little over an acre to make a profit is ludicrous. They could easily reduce the density, preserve some of the foliage and make friends with their neighbors while still making a huge profit.
Once built out these home
s will use the city streets for parking, trash pick up and any other services required, including movers, technicians, deliveries, etc. There will be insufficient interior driveways and parking for these purposes. In addition, I am sure that the developers plan to encourage their new reside nts to use our paths, ponds and facilities without making an attempt to provide any for their own residents. In my opinion this development will reduce the value of our homes and will cause a deterioration in our lifestyle. It will do nothing to ameliorate the housing crisis in our community or to provide low income housing. Please do not approve this development as currently planned.
Sincerely,
Sarah Backus
1016 Commons Drive
Sacramento
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Cheryl Chamness <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:07 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; [email protected]
Subject: 707 Commons Drive Development Concerns
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Greetings -
This is Cole and Cheryl Chamness. Campus Commons property owners at 1039 Commons Drive. We're writing to express our concerns about the proposed development. When we saw that housing was going in we were thrilled.
Housing is a great use of that space and while the building that is there is quite beautiful, it's also very empty. New housing done with respect for it's neighbors is welcomed.
The issue is the design and the setbacks. Twenty five three story condos with 3-5 ft. setbacks will overwhelm the space.
There is nothing about the design that fits in with the neighborhood. It looks like something that would sell in Natomas. No setbacks will make for a really low-end looking property with no consideration for it's location. .
Zero open space also makes no sense. The residents of the condos will end up using the open space that we pay for in Campus Commons. There is no way they are going to walk their dogs etc.... behind their garages.
Parking is another huge concern. Twenty five units with zero parking outside of the garage is insane. What will ultimately happen is all the visitors and second and thrid cars that don't fit into the garage will end up being parked along Common Drives. This makes zero sense and will be a huge burden and detriment to the residents of Campus Commons . Cars will be literally blocking the views out the windows of our residents.
Thank you for taking this big issues under consideration.
Cole and Cheryl
1 Zachary Dahla
From: David Lane <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 9:43 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: application Z22-079 - 707 Commons Dr.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hello Zach,
I note that the proposed developers in this matter, while filing three proposals for the development, have yet to amend the application. As previously pointed out, the application contains many false or misleading statements. I suggest that the application can’t be properly considered until the correct facts are set forth by the applicants.
The applicants appeared on November 28, 2022, for an explanatory meeting at the Campus Commons clubhouse. They made many false statements in that meeting. For example, they contended that the development would only contain 24 residences and that these would not be used for rental properties wh ereas the proposal calls for 36 units, including the studio apartments. It appears that the studio apartments are most likely intended for use such as for college students, in other works, rental properties. In addition, there is nothing to prevent any of the other properties from being rental properties. There is nothing to provid e parking onsite for such occupants.
Concerns were raised at the November 28 meeting about the proposed density of the development in light of the roughly 8 homes per acre in the surrounding neighborhood and they said multiple time that they could build 36 units on the approximately one acre bu t wanted to be good neighbors and would not build anything which would detract or adversely affect the neighborhood.
The applicants specifically said that the development would be compatible with the existing neighborhood and would be a beautiful addition about which we would all be proud. There is no suggestion tha t any of these statements
are true. In fact, it appears that the only thing that the applicants care about is the amount of money they can make without regard to the serious negative impact to the community.
At this time there are very few homes in Campus Commons which place their trash containers on the street.
However, their proposal calls for all of them in the new development to be placed on the street. Having these on the street would create an eyesore as well as potential traffic hazards. It is questionable whether there is enough space for all of the potential containe
rs if the on‐street parking places are free. However, it is clear that there are not enough places if there are cars parking on the street. As previously pointed out, the code requires adequate disposal facilities.
The applicants specifically said that they would comply with all ci ty rules and regulations, which, as set forth by
the many comments, is not true. They also said that they intended to advertise the property once completed as being in an urban forest setting in an enclave away from the congestion. However, they are proposing to eliminate the portion of the urban forest on their propert
y and create congestion.
They specifically said that issue of the lack of parking in the project would be ameliorated because for, at least two years, additional parking would be provided through the University parking lot which was the current parking for the existing building. Howe
ver, their plan eliminates that with the fence and the notation of possible future pedestrian passage. This would mean that there is most likely a serious risk as the limited parking adjacent to the property will most like cause people to park across the street and have to cross Campus Commons or Commons. 2 This property is currently a transition property between the Campus Commons/Nepenthe neighborhoods and the commercial development on University and was so suggested in the PUD. Rather than proposing something which would be a transition or compatible housing, they propose bringing downtown here.
In order to consider the claims made by the applicants about the nature of the entire community I considered
what exists on University Ave. Generally, these are medical, commercial, office buildings, etc., which are set back from the road with contoured plantings or attractive landscaping. There are no three‐story buildings in the vicinity on University. Traveling on University, the same appearance continue s until approaching the Guy West bridge where a three‐story residential building for Sacramento State employees is being constructed well back from the road. In addition, there is a median in the road which commences with substantial trees. The three‐story student residential apartments begin around that point and all of them are set back fr om the road, many with grown trees in front of the buildings.
In other words, nowhere in the entire area from the American River to Howe Ave. to University Ave. adjacent to the subject property are there any buildings which are in any way comparable to what is bei ng proposed.
There is no need to set forth the apparent violations of the codes as that has been done many times in the many comments regarding this application.
However, I again contend that the proposed development would be a blight on the community, wou ld result in this being a much less desirable place to live, and would cause actual harm to the communities. This does not mean that this property is undevelopable since it currently exists as a combined property with the 350 University property. This combined property could be properly developed as was apparently initially intended as phase one and phase two. The development of the entire property could properly preserve the urban forest, provide for green space for residents, provide on‐site waste disposal, have a compatible setback from the roads, and provide adequate on‐site parking with access from University Ave. The proper ty currently has access from University so this would not be a change.
I request that the City reject the proposed development, require that a proper application with true facts be submitted together with a plan which is, in fact, compatible with the existing neighborhood and can be a beautiful addition as promised by th
e applications.
I will be pleased to discuss this further.
Please confirm receipt of this email and give me notice of all hearings regarding this application.
Thank you for your consideration of this and my prior comments.
David R. Lane
1258 Commons Dr.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Inga Holmquist <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:38 AM
To: Eric Guerra; Zachary Dahla
Cc: Mary Ann
Subject: Opposition to 707 Commons Drive Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Messrs. Guerra and Dahla,
I write to you one last time to implore the City NOT to approve the project as currently proposed for the 707 Commons Drive site. So much effort and planning went in to creating the ecological and residential oasis of Campus Commons, and it now deserves to be protected.
We are not a fancy neighborhood. We simply all bought in on the mutual agreement to maintain and enhance our amenities, green spaces, and urban forest. And we have all upheld our end of the bargain, and created what should remain a national model for livable spaces in an urban setting. Tout it! Take the prize! Sacramento did it! But don't wreck it.
Anyone who is leaning toward approving the removal of protected trees, the flattening of carefully constructed berms and contours, and the razing of a gracious 50 year old building that transitions perfectly from business to residential use, needs to spend a thoughtful moment at the site. Look around. Hear the birds. Gaze up into a majestic forest. Appreciate the gentle buffering between land use purposes. And remember that we are next door to a major freeway, intense traffic, a large university, and bustling commerce. It's almost a miracle. NOW tell me how the proposed project in any way succeeds in harmonizing with or enhancing this established community. Its description pays lip-service to such language because the developers know that the project is SUPPOSED to do these things. But look at the plans again. Clearly, it would not just fail, it achieve the exact opposite. This is not the place for that style of development.
Many pro and con arguments have been made, but finally, it boils down to this: We can lose the character and livability of our neighborhood, or you can stand up for the protections that are supposed to guide decisions where an established neighborhood is threatened. With all my heart, and with the voice of my community, I urge you NOT to approve this destructive and misguided project and wreck 50 years of planning, effort, expense, and conservation that has made Campus Commons such a valuable community to our City.
Thank you,
Inga
Inga Holmquist
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Joan Barrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2023 7:38 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079 797 Commons Dr.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Zach and Eric,
I was so glad to read that the building at 707 Commons Drive in Campus Commons is eligible for historic status. It is such a graceful and lovely building that I fervently hope has a future here in Campus Commons and will not be destroyed to accommodate the Soviet st yle buildings that are proposed.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Joan Barrett
1100 Dunbarton Circle
Sacramento, CA 95825
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: john linder <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2023 9:48 AM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla and Councilman Guerra,
Please register my ongoing interest in and concerns about the proposed project at 707 Commons Drive in the 95825 zip code.
The density of this development is inconsistent with the geographic area and planning district; changes in the development plan to reduce the density is critical if this development is to move forward.
Likewise, the mature landscaping, particularly the mature trees, which will have to be removed for this project to move forward are inconsistent with sensible landscaping in the face of climate change and with the landscaping in this geographic and neighborhood.
Furthermore, the intersections of 1) Campus Commons Road and Fair Oaks Blvd., 2) Campus Commons Road and University Avenue and at 3) Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive are already a mess and should be completely revamped if this project proceeds. There should be full access when joining Fair Oaks Blvd and Campus Commons Road, instead of only being able to turn right (eastbound) onto Fair Oaks Blvd. The inability to continue south at the intersection of
University Drive and Campus Commons Road should be replaced with either a traffic signal or at a minimum the removal of the barriers preventing continued southbound trav el across University Drive. The current risks to safety encountered at all three of these intersections will only be exacerbated with the addition of the 24 units planned for 707 Commons Drive.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns.
John Linder
714 Elmhurst Circle
Sacramento, CA. 95825
[email protected]
I sincerely hope that all these concerns are included in the ongoing review of this proposed development.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Nonie Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 4:55 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please don’t allow this beautiful structure and the surrounding heritage trees to be torn down! This community is one of the few places left in Sacramento where people, creatures, and nature live in peace and harmony. The proposed condos and the minimized green scape will affect the air quality, increase traffic, and render an eyesore in place of an historic landmark.
Thank you for listening,
Joan Stevens
828 Commons Drive
916‐549‐5365
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kim Fuller <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2023 6:49 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 commons drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
It will be a terrible waste of historic beauty if the city approves the destrucƟon of this building
Kim Fuller
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 5:49 PM
To: Eric Guerra; Sac 2040 Gpu; Zachary Dahla
Subject: Final comments re: Project Z22-079 proposed development 707 Commons Drive Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
See below:
To Whom It May Concern:
Please turn down the proposed high density housing Project Z22-079 for 707 Commons Drive.
Why?
707 Commons Drive was one of the first buildings built back in 1966 as part of a planned integrated housing community called Campus Commons by architect Charles Warren Callister. Had Callister been asked to design residential housing instead of an office building, he would have continued the planned low density residential housing surrounding 707 Commons Drive from across the street, to the left and right of 707 Commons Drive.
Callister designed Rossmoor before Campus Commons and he incorporated many features in his Campus Commons housing Villages 1 and 2.
Read:
https://cas5-0-
urlprotect.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fonline.ucpress.edu%2fjsa h%2farticle%2f80%2f4%2f436%2f119544%2fRetirement%2dPlanning%2dCharles%2dWarren%2dC allister%2dthe&umid=02b8e2ed-67d0-11ee-8159-
000d3a5a85f1&auth=0c78d5381d8efeba9ba4477b3ca23a49d0ab462f- 615833c761550138d0cb4ce0d9b7a02cb788fe8e
Rossmoor’s evocative rooflines (similar to Campus Commons villages 1 and 2) played a particularly important part in shaping the community’s image, with their mixture of hipped forms with deep, blocky overhangs and, in the case of some of the one-story residential buildings, flat forms punctuated with exaggerated telescoping pavilions floating over clerestory windows. “This place doesn’t look anything like Los Angeles” (or anywhere else), Callister proudly explained. “We’ve used materials, shapes and forms that are found in San Francisco.”
As it stands, the 1966 Callister 707 Commons Drive office building was designed to harmonise, compliment and blend in with the proposed residential housing in Campus Commons Villages 1 and 2 not to clash or conflict. In sharp contrast, the proposed new development of 6 buildings, each with 4 townhouses that are 3 stories high, provides no tree canopy, and no setback except for roughly 8 feet (instead of 40 ft) will stand out like a sore thumb as if a cluster of tightly packed modern new multiunit townhouses showed up from S or U Streets in downtown Sacramento and invaded Campus Commons. 2 The 707 Commons Drive office building should be given historic preservation status and a bill should be introduced and put on the ballot to provide funding for a redo and to transform it into both a live/work environment.To demolish all 26 trees, 11 of them protected, to remove the 35 ft setback in place for the surrounding residential housing, to install high density housing is just a bad idea and goes against the whole idea that the City of Sacramento is a City of Trees.
The high density townhouses violate all of the development guidelines for residential housing and would destroy the existing peace and tranquility of the Campus Commons neighborhood. If this development does get approved, it will traumatize the surrounding residents and its buildings will forever be an eyesore and source of perpetual stress.
Looking across from the side of 707 Commons Drive is a lovely sideview of a twinned redwood tree taken in April when everything was in bloom.
3 Here is the back of the building facing 350 University Ave parking lot
4 Front of the building from Commons
Drive
5 View from Commons Drive to the right of the main
entrance
6 What a pity that this beautiful building, trees, landscape, plants and all will be gone forever if Z22- 079 is approved. Please do not approve Z22-079.
Give the Preservation committee/efforts a chance to do what it does best, preserve a cultural and architectural gem for future generations. I understand a completed 523 Form application has been submitted but the Preservation Committee has not had a chance to evaluate. Please make this possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind regards,
MK Hickox
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kathy Styc <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 4:40 PM
To: Eric Guerra; Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project Z22-079 at 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Councilmember Guerra and Mr. Dahla,
As a homeowner in the Campus Commons PUD community, I am writing to you again to express my continued opposition to the proposed development project at 707 Commons Drive, Project Z22-079.
COMMUNITY SPONSORED HISTORIC RESOURCES REPORT
The recently submitted report substantiates that 707 Commons is eligible for designation as a Sacramento Landmark under City Code Section 17.604.210. The property is more than 50 years old (57) and meets criteria iii and iv.
This report is excellent in presenting the historic significance of the development of Campus Common as a community and the office building at 707 Commons Drive. As noted in the report, the office building at 707 Commons was very consciously developed to be compatible with the homes and serve as a bridge to transition to adjacent development. This was significant not only in Sacramento but also nationally in the cluster housing concept and integrated design concepts. The architecture and design of the existing 707 building enhances the area.
In comparison, the current proposal, Project Z22-079, definitely detracts from the area and is a harsh contrast to the existing neighborhood. The developers have made little effort to modify the proposal to address the density, design and landscape issues that were present in the initial proposal and continue to the current proposal. However, other developers in the area along University Avenue have continued to incorporate setbacks, landscape and building designs that are compatible with the community. It seems that the developers of 707 Commons are insistent on building something with maximum dollar return regardless of its compatibility with the neighborhood. It may be compatible with midtown or other neighborhoods in the City, but it is not compatible with Campus Commons.
CONCERNS RELATED TO THE LATEST PLAN SUBMISSION
The only difference that I can see between the plans submitted September 28, 2023 and July 25, 2023 are the two pages for the Landscape Plan and Tree Removal Plan. The other pages are identical and still have the July dates on them.
In the Landscape Plan, the difference is that several trees that had potential aphid issues were eliminated from planting along the sidewalk and a different tree species was substituted which is more suitable for the location and is an improvement. However, Liquid Amber trees are still in the plan, and they are not a good choice. They have invasive roots, are planted too close to house foundations, and they shed prickly balls that are a tripping hazard. I certainly didn’t appreciate the Liquid Amber trees that had been planted too close to the foundation in my former house, and I had to remove them at a fairly substantial cost when the roots started to crack the foundation. They grow quickly and are attractive in the fall but they will be costly to the residents when the developers are long gone.
