Item 32 2024-00479 Third-Party Appeal of Contemporary Commons (Z22-079) (Noticed 05/17/2024) — Sacramento City Council, June 18, 2024 (part 2 of 4)

00823251.1.88888.012
At a minimum, the City should extend the comment period to allow the residents of Campus Commons time to prepare a detailed response to the proposed project.

Please notify me of future hearings on this development at [email protected]. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

/s/

Susan Schepker
957 Commons Drive

1 Zachary Dahla
From: JOANNE MEDWID <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 12:15 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

1. Please notify me of any hearings regarding 707 Commons Drive.

2. Why can't I find the development application on the city planning dept.'s website? Please email me the application.

3. Why doesn't the project require City Council approval? What specifically is the developer agreeing to, in order to avoid City Council review?

Thank you.

Joanne Medwid
[email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Jacob Mans <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 10:07 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Jacob Mans
Subject: Comments on Planning Application Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
TO: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner

RE: Comments on Planning Application Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive

DATE: December 1, 2022

Dear Mr. Dahla:

I would like to make the following comments on the above-referenced Planning Application:

PRIVATE PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL:

I would ask that the request for a permit to remove the private protected trees be denied. Tree canopy in Sacramento is vital to our city’s livability. The 25 units proposed will require all of the trees on the property be cut down, not just these mature trees.

Citywide Goal and Policies, ER 3 Urban Forest. ER 3.1.2 States that the city shall “Manage and Enhance the City’s Tree Canopy”. ER 3.1.3 states “The city shall require the retention of City trees and Heritage trees by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design and development of projects provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible”. ER 3.1.6 addresses the heat island effect and states in part that ”The city shall continue to promote planting shade trees with substantial canopies…to minimize heat island affects”. The private protected trees on the proposed development site are substantial in size and provide these benefits. Therefore the request to remove the protected trees does not align with the city's stated, serious concern to retain as many trees as possible.

However, new tree planting takes decades before it equals the removal of mature trees. Equally important, “mitigation” is only as good as follow-through on the watering and care of young, newly-planted trees. This is especially true in a hot, drought climate like Sacramento. There can be no assurance the developer, or the HOA that it sets up for the proposed development, will follow through adequately. In other words, “mitigation” could easily prove to be nothing more than semantics. Maintaining a mature canopy which already exists, however, is a sure thing.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:

I would ask that the design of the development be modified. The appearance of the structures is in stark contrast to both the surrounding homes in Campus Commons and to the majority of nearby commercial and 2 professional office buildings along University Drive. The proposed design is vertical in appearance and does not blend with the existing design aesthetic in Campus Commons, which is horizontal and low key. Having the first row of structures of the proposed development step back along Commons Drive would help alleviate the overbearing verticality of the development. Also, the proposed materials and colors of the structures do not appear to harmonize with the adjacent homes, contributing to this stark contrast.

DEVELOPMENT SETBACKS:

I would ask that the proposed setbacks from the sidewalks be increased from what is shown on the project site plan. The three to five feet which is now proposed contributes to the overbearing appearance of the development. It is not in keeping with the adjacent existing Campus Commons development — nor with the nearby commercial and professional offices along University Drive — where the homes and offices are set back from the sidewalk.

I would appreciate your letting me know when the city hearing is scheduled for the project.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Jacob Mans
820 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Howard <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 12:21 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
TO: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner
[email protected]

RE: Comments on Planning Application Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive

DATE: December 1, 2022

Dear Mr. Dahla:

I would like to make the following comments on the above-referenced Planning Application:

PRIVATE PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL:

ER 3.1.3 states “The city shall require the retention of City trees and Heritage trees by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design and development of projects provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible”. ER 3.1.6 addresses the heat island effect and states in part that ”The city shall continue to promote planting shade trees with substantial canopies…to minimize heat island affects”. The private protected trees on the proposed development site are “significant” and substantial in size and provide these benefits. Therefore the request to remove the protected trees does not 2 align with the city's stated, serious concern to retain as many trees as possible. I ask the City deny any request to remove significant trees.

This is especially true in a hot, drought climate like Sacramento. There can be no assurance the developer, or the HOA that it sets up for the proposed development, will follow through adequately. In other words, “mitigation” could easily prove to be nothing more than semantics. Maintaining a mature canopy which already exists, however, is a sure thing. Also, the amount of carbon sequestration will be significantly less in contrast to Sacramento’s published Climate Ation Plan!

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:

The proposed design is vertical in appearance and does not blend with the existing design aesthetic in Campus Commons, which is horizontal and low key. Having the first row of structures of the proposed development step back along Commons Drive would help alleviate the overbearing verticality of the development. Also, the proposed materials and colors of the structures do not appear to harmonize with the adjacent homes, contributing to this stark contrast.