2 The Tree Removal Plan is very misleading. The developer stopped watering the grass this summer and several of the trees are visibly suffering and have dead branches. City Code Chapter 12.56.080 Section A states that “A property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all private protected tress on the property owner’s property.” Clearly the developer did not maintain the protected trees, as was their responsibility. Since they did not maintain the trees, the Tree Ordinance Mitigation Calculation as shown on the Tree Removal Plan has decreased thus decreasing the fees the developer will have to pay for removing private protected trees.
So the willful negligence of the property owners has led to a decrease in the fees they will have to pay to mitigate the tree removal. It feels like this is just another example of the developers lack of concern for the neighborhood, City policies, ordinances and planning guidelines, and their ultimate concern for making money at the expense of the thousand plus residents of the existing Campus Commons community and the future residents of the proposed development.
CONTINUING CONCERNS
Since the initial proposal and continuing to the current proposal, the density, design and landscaping of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing neighborhood as the City planning guidelines require. The proposed structures themselves would detract from the neighborhood and, when occupied, they would further detract in several ways:
On-street parking will be a significant issue and will cause unsafe road conditions. There is not adequate space on the street for trash cans to meet the City requirements for placement of cans, increasing the unsafe road conditions for cars, pedestrians and bicyclists. There is no open space for the future residents. This will result in residents using the space developed and maintained by thousands of past and current Campus Commons and Nepenthe residents and paid for by their HOA dues. This has not been paid for by City/County taxes as public parks have been.
I acknowledge that infill is a City priority to help address the housing shortage in Sacramento and throughout California. Denser housing can and has been successfully developed in neighborhoods where that is the norm for the neighborhood or is an appropriate transition. But, just because a plot of land is potentially available here or elsewhere, doesn’t mean dense housing should be built there to meet some goal. Such haphazard approvals will result in an incoherent patchwork community that is not visually pleasing or desirable for anyone to live in. Infill and new construction need to fit an overall plan, neighborhood design, and enhance the community. This proposal is in harsh contrast to the neighborhood and will be an eyesore.
I urge the City to not approve this proposal and instead consider the eligibility of the existing building at 707 Commons as a Sacramento Landmark.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
Kathleen Styc
[email protected]
700 Commons Drive
(916) 715-7668
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Marc Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2023 3:27 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I support the communities efforts to ensure any site project conforms to the planned community’s architectural design.
It is obvious that the developer continues to put forth designs far outside the standards of the community. Altering any part of the community destroys the inherent nature of a planned community, I urge you to ensure the structure of the Campus Commons community is re
tained by requiring the development mesh with the overall community structure.
Marc Gray 135 Hartnell Place
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
Begin forwarded message:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023, 4:16 PM, Campus Commons Sacramento <[email protected]> wrote:
Campus Commons, Sacramento
Association News
Posted by Community Manager (Anita Fante) on Oct 15, 2023 4:15 pm
IMPORTANT - NEW HISTORIC RESOURCE REPORT
RE 707 COMMONS DRIVE
Message from resident, Mary Ann Robinson re. 707
Commons Drive:
Two news items about the proposed development at 707
Commons Drive.
The first attachment to this update is the developer's 4th iteration of the development proposal (Cycle 5, posted to Agency Counter* 9-28-23), a revision that does not appear to contain meaningful changes from the 3rd revision of the plans, posted back on July
25. Do you detect meaningful change? Let the City know what you think!
2 The second part of this update is more significant. Campus Commons residents, led principally by resident, Carr Kunze, spurred the production of a new, community sponsored Historic Resources Report by Paula Boghosian & Don Cox, Historic Environment Consultants. The new report contrasts with the Historic Resources Report produced at the request of the developers in January 2023. See report HERE. Significantly, the new report finds that "the building at 707 Commons is eligible for designation as a Sacramento Landmark under City Code
Section 17.604.210, the property is more than 50 years old (57) and meets criteria iii and iv [of that City Code Section]." Eligibility under criteria iii: "[the building] embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Second Bay Area style in the 1960s." Eligibility under criteria iv: “It represents the work of an important creative individual or master architect, [Charles Warren Callister].”
There's much more in the report about the significance of the structure at 707 Commons Drive, set at the "hub of the original community" on a berm "slightly higher than the adjacent berms" giving it "a commanding visual presence." Please read the report and let the City know what you think about the developer's plans to eradicate every trace of this remarkable and historic structure at the original gateway to our community.
Email to: Associate City Planner Zach
Dahla at [email protected]
City Councilmember Eric
Guerra at [email protected]
Include "Project Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive" in your subject line.
Mail to: Zach Dahla, City of Sacramento Planning Division, 300 Richards Blvd. 3rd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95811
Vice Mayor Eric Guerra, 915 I Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Thank you for your attention and persistence!
Mary Ann
[email protected]
3 *Agency Counter: Click Open New Request >type 707 Commons >scroll to Open Documents Pane.
ACCESS THE NETWORK
If you do not wish to receive these notifications, please update your notification preferences.
Mary Anna Tamraz
1010 Commons Drive Sacramento, CA 95825
Email: [email protected] Telephone: (209) 217-4026 October 17, 2023
Attention: Zach Dahla, Associate City Planner
Eric Guerra, City Councilmember
Subject: Project 222-079, 707 Commons Drive
Dear Mr. Dahla and Mr. Guerra,
Please carefully review the New Historic Resource Report by Paula Boghosian and Don Cox, Historic Environment Consultants. This report finds that the building located at 707 Commons Drive is eligible for designation as a Sacramento Landmark under City Code Section 17.604.210. The property is more than 50 years old and meets the criteria as it “….embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Second Bay Area Style in the 1960’s.” And “…it represents the work of an important creative individual or master architect, {Charles Warren Callister}.”
This historic structure was established as the hub of the original Campus Commons community. It was built on a berm slightly higher than the adjacent berms giving it a commanding visual presence which one still experiences today, 57 years after its construction.
Recently reading of the upcoming Public Hearing on the proposed project, many of us felt insulted by the term, “Contemporary Commons” Project. This is certainly an oxymoron, a play on words at best, trying to link the project with Campus Commons. The Project as described in the proposal, has no intention of following the grand example of Campus Commons itself with spacious green belts, trees, carefully planned parking, sidewalks, and so on.
Sincerely,
Mary Anna Tamraz
1 Zachary Dahla
From: phil cabe-law.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:35 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: 707 Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I am against the latest proposal by the Developer, and I adopt the objections outlined below.
The first attachment to this update is the developer's 4th iteration of the development proposal (Cycle 5, posted to Agency Counter* 9-28-23), a revision that does not appear to contain meaningful changes from the 3rd revision of the plans, posted back on July 25. Do you detect meaningful change? Let the City know what you think!
The second part of this update is more significant. Campus Commons residents, led principally by Carr Kunze, spurred the production of a new, community sponsored Historic Resources Report by Paula Boghosian & Don Cox, Historic Environment Consultants. The new report (attached) contrasts with the Historic Resources Report produced at the request of the developers in January 2023. Significantly, the new report finds that "the building at 707 Commons is eligible for designation as a Sacramento Landmark under City Code Section 17.604.210, the property is more than 50 years old (57) and meets criteria iii and iv [of that City Code Section]." Eligibility under criteria iii: "[the building] embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Second Bay Area style in the 1960s." Eligibility under criteria iv: “It represents the work of an important creative individual or master [Charles Warren Callister].” There's much more in the report about the significance of the structure at 707 Commons Drive, set at the "hub of the original community" on a berm "slightly higher than the adjacent berms" giving it "a commanding visual presence." Please read the report and let the City know what you think about the developer's plans to eradicate every trace of this remarkable and historic structure at the original gateway to our community.
Phillip Cabe
Cabe Law
260 Hartnell Place
Sacramento CA 95825
916-214-3155
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Patricia O'Brien <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 3:39 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project #Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I have 2 concerns about the proposed project. I am very concerned about the lack of parking places planned. All members of Campus Commons have parking garages and are asked to park in their own space. Our guests may need extra spaces but this is rare. To now have such a burden on our parking will be a burden on the street traffic.
My other concern this that there will be only on 3 to 5 foot set back and no trees. This neighborhood is known for all the trees and space. This will not be in character with our community.
I do believe we need
to create more housing and I do believe we should be able to be inclusive of new projects like this, but these new projects should not put a strain on the neighborhood. I think a compromise which includes parking and trees could be reached. It would raise the cost per unit, but I think to make it a successful pr oject would be worthwhile in the long run. Parking could be underground garages, tree planting could be mandated.
Please let me know your thoughts?
Sincerely
Patti OBrien
1230 Vanderbilt way
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 9:34 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707
Project Z22‐079 10/24/2023 Page 1 of 4
Date: October 24, 2023
To: Zachary Dahla, City of Sacramento Planning, via email [email protected] From: Barbara ubin
Re: Contemporary Commons Development, 707 Commons Drive, Project Z22‐079 CC: Vice Mayor Eric Guerra, Kevin Hocker ‐ Urban Forestry Dear Mr. Dahla:
This letter is in response to the Cycle 5 plans posted on September 28, 2023 for the proposed 707 Commons Drive development. We continue to have concerns about this development and would like to see further plan revisions. With Cycle 5, we see modifications to the tree plan, but the overall revisions are still inadequate for the development to be in accordance with the established, surrounding neighborhood, as specified in the City Plan.
As we have mentioned in our previous letters to you, the 707 Commons Drive property is su rrounded on 3 sides by Campus Commons homes, so this development’s design characteristics, scale, and lack of adequate building setbacks, green space, and trees will impact our existing neighborhood.
We feel the plan revisions fall short of what is necessary to meet the City Plan and City ordi nances which we have described in our December 19, 2022 letter to you. We would like to see the concerns in this letter and our other previous letters addressed in future plan revisions.
We have summarized our requests to the Cycle 5 plans:
Historic Pres
ervation of Building
1) We support and agree with our community’s effort to save the existing office building. We support the Community Sponsored Historic Resource Report submitted to the City. We feel the building is an important cornerstone to our community. We understand Preservation Sacramento supports saving this historic bui lding.
Setbacks
2) The Notice of Public Hearing mentions a decision will be made on “associated site improvements with a deviation to setback standards“. What specifically is the deviation requested, and what specifically is the standard(s) being referred to?
3) The setback deviation should not be approved. The building setback continu es to be minimal and not adequate to be in keeping with the surrounding, established neighborhood. The setback from the street to the structure of the nearest adjacent home at 739 Commons Drive is approximately 40 feet. We request that the building setbacks be increased to conform with the existing neighborhood.
4) We notice that the setback of the bui
lding’s first story is farther back than the 2nd story. When we see the setback measurements in the plan, is it from the first story or the 2nd story which overhangs the first story? If the setback distance is from the 1st story, the building setbacks will appear smaller
that the distance listed. Also, there is no mention of the depth of the fences in the Project Z22‐079 10/24/2023 Page 2 of 4
front of the buildings. How far will these fences be built from the sidewalk? In particular, on Campus Commons Road, it appears that the fences are just a foot or 2 from the sidewalk.
Property Grade
5) The destruction of the existing property grade, bringing it to near street level, completely contradicts the character and planning of the Campus Commons community. The Campus 2 Commons homes are elevated from street level on raised berms and are not at street level as is proposed by the new development. The Community Sponsored Historic Resource Report states that the plan for sculpting the land in the Campus Commons community was intentional. “The streets in Campus Commons were excavated to four feet below the original ground level. The soil from that was used
to build berms on which the homes and buildings were placed. This put all the residential structures several feet above street level. This was an important planning concept, especially when considering the proximity of the American River. Street flooding has been an occasional problem
in many areas of Sacramento in recent years. Severe weather events are also becoming more common.”
Building Scale and Density
6) There are no full 3‐story townhomes in the Campus Commons community, and these new buildings will appear much larger than the adjacent homes. Th e towering size of the buildings so close to the street, will be massive and out of place with the existing surrounding neighborhood. 7) The planned buildings will stand nearly the equivalent of 4‐stories high when you factor in the very high, pitched roofs. These buildings will tower over the surroundi ng homes and will not allow for sun to reach these adjacent homes. In our December 19, 2023 letter, we asked about the developer putting up story poles or creating 3D models to show the mass and scale. We request that story poles are put up for the community an d planners to see the proposed scale of the buildings. 8) The density of this proposed development is far denser that the surrounding Campus Commons community (on 3 sides) and is not in accordance with the existing neighborhood. Campus Commons has a density of 6.7 units per acre (571 units on 85 acr es). The new proposed development has a density o 22.02 units per acre (24 units on 1.09 acre).
Trees and Green Space
9) We request that the Tree permit is not approved and issued until the building project and site plan are fully approved and all other permits are issued. We have heard of projects wh ere the tree permit was approved, the trees were cut down, then the project was on hold or not approved. We do not want this scenario to occur where we save the building, but the existing trees and landscaping have been destroyed.
10) The green space con tinues to be inadequate to plant canopy‐sized trees throughout the property in order to mitigate the loss of the 24 existing trees, 11 of which are private protected trees. More open space is necessary in the development to plant canopy‐sized trees. 11) No private protected trees are retained, as have been previously requested. We would like to see all of the private, protected trees remain. However, we feel it is reasonable to request the preservation of the 90‐inch coast redwood #3417 and the 55‐inch coast redwood #3426. We Project Z22‐079 10/24/2023 Page 3 of 4
understand
that the 90‐inch redwood is the largest coast redwood in Sacramento. This should be considered a significant tree which warrants preservation. There is still developable land for the new buildings while preserving these 2 trees.
12) With the minimal planned setbacks, there is not adequate space for the canopy trees pla nned along the Commons Drive street face. This will result in these trees being cut and removed before they can reach their mature size. We request that the setbacks be increased to allow the trees to reach their intended, mature size.
13) There are no trees along the Campus Commons Road street face. We reque st that canopy‐size trees also be added along the Campus Commons Road street face. Many of the trees shown in the artist’s rendering on the Campus Commons Road side of the property are not in the plan, so it is misleading to see these trees in the rendering.
14) The length of the existing planting strip has been reduced. We would like an equivalent or longer planting strip to replace the removed strip. We do not feel the City should allow for a reduction in the existing planting strip length. The additional length can be added on the other side of the planned driveway.
15) The Com
munity Sponsored Historic Resource Report states “Some 10,000 annuals, shrubs and trees were planted in Campus Commons to give it a semi‐rural character, emanating from the 3 British 'Garden City‘ movement.“
A Sacramento Business Journal article dated October 26, 2022, regarding the planned 707 Commons Drive development, was headlined “Miry, Bardis‐Miry work to bring slight urban feel to Contemporary Commons project in Campus Commons”. The article states “Urban developers Bay Miry and Katherine Bardis‐Miry are applying the lessons of a Sacramento cen tral city project to a new proposal outside the urban core.” This article further enforces that the developers are not seeking to keep in mind the existing neighborhood as required by the City Plan, in their design, but are seeking a “slight urban feel” to the development. Campus Commons is not an urban feel neighborhood. h
ttps://cas5‐0‐
urlprotect.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.bizjournals.com%2fsacramento%2fn ews%2f2022%2f10%2f26%2fcontemporary%2d&umid=32364320‐d9a2‐4471‐b445‐ 8348440d0672&auth=0c78d5381d8efeba9ba4477b3ca23a49d0ab462f‐de13d62780b4fbfebb927d5645ca2d19217d3b84 commons‐project‐miry‐bardis.html
16) The developers ceased watering the property’s trees throughout the hot summer. As a result, the trees are showing distress. This violates:
City code Chapter 12.56 Tree Planting, Maintenance, and Conservation. Section 12.56.080 Maintenance responsibility and liability of property owners, public utilities, and public agencies performing flood protection work. A. A property owner shall be responsible for maintainin g all private protected trees on the property owner’s property.
The developers were contacted by Urban Forestry regarding their non‐compliance with this ordinance. Since the developers are ignoring the ordinance, we are left to assume they wish to compromise the health of the trees, in order to force the approv al of their tree removal application. 17) There are a number of trees shown in the artist’s rendering that are not planned. We ask that the artist renderings reflect actual planned trees. The renderings are also misleading regarding the surrounding property grade. We ask th at the renderings also show the existing adjacent buildings.
Project Z22‐079 10/24/2023 Page 4 of 4
Right now, you cannot tell from the artist’s rendering what the new development will look like in relation to the adjacent homes.
HVAC, Parking, Refuse Pickup
18) Some HVAC units are visible from street view. We would like the street view of th e HVAC units obstructed.
19) There is no onsite visitor parking as has been previously requested. The buildings are at a density where the visitor and overflow resident street parking will spill over in front of the Campus Commons homes and be nuisan ce to the Campus Commons homeowners. 20) The plan for 72 refuse containers placed on the street is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood's refuse pickup and will be a traffic hazard on the street. There is not adequate space to place the containers at the city‐required 3 f eet apart, which will result in the development’s containers spreading out in front of adjacent Campus Commons homes. We request that the City require the developer to widen the development’s alleyways to allow for alleyway refuse pickup.
The majority of Campus Commons homes have alleyway refuse pickup. In Campus Commons, only a small number of the low
‐density, single‐story homes have street side refuse pickup, and many of these homes are located in cul‐de‐sacs away from traffic. 350 University Avenue Development Plans
21) We request that the development plans for the 350 University property are submitted for review at the same tim
e as 707 Commons Drive plans. The developer owns both properties. The current primary driveway entry to the 707 Commons Drive office building is from 350 University Ave. If both properties were planned and developed together, more existing trees and green space could be retained at 707 Commons Drive. The Cycle 5 site ma p mentions "Future Pedestrian Access to Additional Potential Parking" which is a walkway to the 350 University property. This walkway further makes it appear that there are plans to develop and merge with the 350 University Avenue property.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 9:50 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
October 24, 2023
To: Zachary Dahla, City of Sacramento Planning, via email [email protected] From:
Re: Contemporary Commons Development, 707 Commons Drive, Project Z22‐079 CC: Vice Mayor Eric Guerra, Kevin Hocker ‐ Urban Forestry Dear Mr. Dahla:
This letter is in response to the Cycle 5 plans posted on September 28, 2023 for the proposed 707 Commons Drive development. We continue to have concerns about this development and would like to see further plan revisions. With Cycle 5, we see modifications to the tree plan, but the overall revisions are still inadequate for the development to be in accordance with the established, surrounding neighborhood, as specified in the City Plan.
As we have mentioned in our previous letters to you, the 707 Commons Drive property is su rrounded on 3 sides by Campus Commons homes, so this development’s design characteristics, scale, and lack of adequate building setbacks, green space, and trees will impact our existing neighborhood.
We feel the plan revisions fall short of what is necessary to meet the City Plan and City ordi nances which we have described in our December 19, 2022 letter to you. We would like to see the concerns in this letter and our other previous letters addressed in future plan revisions.
Project Z22-079 10/24/2023 – Buehler Comments Page 1 of 4 Date: October 24, 2023
To: Zachary Dahla, City of Sacramento Planning, via email [email protected] From: Janet Buehler, Marilyn Buehler. [email protected] Re: Contemporary Commons Development, 707 Commons Drive, Project Z22-079 CC: Vice Mayor Eric Guerra, Kevin Hocker - Urban Forestry Dear Mr. Dahla:
This letter is in response to the Cycle 5 plans posted on September 28, 2023 for the proposed 707 Commons Drive development. We continue to have concerns about this development and would like to see further plan revisions. With Cycle 5, we see modifications to the tree plan, but the overall revisions are still inadequate for the development to be in accordance with the established, surrounding neighborhood, as specified in the City Plan.
As we have mentioned in our previous letters to you, the 707 Commons Drive property is surrounded on 3 sides by Campus Commons homes, so this development’s design characteristics, scale, and lack of adequate building setbacks, green space, and trees will impact our existing neighborhood.
We feel the plan revisions fall short of what is necessary to meet the City Plan and City ordinances which we have described in our December 19, 2022 letter to you. We would like to see the concerns in this letter and our other previous letters addressed in future plan revisions.
We have summarized our requests to the Cycle 5 plans:
Historic Preservation of Building
1) We support and agree with our community’s effort to save the existing office building. We support the Community Sponsored Historic Resource Report submitted to the City. We feel the building is an important cornerstone to our community. We understand Preservation Sacramento supports saving this historic building.
Support of other Community Letters
2) We support and agree with Inderjit Rye’s August 2023 letter regarding Title 17 and the Campus Commons’ PUD land use. We believe the missing Campus Common PUD documentation specifies design characteristics, and we ask that the City do more to locate the missing documentation. 3) We support and agree with Kathy Styc’s October 18, 2023 letter to City Planning and Vice Mayor Guerra.
Setbacks
4) The Notice of Public Hearing mentions a decision will be made on “associated site improvements with a deviation to setback standards“. What specifically is the deviation requested, and what specifically is the standard being referred to?
Project Z22-079 10/24/2023 – Buehler Comments Page 2 of 4 5) The setback deviation should not be approved. The building setback continues to be minimal and not adequate to be in keeping with the surrounding, established neighborhood. The setback from the street to the structure of the nearest adjacent home at 739 Commons Drive is approximately 40 feet. We request that the building setbacks be increased to conform with the existing neighborhood.
6) We notice that the setback of the buildings‘ first story is farther back than the 2nd story. When we see the setback measurements in the plan, is it from the first story or the 2nd story which overhangs the first story? If the setback distance is from the 1st story, the building setbacks will appear smaller that the distance listed. Also, there is no mention of the depth of the fences in the front of the buildings. How far will these fences be built from the sidewalk? In particular on Campus Commons Road, it appears that the fences are just a foot or 2 from the sidewalk.
Property Grade
7) The destruction of the existing property grade bringing it to near street level, completely contradicts the character and planning of the Campus Commons community. The Campus Commons homes are elevated from street level on raised berms and are not at street level as is proposed by the new development. The Community Sponsored Historic Resource Report states that the plan for sculpting the land in the Campus Commons community was intentional. “The streets in Campus Commons were excavated to four feet below the original ground level. The soil from that was used to build berms on which the homes and buildings were placed. This put all the residential structures several feet above street level. This was an important planning concept, especially when considering the proximity of the American River. Street flooding has been an occasional problem in many areas of Sacramento in recent years. Severe weather events are also becoming more common.”
Building Scale and Density
8) There are no full 3-story townhomes in the Campus Commons community, and these new buildings will appear much larger than the adjacent homes. The towering size of the buildings so close to the street, will be massive and out of place with the existing surrounding neighborhood 9) The planned buildings will stand nearly the equivelent of 4-stories high when you factor in the very high, pitched roofs. These buildings will tower over the surrounding homes and will not allow for sun to reach these adjacent homes. In our December 19, 2023 letter, we asked about the developer putting up story poles or create 3D models to show the mass and scale. We request that story poles are put up for the community and planners to see the proposed scale of the buildings. 10) The density of this proposed development is far denser that the surrounding Campus Commons community (on 3 sides), and is not in accordance with the existing neighborhood. Campus Commons has a density of 6.7 units per acre (571 units on 85 acres). The new proposed development has a density o 22.02 units per acre (24 units on 1.09 acre).
Project Z22-079 10/24/2023 – Buehler Comments Page 3 of 4 Trees and Green Space
11) We request that the Tree permit is not approved and issued, until the building project and site plan are fully approved and all other permits are issued. We have heard of projects where the tree permit was approved, the trees were cut down, then the project was on hold or not approved. We do not want the scenario to occur where we save the building, but the existing trees and landscaping have been destroyed.
12) The green space continues to be inadequate to plant canopy-sized trees throughout the property in order to mitigate the loss of the 24 existing trees, 11 of which are private protected trees. More open space is necessary in the development to plant canopy-sized trees. 13) No private protected trees are retained, as have been previously requested. We would like to see all of the private, protected trees remain. However, we feel it is reasonable to request the preservation of the 90-inch coast redwood #3417 and the 55-inch coast redwood #3426. We understand that the 90-inch redwood is the largest coast redwood in Sacramento. This should be considered a significant tree which warrants preservation. There is still developable land for the new buildings while preserving these 2 trees.
14) With the minimal planned setbacks, there is not adequate space for the canopy trees planned along the Commons Drive street face. This will result in these trees being cut and removed before they can reach their mature size. We request that the setbacks be increased to allow the trees to reach their intended, mature size.
15) There are no trees along the Campus Commons Road street face. We request that canopy-size trees also be added along the Campus Commons Road street face. Many of the trees shown in the artist’s rendering on the Campus Commons Road side of the property are not in the plan, so it is misleading to see these trees in the rendering.
16) The length of the existing planting strip has been reduced. We would like an equivalent or longer planting strip to replace the removed strip. We do not feel the City should allow for a reduction in the existing planting strip length. The additional length can be added on the other side of the planned driveway.
17) The Community Sponsored Historic Resource Report states “Some 10,000 annuals, shrubs and trees were planted in Campus Commons to give it a semi-rural character, emanating from the British 'Garden City‘ movement.“
A Sacramento Business Journal article dated October 26, 2022, regarding the planned 707 Commons Drive development, was headlined “Miry, Bardis-Miry work to bring slight urban feel to Contemporary Commons project in Campus Commons”. The article states “Urban developers Bay Miry and Katherine Bardis-Miry are applying the lessons of a Sacramento central city project to a new proposal outside the urban core.” This article further enforces that the developers are not seeking to keep in mind the existing neighborhood as required by the City Plan, in their design, but are seeking a “slight urban feel” to the development. Campus Commons is not an urban feel neighborhood. https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2022/10/26/contemporary- commons-project-miry-bardis.html
Project Z22-079 10/24/2023 – Buehler Comments Page 4 of 4 18) The developers ceased watering the property’s trees throughout the hot summer. As a result, the trees are showing distress. This violates:
City code Chapter 12.56 Tree Planting, Maintenance, and Conservation. Section 12.56.080 Maintenance responsibility and liability of property owners, public utilities, and public agencies performing flood protection work. A. A property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all private protected trees on the property owner’s property.
The developers were contacted by Urban Forestry regarding their non-compliance with this ordinance. Since the developers are ignoring the ordinance, we are left to assume they wish to compromise the health of the trees, in order to force the approval of their tree removal application. 19) There are a number of trees shown in the artist’s rendering that are not planned. We ask that the artist renderings reflect actual planned trees. The renderings are also misleading regarding the surrounding property grade. We ask that the renderings also show the existing adjacent buildings.
Right now, you cannot tell from the artist’s rendering what the new development will look like in relation to the adjacent homes.
HVAC, Parking, Refuse Pickup
20) Some HVAC units are visible from street view. We would like the street view of the HVAC units obstructed.
21) There is no onsite visitor parking as has been previously requested. The buildings are at a density where the visitor and overflow resident street parking will spill over in front of the Campus Commons homes and be nuisance to the Campus Commons home owners. 22) The plan for 72 refuse containers placed on the street is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood's refuse pickup and will be a traffic hazard on the street. There is not adequate space to place the containers at the city-required 3 feet apart, which will result in the development’s containers spreading out in front of adjacent Campus Commons homes. We request that the City require the developer to widen the development’s alleyways to allow for alleyway refuse pickup.
The majority of Campus Commons homes have alleyway refuse pickup. In Campus Commons, only a small number of the low density, single story homes have street side refuse pickup, and many of these homes are located in cul-de-sacs away from traffic.
350 University Avenue Development Plans
23) We request that the development plans for the 350 University property are submitted for review at the same time as 707 Commons Drive plans. The developer owns both properties. The current primary driveway entry to the 707 Commons Drive office building is from 350 University Ave. If both properties were planned and developed together, more existing trees and green space could be retained at 707 Commons Drive. The Cycle 5 site map mentions "Future Pedestrian Access to Additional Potential Parking" which is a walkway to the 350 University property. This walkway further makes it appear that there are plans to develop and merge with the 350 University Avenue property.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 9:59 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Councilmember Guerra and Mr. Dahla,
As a homeowner in the Nepenthe HOA, part of greater Campus Commons, I write to you again to express my continued opposition to the proposed development project at 707 Commons Drive.
In the developer’s three plan revisions there has been no redesign that meaningfully mitigates the impact this proposed development would have on the chara cter of our community. If it goes
forward, parking issues alone would substantially degrade the character of a neighborhood we have carefully nurtured for over 50 years. Amenities we pay for through our HOA dues will experience significant impacts. New, non‐HOA purchasers will use our internal pathways, our maintained landscape, and playgrounds. Twenty‐four existing trees, 11 of which are private protected trees will be destroyed, and an undulating landscape that was sculpted to buffer the residential areas will be scraped flat.
I understand that the developers spent $2.2 million to buy the 707 Commons property and therefore expect to real
ize a return on their investment. Let’s contrast this with the fact that hundreds of homeowners in Campus Commons and Nepenthe have invested a combined hundreds of millions in their residences. For these homeowners their place in Campus Commons is not only their home and shelter but also likely their only residence. I must ask, which one of these entiti es begs more
consideration from City government: a developer who will build and depart, cash in hand and no ongoing interest in the impacted community, OR a cohesive and established collective of neighbors, rooted emotio
nally and financially, and committed to ongoing cultivation of their community? My neighbors want to know if it seems fair in City calculations that a developer can profit at our expense when they walk away with million‐dollar gains while we lose the quality of the environment where we chose to buy our homes and build our commu nity.
I believe that the developer must either redesign their project to enhance this long‐established community or preserve and repurpose the existing property. If they cannot, then the City must deny the proposal. The City must abide by its own rules and protect our existi ng neighborhood, which is distinct, unique, and valuable to this City. Campus Commons adds beauty and livability to our hometown. Our urban forest is an ecological treasure that enhances Sacramento’s renown as the City of Trees. The 707 Commons Drive building was intentionally designed as a buffering transition and linkage betw
een the residential and commercial areas of the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development, and it succeeds beautifully.
As proposed, the development proposal would destroy an important link in our overall PUD. The proposed design belongs on R Street or Folsom Blvd. In Campus Commons it would be an eyesore and a breach of faith
by the City. We who have lived here and invested our time, money, and love in Campus Commons have always done so on the strength of the City’s decades‐old promise that a PUD masterplan is a commitment. There are many good alternative futures for the 707 Commons property. As proposed, the project no
w on the table is not among them.
Sincerely,
Barbara Rubin
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Judith Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 3:22 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: PROPOSED PROJECT ON 707 COMMONS DRIVE
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Councilmember Guerra and Mr. Dahla,
We are writing to you once again to express our deep concern over the proposed project at 707 Commons Drive.
As pointed out in a letter submitted by another Campus Commons resident on October 18, 2023, the developers have made little attempt to address the serious issues raised by Campus Commons residents:
1. The height of the proposed buildings relative to the other buildings in the area
2. The housing density of the proposed project relative to the rest of Campus Commons
3. The lack of any significant setback for placement of the proposed structures
4. The lack of a plan tha
t addresses garbage collection;
5. The lack of a plan that adequately addresses parking for the apartments and n the area.
6. The lack of adequate exit routes for residents in the event of an emergency.
7. The disregard for the existing trees which do not a ppear to be watered and the vegetation which has been allowed to die.
We would hope that in making a decision about the proposed project, Campus Commons would be appreciated for what it offers the community: a significant green space; a large number of trees that counter the effects of pollution, a great walking area for residents and visitors.
Sent from Ya
hoo Mail on Android
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kim Fuller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 8:13 AM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Campus commons redevelopment proposal
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr Dahla and Mr. Guerra,
As a homeowner in the Village 1 HOA, part of greater Campus Commons, I write to you again to express my continued opposition to the proposed development project at 707 Commons Drive.
In the developer’s three plan revisions there has been no redesign that meaningfully mitigates the impact this proposed deve
lopment would have on the character of our community. If it goes forward, parking issues alone would substantially degrade the character of a neighborhood we havecarefully nurtured for over 50 years. Amenities we pay for through our HOA dues will experiencesignificant impacts. New, non‐HOA purchasers will use our internal pathways,
our maintainedlandscape, and playgrounds. Twenty‐four existing trees, 11 of which are private protected trees will be destroyed, and an undulating landscape that was sculpted to buffer the residential areas will be scraped flat.
I hope that this project will not go forward as currently proposed an d that some alternative can be explored that would
preserve the character of this neighborhood
Thank you for your consideration
Sincerely,
Kim Fuller
Dear Councilmember Guerra and Mr. Dahla, As a homeowner in the Nepenthe HOA, part of greater Campus Commons, I write to you again to express my continued opposition to the proposed development project at 707 Commons Drive. In the developer’s three plan revisions there has been no redesign that meaningfully mitigates the impact this proposed development would have on the character of our community. If it goes forward, parking issues alone would substantially degrade the character of a neighborhood we have carefully nurtured for over 50 years. Amenities we pay for through our HOA dues will experience significant impacts. New, non-HOA purchasers will use our internal pathways, our maintained landscape, and playgrounds. Twenty-four existing trees, 11 of which are private protected trees will be destroyed, and an undulating landscape that was sculpted to buffer the residential areas will be scraped flat. I understand that the developers spent $2.2 million to buy the 707 Commons property and therefore expect to realize a return on their investment. Let’s contrast this with the fact that hundreds of homeowners in Campus Commons and Nepenthe have invested a combined hundreds of millions in their residences. For these homeowners their place in Campus Commons is not only their home and shelter but also likely their only residence. I must ask, which one of these entities begs more consideration from City government: a developer who will build and depart, cash in hand and no ongoing interest in the impacted community, OR a cohesive and established collective of neighbors, rooted emotionally and financially, and committed to ongoing cultivation of their community? My neighbors want to know if it seems fair in City calculations that a developer can profit at our expense when they walk away with million-dollar gains while we lose the quality of the environment where we chose to buy our homes and build our community. I believe that the developer must either redesign their project to enhance this long-established community or preserve and repurpose the existing property. If they cannot, then the City must deny the proposal. The City must abide by its own rules and protect our existing neighborhood, which is distinct, unique, and valuable to this City. Campus Commons adds beauty and livability to our hometown. Our urban forest is an ecological treasure that enhances Sacramento’s renown as the City of Trees. The 707 Commons Drive building was intentionally designed as a buffering transition and linkage between the residential and commercial areas of the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development, and it succeeds beautifully. As proposed, the development proposal would destroy an important link in our overall PUD. The proposed design belongs on R Street or Folsom Blvd. In Campus Commons it would be an eyesore and a breach of faith by the City. We who have lived here and invested our time, money, and love in Campus Commons have always done so on the strength of the City’s decades-old promise that a PUD masterplan is a commitment. There are many good alternative futures for the 707 Commons property. As proposed, the project now on the table is not among them. Sincerely, Date: September 5, 2023
To: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner, City of Sacramento (via email [email protected]) CC: Vice Mayor Eric Guerra
From: Inderjit Rye, Campus Commons Resident ([email protected]) Re: Z22-079 (707 Commons Dr) - Solution to Bin Issue/Problem I am aware of the concerns many residents of Campus Commons have raised about the potential placement of up to 72 garbage, recycle, and green waste bins on Commons Dr and Campus Commons Rd, next to a small 1.09 acre development. (In the rest of Campus Commons, bins are placed, and contents collected, in off the main street cul-de-sacs or alleys.) I, too, am concerned. I do not understand why it would be reasonable to allow 72 bins to be placed and the contents collected as currently proposed by the developers, for all the reasons others have raised. I am also concerned about how traffic on busy roads (there are many vehicles travelling from Howe Ave along Commons Dr and Campus Commons Rd in the morning to get to their jobs on University Ave) will manage the trucks collecting the bins. I see the potential of many vehicles driving around the garbage truck, then the recycle truck, and then the green waste collection truck, while residents are out walking themselves or their dogs, jogging, or bicycling, and potentially being hit by a passenger vehicle.
But then I thought of a solution from reading the Planning and Development Code about the OB zone, and its permitted uses. I wonder why a units-for-sale development (whose developers could charge higher purchase prices if residents have their own private bins) instead of a units- for-rent development (which usually, on a one acre lot, has one large, shared, centrally located garbage container, a separate recycle container, and a separate green waste container) is allowed in a OB zone.
According to 17.216.100: The purpose of the OB zone is to provide for a low-rise mixed-use employment zone that is intended to permit business, office, institutional, or professional buildings; the sale of goods and services; and lodging and dwellings.
And according to 17.216.110-A: The following uses are permitted by right in the OB zone, subject to the limitations specified…
There are three types of residential permitted uses (dormitory, multi-unit dwelling, residential care facility) and I believe that the proposed development falls under multi-unit dwelling, which is subject to special use regulations in section 17.228.117.
According to 17.228.117, multi-unit dwellings have the following maintenance and repair and operational requirements:
A. Maintenance and repair. Buildings and premises, including paint, siding, roofs, windows, fences, parking lots, and landscaping, shall be kept in good repair. Premises shall be kept free of junk, debris, and abandoned vehicles.
B. Operational standards. The operational standards in this subsection B apply to multi-unit dwellings:
1. For projects of 15 or more dwelling units, a manager shall reside on-site;
2. The owner or operator shall post and maintain signage on the premises that provides the phone number to contact maintenance and management staff, which signage is subject to approval by the planning director;
3. The owner or operator shall conduct periodic inspections, not less than monthly, of the exterior of all buildings, trash enclosures, and recreation facilities;
4. The owner or operator shall establish and conduct a regular program of routine maintenance for the property. The program shall include common areas and scheduled repainting, replanting, and other similar activities that typically require attention at periodic intervals but not necessarily continuously. The owner or operator shall repaint or retreat all painted or treated areas at least once every eight years, provided that the planning director may approve less frequent repainting or retreatment upon a determination that less frequent treatment is appropriate, given the nature of the materials used or other factors. The program is subject to review and approval by the planning director;
5. The owner or operator shall maintain landscaping and irrigation in a healthy and serviceable condition; and
6. The owner or operator shall indicate and maintain all locations of parking stalls for disabled access and strictly enforce applicable rules.
All these maintenance and repair and operational requirements sure sound like requirements applicable to rental housing. Again, I wonder: how is it that units-for-sale can be built? Instead of units-for-rent (where large shared garbage, recycle, and green waste containers are usually provided and often off the street)?
But then I see 17.228.117-C: A zoning administrator conditional use permit is required to waive or modify the operational standards in subsection B.
So, I am thinking: maybe the developers have asked for a conditional waiver, so long as their multi-unit dwelling project has CC&Rs that require that the maintenance and repair and operational requirements be followed? Could the City planning department confirm that that is what is happening?
[On a related point, I see 17.228.117-D: All uses not listed as permitted, conditional, or accessory uses are prohibited in the OB zone.]
The point of this letter is to say: it seems that a good solution to the 72 bins problem is to only allow one large shared centrally located container for garbage, another one for recycle, and another one for green waste, preferably located off the street.
It will be more desirable for the developer to market units-for-sale that have their own bins, three bins for each of their 24 units, but come on… if they want to push a development on over 2,000 residents who pass by Campus Commons Rd and Commons Dr, one that clearly fits in a more urban downtown or midtown, not in this park-like planned unit development with wide enough cul-de-sacs and alleyways that bins can be placed in, they need to be good temporary neighbors and not require us to navigate around 72 bins. 1 Zachary Dahla
From: Tamara Robinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 5:21 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Hearing re 707 Commons
If you read nothing else in this letter, please see this‐ We will not improve Sacramento by erasing what makes it special‐ existing communities that integrate with nature, full of beautiful old buildings and established trees. The proposed development at 707 Commons will be detrimental to our neighborhood and the environment in our beautiful city. We are home owners and community members. We don’t have millions to pay consultants to tailor make proposals to pass city planning committees. We love our city and our community. We have to live with the consequences of this development. Please, please listen to us and reject the development proposals. If development must happen require the current building facade, footprint and surrounding trees have to stay.
I have lived in the area Campus Commons/Sierra Oaks area for over 20 years and in Campus Commons for 16 years.
Every time I meet new people to our community, they comment on the beautiful esthetics of the classic late mid century architecture and the lush landscape full of trees. Our community is home to wildlife such as coyotes, multiple species of birds, small mammals and raccoons. Our community and the nearby Willhaggin area have also had sitings of the rare Sierra Nevada Red Fox. I have seen the foxes personally. The 707 Commons project will disrupt the environment, removing what makes our neighborhood and Sacramento as a whole unique. It removes valuable animal habitats! It is the TREES!!!! You also see Sacramento’s evolving architecture trends‐ you see from the Boulevard Park Victorians, 20‐ 30’s era buildings in the Fabulous 40’s,’post WW2 architecture and early mid‐century in the 50‐60 streets and River Park.
The area from the Howe‐Jst bridge to Watt/American River is unified with the late mid century modern style.
Demolishing 707 Commons eliminates this climate and the city history.
Campus Commons is a gem. We don’t want the problems caused by out of place development inflicted on areas like East Sacramento and Midtown. This includes congested streets that were never intended for the volume of traffic, and infrastructure not fit for the increased population density caused by the development. One drive on J street and/or Folsom Blvd from Alhambra to Howe will shows what these developments do to the people who actually have to live here.
Most importantly, the 707 Commons project violates zoning put in place by the PUD plans over 50 years ago. This is the
agreement each homeowner in Campus Commons:Nepenthe entered when we purchased it this Planned Development.
Tamara S. Robinson,MD
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Rebecca Forée <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:16 AM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Comment on 707 Commons Drive Development Proposal Dear Zach Dahla and Vice Mayor Eric Guerra:
I am a resident of the Campus Commons neighborhood and serve as the Vice President of the Campus Commons Village 2 Board of Directors. While I recognize the state of California’s great need to provide additional housing, that does not mean such housing
should be provided at the expense of decimating the trees and sustainable landscaping that contributes to the beauty and health benefits provided by such features.
In particular, I urge you to help us preserve and maintain the massive healthy redwood tree in the front of the 707 Commons Drive complex.
One of the developer’s representatives stated at a public hearing that even if they tried to save the redwood, it would likely die as a result of the surrounding building activity. This is a naive statement: I suggest the developers consult with the many landscape architects who have successfully preserved the majestic redwoods that stand tall today throughout Marin County, especially in Mill Valley, even as new businesses and homes were constructed around them. There are numerous examples of redwoods that have maintained their health and indeed thrived after construction has been completed in their environment.
Nothing available in our nurseries
today can adequately replace a majestic and mature redwood tree, which has a lifespan of 2,000 years and more! We must make every effort to preserve this particular tree—which has been deemed healthy by arborists—and work with experts who can advise on how to properly protect it while constructing more homes for our citizens.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Forée
Vice President, Board of Directors
Campus Commons Village 2
Sacramento, CA 95825
Project Z22-079 11/06/2023 – M. Buehler Comments Page 1 of 2
Date: November 6, 2023
To: Zachary Dahla, City of Sacramento Planning, via email [email protected] From: Marilyn Buehler, [email protected]
Re: Contemporary Commons Development, 707 Commons Drive, Project Z22-079 CC: Vice Mayor Eric Guerra
I have lived in Campus Commons for over 25 years and own a home within 500 feet of 707 Commons Drive. I drive and/or walk by 707 Commons several times a day.
I strongly support the efforts to preserve the existing historic office building. I will provide my comments at the November 6th Director’s hearing, and I am sending these comments in a separate attachment.
This letter addresses details that are in addition to my speaking points. I have the following concerns and questions regarding the ZZ2-079-Staff-Report.
On page 2 of the ZZ2-079-Staff-Report, the Surrounding Land Use and Site Context inaccurately state that two sides of 707 Commons Drive (north and west) are surrounded by offices, and that only two sides (east and south) are residential. The 707 Commons Drive project site is adjacent to an office building only on the 350 University Avenue side, which is the northwest side. The project site is adjacent to or across the street from Campus Commons townhomes on the other three sides. Can you explain this inaccuracy in the ZZ2-079-Staff-Report?
…
I interpret the Land Use of Adjacent Properties as follows:
Orientation Land Use Notes
Southeast
(Campus Commons Road)
Residential
Across the street on Campus Commons Road are
Campus Commons townhomes.
Southwest
(Commons Drive)
Residential
Across the street on Commons Drive are Campus
Commons townhomes.
Northwest
(350 University Ave)
Office
Referred to as the “northern property line” in the
second paragraph on page 8)
Northeast
(existing private driveway)
Residential
Across the private driveway are Campus Commons
townhomes.
Referred to as the “eastern property line” in the second paragraph on page 8.
Project Z22-079 11/06/2023 – M. Buehler Comments Page 2 of 2
The Site Context should be corrected to state:
The project parcel is surrounded by an office development to the northwest, and residential townhomes within the Compus Commons community to the southeast, southwest, and northeast.
Regarding Deviations - Setback from Page 8:
I request that the City does not approve the Developer’s requested 15 foot setback deviation. The City should not consider the Campus Commons private driveway for additional footage in order to approve a setback deviation. The standard of a 15-foot setback from the property line must remain to ensure neighbor privacy for the nearby Campus Commons residents, allow for increased sunlight, and a larger open space for additional trees to buffer between the project site and Campus Commons. Please be aware that Campus Commons residents both drive and walk on the existing private driveway, and the proximity to the project site will not ensure neighbor privacy for either Campus Commons residents or 707 residents in the units next to the driveway. The proposed fence will not provide any neighbor privacy either.
Even with a 15-foot setback, the proposed fence should be made of a material that cannot be seen through to provide privacy for both 707 residents and Campus Commons residents.
Thank you.
Date: November 5, 2023
To: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner, City of Sacramento
(via email [email protected])
CC: Vice Mayor Eric Guerra
From: Inderjit Rye, Campus Commons Resident ([email protected]) Re: Z22-079 (707 Commons Dr)
Commons PUD have been adopted. Does this mean that the latest proposed plans for the 707 Commons development have not adopted anything from Resolution 79 or any earlier resolution, from 1965, when the Campus Commons PUD was originally adopted?
Commons PUD which was originally adopted in 1965.
However, the City has not provided to us any CCPUD documents from 1965 that could potentially contain specific guidelines re setbacks and landscaping and other criteria that are important to discuss before approval of this project. Please provide any and all documents related to the adoption of the Campus Commons PUD in 1965.
Something existed: see the Sacramento Bee 4-13-66. City Planning Commissioner Sooky Lee postponed approval of a project within the CCPUD area on the ground it differed radically from the overall plan.
Where are the documents he had access to in April 1966? Regarding Figure 5 on page 10 of the 707 Commons Dr staff report: staff calls it a “Campus Commons Rendering”. The Sacramento Bee in 9-26-65 called it a “schematic plan”.
Where is the rest of the “schematic plan” documents. Please provide those.
The City has not provided the 1965 Resolution which established the CCPUD. I request that they provide it.
A 1969 (11-25-69) resolution dealt with future development within the CCPUD area, beyond the subject property and our Campus Commons Park Corporation clubhouse and residences in Village One and Two and parts of Village Three and Four.
That 1969 PUD resolution was super lean on requirements but it included these two important sentences:
- the general design concept is intended to promote the development of this area as a community with exceptional environmental characteristics, - any proposed change, however, should reflect the original schematic concepts, and should enhance the overall environmental character of this area. (By the way, where are the original schematic concepts referred to in Resolution 79?) In order to achieve exceptional environmental characteristics, I contend that setbacks sufficient enough for sculptured landscaping and room for canopy trees to grow to maturity, at a minimum, are required.
Every other post-1969 development within the CCPUD area appears to adhere to setbacks sufficient enough for sculptured landscaping and room for canopy trees to grow to maturity, until the 707 Commons Dr proposed development.
Pages 9 to 11 of the 707 Commons Dr staff report has 6 mentions of our unique landscape. That appears to be a recognition of a key development standard in our CCPUD. This project has very little percentage of its land space dedicated to landscape. 1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mary Ann <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 3:36 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive
Dear Mr. Dahla and Vice Mayor Guerra,
I am writing to protest the proposed destruction of 26 trees at 707 Commons Drive, including 10 private protected trees. The arborist report provided by Trees for Sacramento shows that 9 of the private protected trees are in good health and do not merit removal. A significant inclusion is a 90" diameter coast redwood which is likely one of Sacramento's largest redwoods. Both the 90" and the 55" redwoods should be preserved.
I understand the desire for urban infill. I do not agree that infill should be forced on the community at the expense of other critical values, including the preservation of our cherished and diminishing tree canopy.
Sacramento's tree ordinance (Chapter 12.56) requires the conservation of existing trees in order to protect our tree canopy. The tree permit the developer has requested requires a viable plan to replace the trees they want to destroy. But the developer’s plan is not viable. They claim they will replant 22 trees. Some of those trees might well have potential to reach canopy size. However, they will not thrive in the tiny space that is left for them. Building foundations, overhangs, pavement, lack of soil, sidewalks, and underground utilities will make it necessary to remove the replacement trees as they grow.
The developers have also not fulfilled a second requirement of the tree permit. They have not shown that they could not use the property unless the trees are removed. Of course they can use the property; it has been well used for 55 years with all those trees in place. The developers can continue to use the site with those same trees in place if they build fewer units and set them further back from the street, just as the community is asking them to do. The tree ordinance does not allow clearcutting simply so that a developer can max out every square foot of a property.
City officials claim we are The City of Trees. City Code (Chapter 12.56) states that trees are a signature of the city, trees promote the well‐being of citizens, enhance the city's natural beauty; 2 increase oxygen, promote ecological balance, control temperature; increase property values, and more.
Tree canopy protects against a warming climate. The City, SMUD, Sacramento Tree Foundation all encourage planting trees to shade and cool buildings. Yet the city is here recommending the clear‐ cutting of 26 mature shade trees so that a private developer can construct $800,000+ condos without a viable plan for on
‐site replacement of the many human and ecological benefits they are destroying. This tree removal permit should be denied.
I also want to state my strong opposition to the destruction of the 707 Commons building and its elevated berm. Destruction of the building and the berm tears out the intended keystone of the original planned unit development, eliminates the deliberate bridge between the residential and commercial areas of the PUD, and permanently fractures an intentionally designed and cohesive whole.
Thank you,
Mary Ann Robinson
Campus Commons Village 3
Mid Century Modern Movement
Significance
Architecture is a reflection of society.
California, 130 years ago years ago, was in the middle of nowhere on the edge of the world.
In 1890, Ervin Gill from the Architectural Firm in Chicago, Adler Sullivan, in which Frank Lloyd practiced, came out to California, which he found to be a garden of Eden. California had a separate beauty, natural wealth and connection to the Orient* America, unlike Europe, was prosperous after WW1. California was a new way of life, including Model T Fords.
Gill moved to San Diego, where he understood the spirit of California, the new sense of freedom. He learned from the climate and topography. Gill understood the Hispanic culture, the mission style, where there were arches to protect from the sun and areas of indoor/ outdoor living.
When Wright came to California much later he also drew upon Aztec architecture.
These architects knew and understood California, that architecture responds to not only the climate and topography but to the culture as well as plant life.
This sense of understanding and freedom, new ideas, and modern technology, and natural beauty of California directly influenced the architecture of Los Angeles, Palm Springs and San Francisco.
By Mid Century, after WW2, the spirit of California, new beginnings and innovation continued along with influx of population.
The Modern architects adapted to creating mass housing while still adapting to the climate ,topography and plant life with appropriate ideas.
When Charlie Warren Callister, from Texas, was a pilot in WW2, he flew over Marin County which he saw for the first time. Stunned by its beauty he knew he had to live and work there.
Callister continued the spirit of innovation. while adapting Gill’s ideas of climate, topography, culture and nature, California indoor/ outdoor living, as well Asian influence and also “clean” line esthetic that was influenced by German Architects who fled Nazi Germany.
Campus Commons was Callister’s vision of integrating all of these ideas appropriate for Sacramento dense living, along the American River Parkway.
The Callister building at 707 Commons Drive most be preserved. To destroy the building and it’s forest is to deny a culture and its legacy.
Not unlike a radio active isotope, the plans to “redevelop” 707 Commons Drive will continue to have detrimental effects to society and the planet for generations. There is nothing about it that evokes the spirit of California.
*Source- Alan Hess
Elizabeth Georgis,
Homeowner.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Christine Fenlon <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 4:25 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Development Proposal for 707 Commons Drive
Dear Vice Mayor Guerra and Mr. Dahla,
My family and I want to let you know that we have lived in the Campus Commons area for over ten years, for some of us closer to twenty years and have enjoyed the beauty and peace it offers once we leave the craziness that is Howe Ave
and Fair Oaks Blvd traffic behind.
Currently more construction (a strip mall under the power lines) is being allowed on Fair Oaks Blvd at the corner with Howe Ave. This new construction is only going to add to the horrific traffic (and yes confusion) that already exists.
My family and I are extremely concerned about what will happen to the peaceful community that is Campus Commons if this new proposed development at 707 Commons Drive is allowed to proceed. The increase in traffic alone will be a nightmare! Not to mention the fact that the plan will add hundreds more people coming into the area ‐ which is already overburdened.
One of the successes of the Campus Commons community for close to fifty years has been the fact that the majority of the homes are owned and not rental properties. This new proposal will change that dynamic significantly allowing in people who are not invested in maintaining the beauty and serenity of the area.
707 Commons Drive is not the right place for this current proposal. Please consider the wellbeing of the current homeowners in the area. We wholeheartedly ask you to resist the pressures of developers and say no to this current proposal. It is not good for Campus Commons nor the City of Sacramento.
Thank you,
Christine Fenlon and Family
728 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Reggie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 4:35 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi,
I live in Campus Commons and I am very much looking forward to the new condo development. This will give our community a new updated refreshing look!!
I’m guessing there will be a 4 way stop on this corner for safety reasons? Thanks,
Reggie Gomez
Sent from my iPad
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Patty Resendez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 2:55 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I live at 815 Commons drive. I will be sharing the driveway with the new neighbors at 707 Commons drive. I’ve lived at 815 for close to 14 years. I would like to express my support for the developers of the new townhomes. My husband and I describe our area as the Bermuda Triangle. Trees and plantings are not given the best care. There is a drainage problem in the area. The office building and various structures have deteriorated over the past 5‐6 years. I attended a meeting 11/28/22 at 4:00. I left pretty confident the people responsible for the 707 development will produce a good product that hopefully will improve this area for Village 1 and 2.
Thank you for your time.
Patty Resendez
Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Andrew Kershen <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 1:24 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: AgencyCounter: Z22-079 inquiry
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Zach Dahla,
I am writing to express my support for the proposed housing development in our neighborhood. As a resident of the Nepenthe HOA in Campus Commons, I believe that this development will bring many benefits to our community. Our community faces two daunting challenges: climate change and lack of housing, with the attendant human tragedy of homelessness.
The proposed development can help address both.
The proposed development will create high‐density housing. This is the type of housing needed in Sacramento. High‐ density housing adds more units per acre and is also climate friendly, by discouraging sprawl, reducing building
materials, and conserving energy. Campus Commons is already a relatively high‐density community, with many condos in 4 to 6 block units. The proposed development will fit right in.
Our beautiful neighborhood was built in the 1970s. Little additional building has occurred over the past 50 years. The development would
bring new, modern, well maintained homes to the neighborhood. This infusion of energy and people to a lovely, if aging, area will strengthen our community as a whole.
Building housing of course also also brings new jobs and economic opportunities to our neighborhood. This will help to revitalize local businesses and attract new ones, making our neighborhood a better place to live, work and visit.
I urge you to support the proposed housing development in our neighborhood. It will bring many benefits to our community, and it is a vital step forward for the City.
Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Andrew Kershen
1400 Commons Drive
(405) 808‐9882
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Catheryn Koss <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 7:27 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: letter in support of 707 Commons Drive development Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Greetings, I live in the Campus Commons neighborhood and would like to express my support for the proposed townhome development at 707 Commons Drive. Our city desperately needs more housing, and this site near shops, the university, and public transit is an excellent location for this type of development. I hope that Council member Guerra and the other City Council members will not cave into the NIMBY attitudes of some of my neighbors and try to stop this project from going forward.
Sincerely,
Catheryn Koss
1400 Commons Dr., Sacramento
(405) 921‐3904
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 2:46 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Steve and Sally Huffman
Subject: 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr Dahla:
I understand you are the person I should send comments to regarding the proposed housing development at 707 Commons Drive. I live about half a mile south of it at 1425 Commons in Nepenthe Association.
Few would disagree with the statement that there is too much office space in California and not enough housing. This development would remove offices and provide more housing. The community would get a double benefit.
The land is not part of Campus Commons, so there is no need for the architectural style to match what is nearby. It appears there would be more units per acre than what is nearby in Campus Commons. In my opinion, that would not be a problem. We need more density.
The downsides are removal of mature trees and more on-street parking.
On the whole, though, I support the application.
Steve Huffman
Sally and Steve Huffman
1425 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
916‐214‐4500
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Camille <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 11:39 AM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Proposed Development at 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello:
I am writing to note that there are 1200 households in the Campus Commons/Nepenthe Developments. It has become clear there is a modest minority (approximately 13%) of the homeowners who are opposed to the development. As a member of the silent majority of homeowners, I wish to make it clear that the vast number of homeowners are either
neutral or unopposed to the development. It is virtually impossible to live in this area and be unaware of the organized opposition and all homeowners have been given ample opportunity to join the opposition. This is an opportunity many of us have eschewed.
Among my reasons for supporting the development are:
1. The project is being done by responsible and experienced developers who have been the architects of other appealing projects.
2. It would be virtually impossible for any development of this day and age in urban Sacramento to replicate Campus Commons
and its green spaces.
3. The property is zoned for many more units than will be constructed in the project under review.
4. The quality of the construction of the 707 homes will be vastly superior to the older properties which make up Campus Commons/Nepenthe. The no doubt higher sales prices for 707 than for existing units in CC/Nepenthe will ultimately accrue to the benefit of existing homeowners.
5. The concern about increased traffic is misplaced as the 707 development vehicles will, largely, disburse on to Fair Oaks Blvd. via Commons Road and, consequently, have little impact on the main arteries in the existing developments. The real source of traffic issues in Campus Commons/Nepenthe arises from the many offices on University Avenue, the occupants of which vastly exceed the number of homeowners there will be in the 707 project. Many workers at the University Avenue offices use Commons Drive as a thoroughfare on a daily basis.
6. I, too, am sorry that some existing trees will be demolished but it is unrealistic to think that any development of 707 would ultimately be built around the existing mature trees.
7. It is embarrassing to even acknowledge the complaints that some have made about the possibility of children or others walking through our neighborhood and attempting to use our facilities. The pools and tennis courts are accessible only by keys issued to homeowners.
8. There have been concerns voiced about additional cars being parked on the streets as there will not be overflow parking in the 707 development. This concern is misplaced as Campus Commons/Nepenthe have only two designated parking spaces for each unit. The street is the site for our additional vehicles, exactly as will be the case with the 707 development.
9. 707 will be developed and it is easy to imagine that there could be a far less appealing building plan.
I hope my comments will be given consideration.
Very truly yours,
2 Camille Hemmer
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Jennifer Owens <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 9:02 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Proposed residential project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hi Zach,
I’m writing to voice my support for the proposed residential project at 707 Commons Drive.
I own the property at 1197 Vanderbilt Way and I’m excited for the value that will be added by the completion of this development. I also think this development is well thought out and its density and approach is highly appropriate for the area.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Owens
Campus Commons Homeowner
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Brett Larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 3:46 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project #Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Representatives,
I am a resident of Campus Commons and am very concerned about how a handful of our community members believe they represent everyone on the future development of 707 Commons. These few people are wrong in many of their statements that are not in the best interests of our neighborhood. When they, especially, go about criticizing a reputable local builder who is doing everything in their power to improve our fine neighborhood, well I and many other residents are frankly very upset by their negative comments and unrealistic expectations.
I and many other residents live right by this
eye sore of a building that is outdated, dilapidated and in total disrepair. We see the homeless and drug dealers that hang out around this building and we know the majority of those trees were volunteers and they are old and diseased and close to the end of their lifespan.
Another fact is that this building has absolutely no historical or architectural integrity. Yes, the building was designed by Warren Callister, but this was never intended to be a permanent building. Callister designed many buildings that were designed and built with the bottom line. the costs in mind. Furthermore, 707 Commons is not representative of any architectural tradition of any kind, especially not mid century modern as some claim. Just because it was built during that era does not make it an example of mid century modern.
Some ideas that are being thrown out there are just outlandish and are only intended to hold up a fine
housing development that is needed in Sacramento. This developer has already made many concessions to this small group of people, but for a few this is still not enough. They are just being obstructionists and are throwing out any criticism that they hope will stick.
Ideas on how to repurpose this building are completely unrealistic and without any careful thought. For example, using this building for senior housing makes absolutely no sense. I, in fact, am one of the few people that have been in that building, and I can attest that the interior floor
plan is so archaic and without adequate square footage to be used in such a matter. Besides that, how would seniors realistically be able to access that building, which is built on top of a hill? Maybe a conveyor belt? The other idea I've heard of is a remote work site. How does that make any sense? Isn't remote work from home? Why would someone go to an office to work remotely? This idea comes from a retiree who hasn't worked in decades?
Anyhow, I represent many other hard working homeowners of Campus Commons, who are quite honestly fed up with this small group of seniors who are causing so much trouble. We welcome this new development. We know that the best possible solution to that blighted section of our neighborhood is this development.
Sincerely,
Brett Larson
823 Commons
Sacramento, CA 95825
2 916‐220‐5019
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 3:37 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Letter in Support of 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Zach,
I’m writing to voice my support for the proposed residential project at 707 Commons Drive.
We own a home in the neighborhood and I’m excited for the value that will be added by the completion of this development. I also think this development is well thought out and its density and approach is highly appropriate for the area.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ruth and Mark Owens
1250 Commons Dr
Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Nadimi, Ali <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 11:27 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Support for 707 Commons Drive Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good aŌernoon, Mr. Dahla,
My name is Ali Nadimi and I am work at Newmark Knight Frank Commercial Real Estate firm in Sacramento and have listed properƟes and represented dozens of companies throughout the Sacramento/Campus Commons submarket for the last 18 years. AddiƟonally, I grew up in the area and have been privileged to call the neighborhood home for the last 38 years.
I am extremely excited about the 707 Commons project as it helps enhance the local area and in my humble opinion, delivers the most valuable use of the land that the area/City are in need of; housing.
In my professional opinion, the project is very well throughout and delivers the appropriate density for how desirable the area is.
Its’ a blessing to have developers in our market who take on the risk of converƟng projects that struggled and appropriately provide what’s been in need for decades. This will likely help influence other office building owners to acƟvely address their real estate holdings and really determine if the asset is best suited for the current/future markets.
Please feel free to contact me with any quesƟons.
Respecƞully.
Ali Nadimi
Senior Managing Director
NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK
t 916.569.2355
m 916.213.9315
[email protected]
RE License #01723313
Corporate RE License #00832933
Licensed Real Estate Broker
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient, and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not permitted to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, use or take any action in reliance upon this message and any attachments, and we request that you promptly notify the sender and immediately delete this message and any attachments as well as any copies thereof. Delivery of this message to an unintended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. Newmark is neither qualified nor authorized to give legal or tax advice, and any such advice should be obtained from an appropriate, qualified professional advisor of your own choosing.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: brianne chaney <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 11:57 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hello Mr. Dahla,
I am writing to express my strong support for the development of the 707 Commons community. It is with great enthusiasm that I welcome the prospect of a new, innovative community that promises to enhance the quality of life for residents and contribute to the vibrancy of our city.
In a time where community and connection are of paramount importance, the vision behind 707 Commons is truly inspiring. The emphasis on fostering a sense of belonging and camaraderie among residents is a testament to the thoughtful planning and consideration that has gone into this project. It is heartening to see a commitment to sustainability, inclusivity, and accessibility, which are values that align with the needs and desires of a diverse population.
Furthermore, the central location of 707 Commons is strategic, as it offers easy access to amenities, services, and employment opportunities. This contributes not only to the convenience of daily life for the future residents, but also, it further enhances the economic success of our local businesses.
As a member of this community, I am excited about the potential positive impact that 707 Commons can bring. It has the promise to serve as a model for future developments that prioritize both the well‐being of residents and the responsible use of resources.
I wholeheartedly endorse the 707 Commons community project and am excited to witness its growth and transformation. Please do not hesitate to reach out if there is any way I can contribute to its success or if you require additional support in realizing this vision.
Brianne
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Jason Wagner <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2023 12:19 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Dr. Letter of Support
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Zach,
I hope you are having a safe holiday weekend. I wanted to write to you in regards to the proposed residential development located at 707 Commons Dr. As a member of the local Sacramento community, I am in full support of this project. I have followed the development's proposed plan and mission to bring more quality new residential townhomes in an area of our community which has been left with a high vacancy rate in the current office buildings since COVID. Sacramento is a growing community and it is projects like these that help offset the low supply of semi‐urban residences. I can certainly appreciate that this particular project will offer a range of sizing and pricing to the potential homebuyers.
Jason Wagner
916‐303‐6612
Sacramento Resident
1 Zachary Dahla
From: anthony alexander <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 5:48 PM
To: Anthony Alexander
Cc: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Campus Commons townhomes
Hello Zachary
I would like to express my opinion in favor of the Campus Commons townhomes by Bardis development company.
I’ve seen the plans and I am impressed by the quality of materials in the layout of the floor plans. I live across the street in River Park and have a daughter who is looking to buy a townhome in the near future. These would be perfect for her.
This old office building is less than half full, wastes lots of energy from old construction methods and has outlived it useful life. I find it very sad that the Campus Commons residents have adopted the NIMBY stance. People in town are struggling to find affordable housing, and these CC residents that are complaining the most already have their house and are living in it.
This would be more attractive than any of the townhomes and Campus Commons. The idea that the Campus Commons
general landscaping is special to see is misguided, It wastes irrigation water, and has poor use of land. Most all trees in the CC areas are non‐ native conifers with very few native oak trees.
Sacramento, and also California needs these affordable townhomes. Zoning laws exist for a reason, and this falls into the guidelines.
Feel free to contact me anytime,
Anthony Alexander
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Bruce Rogers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 2:39 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; [email protected]
Subject: 707 commons Project
Dear Messrs. Eguerra and Dahla,
My wife and I are residents of Campus Commons. As such, we are extremely concerned about the proposed housing construction 707 Commons. Indeed, we have noted that a new iron fence has just been erected on the proposed housing site (project number Z22–079)
The developers latest
updated proposal, filed with the city on July 25, 2023, fails to meaningfully address significant issues contained in the plans since the beginning. This letter addresses the plan’s failures to follow the citiy’s General.
Plan requirements.
In recognition of Sacramento’s neighborhoods, as “basic, living environments that make up the cities, urban fabric,“ the
General Plan commits the city to “strive through its planning and urban design to preserve and enhance their distinctiveness, identity, and liveability from the downtown core to well integrated new growth areas“LU 2.1.1. Although the proposed development is enclosed within the Campus Commons neighborhood, its scale, its density, placement on the land, materials, landscaping, and nearly every other characteristic design of the proposed three‐story buildings utterly ignores the design and intention of the mid century architecture that surrounds the property. The development intrudes into the established neighborhood without meaningful transition, a blunt instrument cutting into an intentional and architecturally, significant and historic planned unit development.
The proposal also violates the city’s commitment to “preserve, protect and enhance establish neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between those neighborhoods and adjoining areas, and by requiring new development, both private and public, “ to respect and respond to those existing physical characteristics, buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban forms that contribute to the overall character and liability of the neighborhood.” LU 2.1.2. The design of the proposed three‐story buildings utterly ignores the design and intention of the mid century architecture that surrounds the property, the development intrudes into the establish neighborhood without meaningful transition, a blunt instrument cutting into an intentional and architecturally, significant and historic planned unit development.
The city’s General Plan promises to “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 And address the needs of all ages and abilities” LU 2.1.3. This development proposal clashes in nearly every respect with the neighborhood, identity, and absence relatively affordable units, house he needs our addressed only for the very few.
The General Plan continues, “the city shall promote infill development, reuse rehabilitation, and reuse efforts that contribute positively (e.g., to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas “ LU2.1.3. The development plans completely disregard this principle. They contribute nothing to the architectural design of the existing neighborhood. On the contrary, the design contradicts much of the intention that underlines the original design of the plan unit development. Reuse and rehabilitation of the existing building would be far more appropriate than the instruction of the building, the elevated berm, and the trees.
Further, re: Reuse and rehabilitation of the existing building, the General Plan further states: “The city shall promote the
preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and/Or reconstruction, as appropriate, of contextual features(e.g., Structures, landscapes, Street lamps and signs) Related to historical resources.” HCR2.1.12. The 707 Commons Building, provides 2 important transitional architecture and landscape/tree links between the commercial and the residential areas of the twoPUDs. It’s is the work of master architect C. W. Callister, and it is a rare example of suburban office design in the Bay Area/ Nor‐Cal tradition
The General Plan requires building design that “
Respects and responds to the local context, including use of local materials for feasible, responsiveness to Sacramento’s climate and consideration of cultural and historical context of Sacramento’s neighborhoods and centers.” LU 2.4.2. With its imitation, wood panels, false stone façades, and an absence of variety and details, the plan violates the historic context of the adjacent neighborhood. Removing canopy trees and filling open space with concrete and asphalt worsens the heat island effect in a warming climate.
About trees, the general plan could not be more clear;“ the city shall continue to plant new trees, ensure new developments have sufficient right
of way width for tree plantings, manage and care of all publicly owned trees, and work to retain healthy trees” ER 3.1.2. And: “the city show continue to promote planting shade trees with substantial canopies, and require, where, feasible, site design that uses trees to shade rooftops, parking facilities, streets, and other facilities to minimize heat island effects.“. ER 3.1.6. Yet the developers continue to plan opposite actions, cutting healthy trees, and planting small trees species that will cast little shade in spaces that are too small for healthy growth
The developer falsely claims that the proposed design is compatible with the existing neighborhood. It most definitely is not! The plans stand in start contrast to “those existing physical characteristics, buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban forms the contribute to the overall character and livibility of the neighborhood.“ Approval of the plan violates the general plan in so many instances, it would signal that the city does not respect its own planning process.
With all due respect, I hope you will do the right thing and listen to the people most concerned with and affected by this project: the homeowners of Campus Commons‐Napente
Sincerely,
Bruce and Diane Rodger’s
2325
American Drive
Sacramento, Ca 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: cary spatz <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 1:42 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners As one of many unhappy Campus Commons homeowners, please consider my request. I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
A word of explanation re the last statement: the City’s planning code states that the preservation director or preservation commission or city council can initiate proceedings to nominate resources for listing as a landmark. It appears the staff (1) saw a developer-sponsored report stating the building should not be considered a landmark though the neighborhood could be studied and deemed to be a historic district (which would have been a great thing to do earlier this year, but was costly) and (2) saw a community- sponsored report stating the building should be considered a landmark and (3) either did not read (or decided not to consider) a letter from an expert that recommended the building be considered a landmark, and as a result did not nominate the building. We would like to see oversight from the Preservation Commission, thus please consider adding the preceding statement to your email.
Thank you,
Cary Spatz
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kim Fuller <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:45 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
- disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Sincerely,
Kim Fuller
445 Hartnell Place
1 Zachary Dahla
From: KERRY O'HARA <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2023 11:12 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners I am aware of the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project, am in support of the issues raised therein, and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank you.
Kerry O'Hara
558 Hartnell Place
Sacramento CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mindy Rothbard <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2023 1:14 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners To Whom it May Concern,
I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mindy Rothbard, MD
1 Zachary Dahla
From: phil cabe-law.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 7:17 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners I am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Phillip Cabe
260 Hartnell Place
Sacramento CA 95825
916-214-3155
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Patricia O'Brien <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 2:55 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 please forward to planning and Design Commissioners To whom it may concern
I live at Campus Commons and continue to be concerned about a proposed development that is not consistent with the neighborhood.
It is not just the building that is inconsistent with the area, but the lack of parking that is of great concern.
The trees
in this area are of historical value and are not being protected in the present plan. These are of unique biological significance and cannot be replaced. These trees need to be protected and the present plan would cause them to be lost. Sacramento has a long history of protecting our trees and what they bring to a neighborhood. Campus Commons has protected our trees and an important part of the quality of life here.
Please reconsider the plan and consider protecting the historic area and the trees in this area.
Sincerely,
Patricia OBrien
1230 Vanderbilt Way
Campus Commons
Sacramento CA
95825
cell‐802‐557‐1393
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barry Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 9:31 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners To Whom It May Concern,
I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank you,
Barry Turner
432 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 717-2047
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Rebecca Siiteri <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 2:28 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
Also, I disagree with the staff decision in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark. I respectfully request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals, and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank you,
Rebecca Siiteri
Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Sandi Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 10:33 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners To Whom It May Concern,
I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank you,
Sandi Turner
432 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 801-4788
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2023 12:30 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
-I am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
The Planning and Design Commission's decision to approve the project is markedly flawed in many ways. It was very disturbing to hear the Commission state that approval for the project was never in doubt yet for many months the Commission office invited and solicited input from community members before revealing their predetermined decision. All of the community's efforts and input requested by the Commission office were completely disregarded. I feel played and betrayed by the City of Sacramento.
-I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
David L Norene MD
437 Hartnell Place
Sacramento CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Nonie Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 7:14 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22 079 project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I was at the recent hearing where our community observed the two council representatives greet the developer and his attorney with warm hugs and big grins. I was shocked! This community has valid reasons to prevent the destruction of a landmark and the tearing out of protected heritage trees. I believe this decision was not given the proper consideration and hope the greater good, the environment and history of this building do not take a back seat to greedy landowners who have no interest other than making money.
We are already experiencing the neglect of the property as broken tree limbs lie on the unkept grounds and the leaves are out in the sidewalk and street. Soon that same street will be filled with garbage cans and cars and our grounds will serve as a free park and dog run for the condominium residents. This is abhorrent proposal!
Nonie Stevens
916
549 5365
828 Commons Dr, Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Carol Duke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 8:18 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
-I am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
Carol Duke
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Jonathan Hayes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 10:39 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank you,
Dr. Jonathan Hayes DDs
Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mary Tamraz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 9:01 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I have carefully reviewed the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the November 6, 2023 decision of the directors.
I strongly disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Sincerely,
Mary Anna Tamraz
1010 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA. 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Tara Melavic <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 8:48 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Mr. Dahla,
I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22‐079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11‐06‐23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11‐06‐23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707
Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank you,
Tara Plaxico Melavic and Elizabeth Plaxico
722 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95925
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kathie Vaughn <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 9:18 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Fwd: Z22-079 Please forward to the Planning and Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathie Vaughn <[email protected]>
Date: December 27, 2023 at 8:57:42 AM EST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Z22‐079 Please forward to the Planning and Design Commissioners I am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22 ‐079
project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11‐06‐23 decisions of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11‐06‐23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark. I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank you for facilitating my requests to the appropriate decision makers.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Daley, Steve <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 11:14 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
Further, as a resident of Campus Commons, I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark.
I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Nancy Comstock <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 12:30 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive Proposal - Comments
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To: Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
From: Nancy Comstock, President, Village 4 Campus Commons I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project, and am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to this project. I ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: BARBARA BEDDOW <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 3:01 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Gentlepersons/Commissioners:
I am an owner/resident of a home in Campus Commons/Nepenthe. I have read the design and zoning appeal leƩers related to the Z22‐079 project and I ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11‐06‐23 decision of the directors.
The deficiencies are clearly and thoughƞully set forth in full in:
1. The Design Appeal LeƩer (in part ‐ destrucƟon of trees with inadequate replacement, not an infill within the meaning of the City 2030 General Plan, incompaƟbility with the neighborhood, vehicle and service issues); and
2. The Zoning Appeal LeƩer (in part ‐ inconsistencies with the City General Plan, the City’s loss or misplacement of the CCPUD’s SchemaƟc Development Plans although measurable evidence of same exists in the present surrounding structures).
Further I disagree with the decision in the 11‐06‐23 staff report to effecƟvely not nominate the building at 707 Commons
Drive for consideraƟon as a historic landmark, and I request that the PreservaƟon Commission read the PreservaƟon Appeal LeƩer aƩached to the Design Appeal and Zoning Appeal and nominate the building for consideraƟon as a historic landmark. This is a building of historic architectural design significance (C.W . Callister) and community members have been denied the right to appeal the City decision.
Campus Commons is an established community of approximately 1160 exisƟng homes and the Contemporary Commons project (Z22‐079) is not respecƞul of the nieghborhood, does not fit in, and violates exisƟng City codes and provisions in so many ways.
Thank you for considering my views,
Barbara Beddow
1 Zachary Dahla
From: bob baskerville <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 5:26 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Inderjit Rye; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Historic Building 707 Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Sent from my iPad— ‐Sir, I am absolutely against tearing down the Wells Fargo Bank building next to Campus Commons.
This beauƟful building was the first in the area a set the standard for the first class office buildings on University Ave and prompted Bob Powell
to build Campus Commons , a signature living area. To replace the Wells Fargo building with an ugly apartment building is disgraceful, parƟcularly placing it across the street from private townhouses. Please change your plans to destroy a beauƟful building on a beauƟful lot and disrespect Campus Commons and Nepenthe homeowners. This should be brought before the Sacramento City Council immediately . Thank you. Marilyn and Bob Baskerville 326 Elmhurst Circle
1 Zachary Dahla
From: IRINA KRAVTCHENKO <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 7:05 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079-Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Sirs/Madame,
I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22-079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
I agree with the Design Appeal Letter, which :
-Argues against destruction of private protected trees and highlights the inadequacy of the tree replacement plan,
-Provides reasons why this is not an infill project,
-Disputes developer's claim, that the design is compatible with existing neighborhood, -Describes parking and bin collection hazards,
Describes violations of the City General Plan.
On March 13 this year I was a victim of a car accident, parked at the red light on the American River /Howe avenue intersection. With the added traffic coming from the 707 Commons drive development implementation the traffic situation for us residents of Campus Commons would be unbearable.
Sincerely,
Irina Lane, Ph.D.
Owner of 812 and 1258 properties on Common Drive.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mary Ann <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 8:29 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22–079 at 707 Commons Drive
Dear Zach,
I want to add my voice to the many protests in my neighborhood against the 11-06-23 City Zoning and Design approvals for Project Z22–079 at 707 Commons Drive.
The development project violates the City General Plan because it does not “preserve, protect, and enhance the established neighborhood by providing sensitive transitions” or protect the “overall character and livability of the neighborhood.” The density of the proposal is twice that of the neighboring village; the landscape will be graded flat in contrast with designed elevations throughout the neighborhood; there is virtually no space for landscaping or trees; there is no onsite parking and tandem garages will push many residents' cars onto the street; 72 trash cans will litter the street; bulky buildings will clash with homes designed to blend in with nature, and more.
I echo the claims in a neighbor's letter that this proposal does not meet the definition of infill. This is a developed property that has been in productive use for years, not an "unused and underutilized" building. Canceling leases to make the building "underused" should not qualify as infill. And even if the City decides to revise their definition of infill, this project still violates infill Design Principles that require design with "attention to views, building scale and orientation and proximity to adjacent uses" and "compatible with their surroundings with respect to building height, width, surface area, setbacks, and articulation."
I also share neighborhood concerns about the loss of trees. The project site has 26 trees, 11 of which are private protected trees.
Nine of the private protected trees do not warrant removal. At the very least, the 90+ inch and 55‐inch diameter coast redwoods should be preserved. Cutting trees conflicts with Sacramento’s climate action plan, which calls for more, not less tree canopy.
Canopy trees are a strong defense against climate change. They clean the air, sequester carbon, reduce runoff, and moderate temperatures. The developers' plan for replacement trees will not work because there is too little space above and below ground for trees to grow. Trees will be cut down when they hit walls, overhangs, plumbing, irrigation and pavement.
Regarding preservation of the existing building, it seems as though the City has simply ignored the Community Sponsored Historic Resource report which states that the 707 Commons Dr. office building is eligible for historic preservation. From what I have read about the original planners' intentions for the Campus Commons PUD, this building is essential to the overall PUD concept. It was designed as a transition and link between the residential and commercial sections of the PUD. Destroying the building erases that essential link. It also erases any hope that the Campus Commons residential area can qualify as an intact historic district.
There are more arguments against this development proposal, and you have seen and heard them in neighborhood letters, meetings, hearing testimony, appeal documents, etc. I agree that this development proposal must not go forward as designed. I urge you to revoke the 11-06-23 approvals for this project.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mary Ann Robinson
Campus Commons resident
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Deb Alter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 1, 2024 3:03 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22-079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thanking you in advance,
Ann Alter
906 Vanderbilt Way, Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Joan Barrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2023 11:45 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 Please Forward to Planning & Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22– 079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank you,
Joan Barrett
916-206-7032 cell
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Heather Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2023 12:00 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Campus commons rezone
I’ve read the initiative and hope that it ends up written to protect as many older Historic trees as possible.
Sincerely,
Heather Mashler
16-year-campus commons resident
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Naomi <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2023 10:38 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra; Engage; Gabriel Morningstar; Miesha K. Ross; Mary Lynne Vellinga; Andrew Kehoe; [email protected]
Subject:
Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners: oppose 707 Commons Drive redevelopment proposal
Attachments: Design Appeal Letter.pdf; Preservation Appeal Letter.pdf; Zoning Appeal Letter.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Zachary and City of Sacramento Planning & Design Commissioners,
I have read the design and zoning appeal letters (attached) related to the Z22–079 project. I strongly oppose the redevelopment project at 707 Commons Drive. I ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
In addition, I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark. I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
The 707 Commons Drive building should be designated a historical landmark. The appeals letters detail the importance of the historical landmark designation as well as the importance of the preservation of these protected trees at 707 Commons Drive
I feel strongly that there are no justifiable reasons to remove protected trees that are nearly a century old (some older than a century). These trees are majestic and irreplaceable and include redwoods and other protected trees. HUNDREDS (or more) people benefit DAILY from the presence of these trees in our community. Any replacement plan is insufficient; there is no way to replace protected trees (including redwoods that are already endangered by climate change) that have been growing for a century.
On a hot summer day, the shade provided by the canopy of these trees results in lower temperatures. I can feel the difference in air temperature as I walk under the shade of these magnificent trees when it's scorching hot. These old trees MUST NOT BE CUT; they are essential in reducing the impacts of climate change in our city.
The appeals letters detail the importance of the historical landmark designation as well as the importance of the preservation of these trees at 707 Commons Drive.
Thank you for considering and supporting the thousands of current residents in my Campus Commons neigborhood by revoking approval for the Contemporary Commons project at 707 Commons Drive.
Sincerely,
Naomi A. Ennis
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Joy <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2023 7:19 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Z22-079 Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To: Zach Dahla
Subject: Re: 707 Commons Z22-079
I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission RECONSIDER
the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I DISAGREE with the decision you and your staff made in the 11‐06‐23 "staff report" to effectively NOT nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark. I request that the Preservation Commission READ the "preservation appeal letter" attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
I understand that the City’s planning code states that "the preservation director or preservation commission or city council can initiate proceedings to nominate resources for listing as a landmark". It appears the staff (1) saw a developer-sponsored report stating the building should not be considered a landmark though the neighborhood could be studied and deemed to be a historic district (which would have been a great thing to do earlier this year), and (2) saw a community-sponsored report stating the building should be considered a landmark and (3) either did not read (OR decided not to read or consider) a letter from an expert that recommended the building be considered a landmark, and as a result did not nominate the building.
I would like to see oversight from the Preservation Commission effective immediately.
The Design Appeal Letter
I am AGAINST destruction of at least (10) private protected trees and highlights the inadequacy or VOID of the tree replacement plan.
This is NOT an infill project, nor is this in a former desolate commercial area like the projects young Bardis Miry build. They live in East Sac in the "Fabulous Fourties" and would never build their white rectangular structures there.
I completely dispute the developer’s claim that the design is compatible with existing neighborhood. IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT.
The lack of parking and bin collection issues compound the problem of this development.
Campus Commons is a quiet neighborhood filled with young families with children, seniors and dogs.
The corner of the disputed project on Campus Commons Drive and Commons Drive will become hazardous. It is currently peaceful. Unfortunately the City inconsiderately put a chain link fence around the 707 property right before Christmas. That was thoughtful.
Is that what the city wants?????
This disputed project also violates the design provisions of the City’s General Plan.
Zoning Appeal Letter
This project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. Period.
This disputed project is inconsistent with the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (CCPUD). 2 After 58 years after establishment, It is INCONCEIVABLE that the City "somehow cannot provide early documentation" and thus contends the CCPUD is silent?????? We contend that the published original plans, TOGETHER with the physical build out within the CCPUD residential and office areas shows what the objective characteristics were and STILL AREe.
Preservation Appeal Letter
The community-sponsored historical evaluation and a strong letter from an independent expert which justifies nominating the building for consideration of historical designation, was ignored by you and your staff.
Your Staff acknowledged the possibility of a CC/N historic district designation but INAPPROPRIATELY excluded the 707 building from that historic district.
Finally, where is your responsibility to take care of your citizens? We all pay City, State AND Property taxes, including high HOA fees here in CC/N. This project is NOT part of CC/N and yet "they" expect to use, abuse and litter our valued neighborhood that we PAY for! It seems that you and your staff (as you smiled and answered questions in meetings) never had any intention of protecting our CC/N neighborhood.
This is complete greed by the City. Sacramento is no longer the City of Trees. It should be designated as "The City of Greed".
Joy Gough
421 Hartnell Place
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kirk Campbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2023 7:05 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr. Dahla,
I am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank-you,
Kirk Campbell
1218 Vanderbilt Way, Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Gary Slavit <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2023 2:31 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners Dear Commissioners,
I am a resident of Campus Commons Village Four and I am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Sincerely,
Gary R. Slavit
Gary R. Slavit, PMP
959 Commons Dr.
Sacramento, CA 95825
Cell: (916) 705‐5494
https://cas5‐0‐
urlprotect.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=www.facebook.com%2fgslavit&umid=8ce79b83‐1199‐479c‐ 8ab5‐bf62c195aa57&auth=0c78d5381d8efeba9ba4477b3ca23a49d0ab462f‐ e5efb2a3b05eb4d3916851300326160e035fa0a8
[email protected]
To: [email protected]
From: Tamalon Littlefield, [email protected]
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners We are aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z77–029 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission to support the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
We agree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and we request that the Preservation Commission support the director’s decision and deny the appeals.
Thank you
Tamalon Littlefield, 800 Commons Dr.
Keri Blaskoski, 803 Commons Dr.
Mary Sampson, 806 Commons Dr.
Winifred Rotz, 822 Commons Dr.
Susan Hayward, 828 Commons
Kim Squalia, 832 Commons Dr.
Hana Hartman, 840 Commons Dr.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Daniel <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2023 8:37 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners To: Planning and Design Commission, City of Sacramento
I am a resident of Campus Commons, City of Sacramento. I have followed the permitting process for the Z22‐079 project from its inception.
I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors. The extensive, fact-based content of the design and zoning appeal letters makes powerful arguments for reconsideration, and I ask that the letters, and their arguments, be taken seriously.
Furthermore, I respectfully, but fervently, disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Daniel Wilson
820 Commons Dr
Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Jacob Mans <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2023 8:41 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To: Planning and Design Commission, City of Sacramento
I am a resident of Campus Commons, City of Sacramento. I have followed the permitting process for the Z22‐079 project from its inception.
I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors. The extensive, fact-based content of the design and zoning appeal letters makes powerful arguments for reconsideration, and I ask that the letters, and their arguments, be taken seriously.
Furthermore, I respectfully, but fervently, disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jacob Mans
820 Commons Dr
Sacramento, CA 95825
To the City of Sacramento Planning and Design Commission (re Z22-079):
I wish one of the HOAs within residential Campus Commons had had a governmental affairs expert on staff who could have alerted us in 2017 about the beefed up HAA. Next best thing was…
When aware of project Z22-079, we invited our City Councilmember, who came with City Planners, to talk with interested residents. Approximately 140 attended. But…
Though I am an attentive listener, I do not recall that either planner said:
-HAA existed from 1982 and applies… do read it
-HAA was significantly amended in 2017… to understand the changes, do read CA gov code section 65589.5
-we hear you mention several City General Plan policies that you believe project number Z22- 079 violates (which were: LU 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 and 2.1.8 and 2.4.2; HCR 2.1.11 and 2.1.12 and 2.1.13 and 2.1.15 and 2.1.16 and 2.1.17; ER 3.1.2 and 3.1.6) BUT those policies don’t carry enough weight to address your concerns because we will look to other provisions of the general plan and deem that they dwarf LU 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 and 2.1.8 and 2.4.2; HCR 2.1.11 and
2.1.12 and 2.1.13 and 2.1.15 and 2.1.16 and 2.1.17; ER 3.1.2 and 3.1.6 -private protected trees are not protected if a developer wants to build where 50 year old trees are (even though private protected trees next to your residential properties are protected if you believe they are a danger but urban forestry disagrees) -you do live in a PUD which should provide you protection from drastic changes but you are screwed because we, the City, don’t have any documents that list specific objective (as in number of feet) setbacks and specific landscape criteria. -yes, 1969 CCPUD documents state that CC is a “community with exceptional environmental characteristics” and any proposed change “should enhance the overall environmental character of the area” BUT who is to say Z22-079 doesn’t comply (oh, almost all you residents here do, but sorry, not good enough).
Had we known all the above on 1-30-23, we wouldn’t have spent 9 months thinking our city would understand the following:
-we bought our homes in what we were told (by our realtors) and what we could see (with our own eyes) was an established neighborhood (coincidentally, with exceptional environmental characteristics)
-the 707 parcel that contains the building is a part of our community, because it is surrounded on three sides by Campus Commons residences, and, further, is at a major entry to our homes -we are very affected by what happens on that parcel and the city could go to bat for us residents (do you not have any sway with the developers?)
1/2
I ask that the Commission consider violation of general plan policies:
-LU 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 and 2.1.8 and 2.4.2
-HCR 2.1.11 and 2.1.12 and 2.1.13 and 2.1.15 and 2.1.16 and 2.1.17 -ER 3.1.2 and 3.1.6.
I ask that the Commission recognize:
-the City cannot produce items referred to in the 11-25-1969 resolution and the 11-10-1969 document (both of which discussed completion of the then undeveloped portions of the CCPUD) so we don’t absolutely know that objective criteria did not exist -the City cannot produce supporting documentation from the 1965 establishment of the CCPUD so again we don’t absolutely know that objective criteria did not exist -all it would take for any new development at Z22-079’s parcel to at least somewhat comply with the not-objective-enough standards in the only CCPUD documents the City still has would be:
-not allow removal of the mature private protected trees (did you know that one of them may be the largest circumference redwood in Sacramento?) which are an asset to Sacramento or -to have a larger setback on Commons Dr to plant canopy trees with enough room to grow to maturity and this could be achieved by the back four 4-unit buildings becoming 3-unit buildings or by the Z22-079 developers asking the owners of 350 University for some area (the owners of 350 University happen to be: the Z22-079 developers!)
From a person who knows how special residential Campus Commons has been, and wants to save it with an appeal for only 1.09 acre of the many acres that will surely be redeveloped along the nearby University Ave portion of the CCPUD in a non-CCPUD manner,
Inderjit Rye
Inderjit Rye, resident of Campus Commons Village Two
12-28-23
2/2
Date: December 27, 2023 To: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner City of Sacramento, [email protected] From: Andrew KeaFng, [email protected] Re: Z22-079 Appeal - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners CC: Vice Mayor Eric Guerra Dear Planning and Design Commissioners: I am a resident of the Campus Commons neighborhood, wriFng to add my strong support for the appeals filed against the proposed 707 Commons Drive demoliFon and redevelopment and strong opposiFon to this project that proposes to change the character of our neighborhood drasFcally and fundamentally and to destroy a historically and architecturally significant building. The project and process raises significant concerns, which I believe warrant a thorough reconsideraFon and reversal of the previous decision. Historical Preserva.on: The building at 707 Commons Drive embodies the architectural and cultural heritage of our neighborhood. Indeed, it is an integral part of the original plan for Campus Commons and the enFre neighborhood should be considered for historical designaFon. The mulFple reports on its historical significance and the staff’s subsequent decision not to nominate it for consideraFon as a landmark are deeply troubling. It’s imperaFve that the PreservaFon Commission provide oversight and review the various historical analyses that have been prepared. The community-sponsored historical evaluaFon and the expert recommendaFon strongly jusFfy considering this building for historical designaFon. At a minimum, the project should be put on hold so that the PreservaFon Commission can undertake its own independent review and consideraFon of historical designaFon for the enFre Campus Commons neighborhood. On a personal note, the historical, planned nature of Campus Commons is what aZracted me to purchase a home here and I recall appreciaFng this building and the enFre neighborhood while looking at houses. While I am not an architectural historian or specialist in that field, my PhD studies in history at UC Berkeley introduced me to the global trends of mid-century modern design and planning, as well as the trend toward “garden ciFes” at that Fme. In doing even the most cursory research on Charles W Callister and the history of Campus Commons over the past several years, it is clear there is a significant, naFonally and globally recognized historical resource here which the city should be engaging with academics to understand and preserve rather than rushing to destroy. It is also troubling that in this process the perspecFve and experFse of the architectural historian Prof. MaZhew Lasner has not been considered. Again, at a minimum, there should be addiFonal research done and support from your staff to engage in a proper historical evaluaFon.
I strongly disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effecFvely not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideraFon as a historic landmark, and I request that the PreservaFon Commission read the preservaFon appeal leZer aZached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideraFon as a historic landmark. Environmental and Urban Canopy: The proposed removal of 10 private protected trees contradicts our neighborhood’s longstanding value of maintaining a rich urban canopy – indeed this is a criFcal component of the Campus Commons master plan and fundamental part of the neighborhood. The tree replacement plan does not adequately address the ecological and aestheFc loss this project would incur. Trees are not merely decoraFve; they are crucial for environmental health, community well-being, and local biodiversity. In addiFon to the environmental consideraFons, the proposed removal is also one of the aspects of the project that would fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood which itself goes against mulFple aspects of the City’s General Plan. Infill Project Mischaracteriza.on: The designaFon of this development as an “infill project” is misleading and diminishes the unique character of our neighborhood. True infill development should integrate seamlessly with the exisFng community fabric, respecFng local aestheFcs, scale, and density. This proposal does not reflect the established character of Campus Commons and fails to consider the cumulaFve impact on traffic, parking, and local infrastructure. Design and Zoning Concerns: The design of the proposed buildings does not align with the exisFng neighborhood aestheFc. The scale, massing, and architectural details are out of sync with the surrounding area, disrupFng the visual harmony and sense of place that our community values. Furthermore, the project appears to contradict key aspects of the City's General Plan and the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (CCPUD). The integrity of our local zoning and planning guidelines must be upheld to ensure that all developments contribute posiFvely to the fabric of our community. The published original plans, together with the physical build out within the CCPUD residenFal and office areas, clearly show what the objecFve characterisFcs of our neighborhood were and are and should be respected. Parking and Traffic: The increase in density without a proporFonal increase in parking and careful traffic management will exacerbate exisFng congesFon and reduce the quality of life for residents. Adequate infrastructure and thoughjul planning are essenFal to accommodate any new development without negaFvely impacFng the neighborhood. Legal Process and Transparency: Concerns have been raised about the transparency and adherence to procedures throughout the decision-making process for this project. Especially on issues such as the historical designaFon and understanding of the CCPUD, there seem to have been fundamental errors, such as staff acknowledging the possibility of a Campus Commons historic district designaFon but inappropriately excluding this building. It is crucial that all steps, from historical evaluaFons to community consultaFons, are conducted with due diligence and in full compliance with applicable city and state laws and regulaFons. Any shortcuts or oversights can not only undermine the legal standing of the process but also erode trust in the insFtuFons meant to protect our community’s interests. We seek reassurance that all legal and procedural requirements have been met and that there has been a fair and open process that considers the voices and rights of the affected residents. Considering all these concerns, and many others expressed by neighbors, community members, and independent experts, I strongly urge the Planning and Design Commission to reconsider the Z22-079 project. Our neighborhood is not opposed to change or development, but it must be done right – respecFng our history, our environment, and the quality of life that makes Campus Commons a unique, cherished place to live and a historical treasure for Sacramento. Thank you for considering these appeals. I, along with many in our community, look forward to a decision that reflects the values and concerns of the residents it will affect. Sincerely, Andrew KeaFng 601 Commons Drive 1 Zachary Dahla
From: Elizabeth Georgis <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2023 1:12 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 please forward to Planning&Design Commission Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To Planning and Design Commission,
I am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22‐079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11‐06‐23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff
in the 11‐06‐23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historical landmark and I request that the Preservation Commission read the Preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as an historical landmark.
Elizabeth Georgis
Homeowner
276 Hartnell Place
Sacramento
Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Patrick Carney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 11:48 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079 - Please forward to Planning and Design Commissioners
To Whom it May Concern,
I am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22– 079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
The City’s planning code states that the preservation director or preservation commission or city council can initiate proceedings to nominate resources for listing as a landmark. It appears the staff (1) saw a developer-sponsored report stating the building should not be considered a landmark though the neighborhood could be studied and deemed to be a historic district (2) saw a community-sponsored report stating the building should be considered a landmark and (3) either did not read (or decided not to consider) a letter from an expert that recommended the building be considered a landmark, and as a result did not nominate the building.
We are also concerned about the potential removal of some very old and large trees such as redwoods on the site.
Best,
Patrick Carney
[email protected]
In response, and to advise of future public hearings, please communicate via email to [email protected]; our postal address is 5601 Monalee Ave, Sacramento, CA 95819. January 8, 2024 City of Sacramento Planning & Design Commission RE: Contemporary Commons Project (Z22-079) Dear Commissioners and Staff, Trees for Sacramento represents concerned ciJzens working for the preservaJon, protecJon, and enhancement of Sacramento’s urban forest. Our organizaJon formed in response to the paradigm shiT that occurred in Sacramento whereby the city’s Urban Forestry secJon no longer requires developers to preserve private protected trees. The health of the city and its residents depends on our canopy trees which clean the air, sequester carbon, reduce water runoff, and keep temperatures manageable during our scorching summers. This proposed housing project at 707 Commons Drive has twenty-five on-site trees, of which eleven qualify per city ordinance as private protected trees. The arborist report prepared by California Tree and Landscape ConsulJng Inc. for Reynen & Bardis Homes indicates that two (#3415 31-inch flowering cherry and # 3418 52-inch silver maple) of these eleven private protected trees have structural issues. However, the assessment of the other nine trees based on their structure and health does not warrant removal. One of Sacramento’s largest coast redwoods, a 99-inch in diameter (tree# 3417), is located on this property. Trees for Sacramento understands that only one, a 24-inch diameter tulip tree of the eleven of the private protecJon trees will be preserved. However, the removal permit should be denied, and the 99-inch and the 54-inch diameter coast redwoods should be preserved (photos). The purpose of the tree ordinance, Chapter 12.56 Tree PlanJng, Maintenance, and ConservaJon is to provide for the conserva0on of exis0ng tree resources; to op0mize tree canopy coverage throughout the city while recognizing individual rights to develop and make reasonable use of private property consistent with the general plan. Why does the ordinance allow the developer to remove all the trees except one? It is Urban Forestry’s interpretaJon of the ordinance which is stated on page 21 of the staff report. “SCC sec0on
2 12.56.050, the City shall issue Tree Permits for the removal of private-protected trees if: 1) the applicant provides an adequate tree replacement plan, and 2) the City finds that the trees must be removed to use the property for any use permiLed as of right or by discre0onary permit under the Planning and Development Code (SCC Title 17) for the zoning district in which the property is located, and the use could not be made of the property unless the tree is removed.” This site can be developed with the exisJng trees but less units would be built. The ordinance does not specify that the tree must be removed to maximize the number of units or square footage for the site. Urban Forestry’s interpretaJon defeats the whole purpose of the tree preservaJon ordinance. The tree replacement plan, which is a requirement of the private protected tree removal process, is not sustainable. The developer, in a good faith effort to miJgate the significant tree loss proposes planJng back twenty-two trees. Almost half of the trees are the same species being removed. The large trees that have grown on this site did so by accessing the soil and available space. That above and below ground space will not be available for the replacement trees since most of the site will be buildings and paved surfaces. As these replacement trees grow, they will be removed due to canopy/building conflicts or when the root systems impact the underground infrastructure, paved surfaces, or the buildings. The current tree canopy in many parts of the city has decreased and will conJnue without significant changes in the tree review process for development. Sacramento cannot grow its canopy if developers are given city approval to remove so many trees. This project should be designed to preserve the 99-inch and 55-inch coast redwoods, and the replacement tree planJng plan revised. A design that results in substanJal tree removal is inconsistent with the Campus Commons community design. Sincerely, Trees for Sacramento Karen Jacques Francesca Reitano Jude Lamare Kate Riley C: CM Eric Guerra
3 55 Inch redwood
4 99 inch redwood
January 7, 2024
City of Sacramento Planning and Design Commission
RE: Contemporary Commons Project (Z22-079)
Dear Commissioners,
I am a degreed arborist who has lived and worked in Sacramento’s urban forest for the past 33-years. I was employed by the City of Sacramento as an arborist/urban forester from 1990 until retiring in April 2020. My first fifteen years I was the sole city arborist and worked on most of the development projects. This included the downtown State of California office towers i.e.
Secretary of State, Attorney General, Cal EPA, Dept. of Education to name just a few. I also worked on Sutter Memorial hospital, the Shriners hospital, in addition to the St. Francis downtown housing project and residential subdivisions like River Grove in the Pocket area.
Tree Preservation was one of the public’s top priorities when the City of Sacramento’s first Urban Forestry Management Plan was developed from 1990-1992. The public wanted more than just native oaks on private property protected. Therefore, the tree protection ordinance was revised to protect all trees whose trunks measure 100 inches in circumference or greater at standard height. The size of native oaks was reduced from 100 to 36-inches in circumference at standard height. The development community understood that heritage trees were protected and could not be removed and mitigated for site development. The ordinance has since been revised and trunk diameter is used instead of circumference. Therefore, any tree 32-inches in diameter or greater, native oaks 12-inches in diameter or greater and trees 24-inches in diameter or greater on undeveloped lot or lots with multiple dwellings are protected.
Since retiring from the city of Sacramento I volunteer my time in the preservation of trees.
Campus Commons residents requested my assistance on the 707 Commons Drive project in their community that involved the proposed removal of 25 trees of which 11 were heritage trees, now referred to as private protected trees. What immediately caught my attention was a 99-inch diameter coast redwood (photo) and is one of the largest in Sacramento.
I was surprised to read in the project staff report that this 99-inch coast redwood and all except one private protected tree was approved for removal. What’s puzzling is that city staff approved removal of the private protected trees based on the tree ordinance. Page 21 of the staff reports states “SCC section 12.56.050, the City shall issue Tree Permits for removal of private-protected trees if: 1) the applicant provides an adequate tree replacement plan, and 2) the City finds that the trees must be removed to use the property for any permitted use as of right or by discretionary permit under the Planning and Development Code (SCC Title 17) for the zoning district in which the property is located, and the use could not be made of the property unless
the tree is removed.” Now this is the exact same ordinance language that I worked under, and private protected trees had to be preserved. The development community clearly understood this and for 15 years on all development projects trees were preserved. Furthermore, there were no legal challenges regarding how this section was being applied. At that time I would meet with developers on sites before they purchased the property, so they understood which trees had to be preserved. This section of the ordinance refers to sites where no development could occur unless the tree was removed. Not that the tree must be removed to maximize the building square footage or the number of units for the site. This ordinance would be applied if there were a single-family residential lot with a tree in the middle of it.
I visited the site, the tree removal permit should be denied and the two coast redwoods, a 99-inch (tree# 3417), and a 55-inch (tree# 3426) should be preserved (photos). Trees are the first line of defense in combating climate change. Coast redwoods are evergreen and sequester carbon 365 days a year. Having lived and worked in Sacramento’s urban forest for the past 33 years, more trees have been removed for development in the past ten years than in the prior twenty-five years. This is in direct conflict with Sacramento’s Climate Action plan which calls for more tree canopy coverage. I am also concerned about the single tree, a 25-inch diameter tulip tree (#3425) being preserved. Will it survive the construction impacts especially the significant change in the grade?
In reviewing the tree removal permit the tree replacement plan is flawed. The developer is trying to mitigate this significant loss of canopy (25 trees) by planting back 22 trees.
Almost half are the same species being removed. This is not feasible due to the lack of available above and below ground space since buildings and paved surfaces cover most of the site. The attached photo of existing liquidambars indicates how much space their root system requires.
The planting sites are unsustainable. As the trees grow, they will be removed due to canopy/building conflicts or roots raising the paved area or impacting underground utilities.
This Contemporary Commons Project (Z22-079) located at 707 Commons Drive should be designed to preserve the 99-inch, and 55-inch coast redwoods and the replacement tree planting plan revised.
Sincerely,
Daniel Pskowski
B.Sc. Landscape Horticulture (Colorado State University) ISA Certified Arborist WE-0964 A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (June 2018 – June 2023)
Attachments
Mr. Dahla,
I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the faulty 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I fully disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Thank you,
Concerned Campus Commons homeowner and Sacramento citizen, Emily Smith
Date: December 4, 2023
To: Mr. Zach Dahla, Associate City Planner
From: Kelly Cole, resident of Nepenthe
RE: Proposed Development at 707 Commons Drive, Project Z22-079 CC: Vice Mayor Eric Guerra, Katherine Bardis of Bardis and Miry Development
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I am aware of the arguments presented in the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22-079 project and ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.
I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark, and I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.
Sincerely,
Kelly Cole, Resident of Nepenthe HOA
Project Z22-079 01/02/2024 – Buehler Appeal Comments Page 1 of 2 Date: January 2, 2024
To: Zachary Dahla, City of Sacramento Planning, via email [email protected] From: Janet Buehler, Marilyn Buehler
Re: Contemporary Commons Development, 707 Commons Drive, Project Z22-079 CC: Vice Mayor Eric Guerra
Dear Mr. Dahla:
Please forward this letter to the Planning and Design Commissioners in preparation for the January 11 meeting.
As Campus Commons homeowners, we ask that the Planning & Design Commission reconsider and revoke the November 6, 2023 decision to approve the Contemporary Commons Project Z22-079.
We are in full support of the Design and Zoning appeals submitted by Carr Kunze on November 16, 2023.
The key issues with the Design Approval are:
• Destruction of 25 trees, 10 of which are private protected trees. Only 1 tree of the existing 26 trees is being saved. The tree ordinances do not specify that a developer must be allowed to develop on every portion of the property. Destruction of such a large percentage of trees appears to be in conflict with the goal of having private, protected trees within the city. We have repeatedly asked for the 2 coast redwoods trees to be saved, particularly the 90+ inch redwood tree which is one of the largest redwood trees in the city. • Inadequate tree replacement plan with trees planned close to structures, which will not allow the trees to reach their mature size before they need to be removed. There are no canopy size trees planned along the Campus Commons Road street face. • Removal of nearly 40 feet of the existing City-owned planting strip to accommodate the developers, with no regard to the loss of the planting strip to the existing neighborhood. The plans should be amended to add this lost portion of planting strip to another area along street. • Trash collection plan which allows for 72 containers to be placed streetside along both Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road which will conflict with street parking and traffic flow. We ask that the City require that the development have onsite, alleyway trash collection consistent with Campus Commons residential trash collection. Containers will not have adequate space to be placed the city-specified 3-feet apart on the streetside. With this volume of trash bins on the street, there is no consideration of the existing community regarding safety. • With a lack adequate street space, the trash collection locations violate the Sacramento City Code Title 13 Public Services, Chapter 13.10 on Solid Waste Management. o Access to containers will be impeded and most likely less than 3 feet from parked cars. o If residents place containers on the sidewalks, the containers will block pedestrian access to the sidewalks.
o Containers on the streets and/or the sidewalks will be a hazard to cars, bicycles, and pedestrians.
• Deviation granted to the rear yard setback from the required 15 feet to 5 feet. The staff report indicated the granting of this deviation would not impact the adjacent community. This is not true as the adjacent homes will absolutely be impacted by these nearby towering buildings.
Project Z22-079 01/02/2024 – Buehler Appeal Comments Page 2 of 2 There is no tangible need for the City to grant this deviation to the developers. Again, the existing community is not being considered in this decision. The developer can reduce the number of units or reduce the size of the units to be in compliance with the required 15-foot setback.
• The overall building setbacks, building scale and design, and lack of elevated berms is in conflict with the City General Plan and the existing neighborhood.
The key issues with the Zoning Approval are:
• Lack of compatibility with the City General Plan and Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (CCPUD). Due to the City’s loss or misplacement of the CCPUD’s Schematic Development Plans, the City should consider the visual, measurable evidence present in the surrounding residential and commercial structures regarding setbacks and other characteristics. • The planned density exceeds the designed densities of the Schematic Development Plan approved by the City in 1965 and most likely 1969, and is not compliant with the City General Plan.
• Tentative map and tentative map process. Topography and effective leveling of property grade are not compatible with the neighborhood or compliant with the City General Plan and the CCPUD.
We feel it was unjust that the City did not allow for the appeal of the Preservation Director's decision.
We ask that the Preservation Commission read the Preservation Appeal Letter attached to the Design and Zoning Appeals and nominate the building for historic designation. This building has historic architectural design significance, and the community has been denied the right to appeal the City’s decision.
At a minimum, the building meets this historic preservation criteria:
• It must be at least 50 years old.
• It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction. • It possesses high artistic values.
• It represents the work of an important creative individual or master. • Overall issues related to integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship and condition.
The Campus Commons residential neighborhood is a potential historic district for nomination. The existing 707 Commons Drive office building was designed and built as the initial, architectural cornerstone of the residential neighborhood. Its architectural design serves as an intentional transition between the commercial and residential areas of the Campus Commons PUD. By replacing this building with the planned, new development, the historic Campus Commons residential neighborhood will be compromised, and the historical integrity of the district will be undermined.
Thank you for your consideration.
ATTN: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner, [email protected] City Councilmember Eric Guerra at [email protected] RE: Z22-079 Application for Redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive DATE: 01/10/2024
Comments Regarding the Denial of Historical Preservation 1) Please reconsider the decision to deny 707 Commons Drive, which was one of the first buildings designed and built by architect Charles Warren Callister for the then new Campus Commons development in Sacramento, because this design and masterpiece of integration with the residential housing which faces 3 sides of 707 Commons Drive will be lost forever for future generations, plus one of the largest redwood trees in Sacramento which I measured as having a circumference at the base of over 180”.
2) Please reconsider the decision to approve the new development because you are destroying the PUD that was in place for this building, and Villages 1 and 2 and the highly dense six buildings 1.1 acre site violates the planning codes in place that provided oversight for the entire area, including the nearby office buildings across the street on University Ave which all have 35 to 40 ft setback and those buildings are built on berms. 3) Currently there is a very unattractive chain link fence surrounding 707 Commons Drive, it is clear that the developer and the City of Sacramento will demolish, destroy, level and build these extremely unattractive 3 story buildings which will tower above the 2 story high residential buildings surrounding the front and sides of 707 Commons Drive. 4) Here are some new photos I took in November before the hideous chain link fence was constructed taken at dusk that again show the integration of 707 Commons Drive with the neighborhood and the uniqueness of the 707 Commons Drive building, please see that the unique windows when the light is turned on shows how one of a kind this building is. 5) I ask you to please reconsider your decision for historical preservation status. These photos speak for themselves.
And here are the office buildings, 425 University is diagonally across the street from 350 University to show that they adhere to the setbacks and that those buildings are built atop berms as well, plus they adhere to the treescaping and landscaping which the proposed high density 3 story buildings cannot adhere to.
Thank you for your consideration. Please reconsider your decision.
Kind regards,
MK Hickox
[email protected]