DEVELOPMENT SETBACKS:

VISITOR AND SERVICE VEHICLE PARKING:

I would ask that that the proposed development provide on site guest parking and space for service vehicles. These parking areas are not currently shown on the development plans. Not having these spaces will force guests and service personnel to park on Commons Drive, thereby negatively impacting adjacent homeowners.

INCREASE IN TRAFFIC:

I would ask that the impact on traffic by the proposed development be studied more closely. Currently the majority of parking for the existing commercial building is accessed from University Avenue. There are a limited number of spaces for the building accessed from Commons Drive. An increase of as many as 50 vehicles will bring more congestion 3 to the intersection of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road and impact adjacent homeowners. This increase in vehicle traffic could be a hazard for pedestrians and cyclists and some mitigation measures may be in order.

This project along with the adjacent property to be redeveloped by the same owner may have significant cumulative impacts if considered together and the City should request a specific project for both parcels as to determine the total impact asking for a directed environmental impact study on the projects.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Sacramento is well known for integrating different levels of affordable housing in each project. This project falls short in providing any other housing options except expensive and more expensive. Unit numbers can be increased with less square footage in order to provide more housing opportunities!

I would appreciate your letting me know when the city hearing is scheduled for the project.

Thank you,

Howard Levine
191 Hartnell Pl.

Sacramento, CA 95825
5302772787

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Gary Slavit <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 3:39 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Proposed development in Campus Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,

I am a resident of Campus Commons and am very concerned by the proposed development on Commons Drive, Z22-079, APN:295-0402-015-0000. The primary issues r egarding this project are as follows:

ꞏ Trees and landscaping: The trees and landscaping in their entirety are planned for removal to accommodate the twenty-five housing units. By removing the trees and landscaping, the new construction dramatically conflicts with the existing Campus Commons development. The new project look is stark, barren, and abrupt which is in direct contrast to the graceful and lush look of our homes. The magnificent trees are a major part of the beauty of Campus Commons and it would be tragic to lose them for the sake of development.

ꞏ Architectural design: The design of the buildings is also in st ark contrast to the homes in Campus Commons. This ultra-modern design would be appropriate in other areas of Sacramento; however, it would conflict with the beautiful mid-century design that is prevalent in our community.

ꞏ Parking: The proposed housing provides no space for visitor parking. Visitors have no option but to park on Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. This will reduce the available parking for the current residents and due to the number of houses proposed, the anticipated number of cars parked on the street will diminish the aesthetics of the neighborhood.

ꞏ Traffic: During rush hour, Commons Drive becomes crowded, noisy, and dangerous due to its use by commuters using Campus Commons to bypass the heavy traffic and signal lights at the intersection of Howe Avenue and Fair Oaks Boulevard. An additional twenty-five homes will only exacerbate that problem. The minimal setback of the houses will also likely reduce the visibility at the corner or Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road making it more dangerous for our residents.

ꞏ Campus Commons amenities: The beautiful common areas of Campus Commons is private property and was paid for and is for the exclusive use of our homeowners. Short of fencing the entirety of the property, which is neither desirable nor feasible, there is nothing to prohibit the residents of the new development from using some of the Campus Commons amenities. Being directly across the street and with no public parks in the immediate vicinity, it is likely that these residents will use our playground, ponds, landscaping, and walkways. This creates liability and security issues that will be difficult, cumbersome, and possibly costly to address.

ꞏ Site planning: The twenty-five houses are compressed into a one-acre parcel. This is almost significantly higher density then the rest of Campus Commons. This is in dramatic contrast with the homes in Campus Commons, which have ample space for walkways, landscaping, and cluster housing.

Clearly, the proposed development is not suitable and will have a severe negative impact on a community that has been a treasure for Sacramento for fifty years. Campus Commons residents have worked hard and expended much time, effort, and resources to maintain the community’s beauty and lifestyle. This ill-fitting project will damage the community.

2 We ask the City of Sacramento to extend the comment period to provide Campus Commons residents time to complete their review and comment of the project and that you consider our concerns and require the developers to modify their plans to address the issues we’ve stated. We are sympathetic to issues with the current structure however, there are other options for the use of the 707 Commons Drive property and are willing to work with the developers to create a mutually acceptable solution.

Thank you

Gary Slavit
959 Commons Dr,
Sacramento CA 95825

Gary R. Slavit, PMP
Cell: (916) 705‐5494
https://cas5‐0‐
urlprotect.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=www.facebook.com%2fgslavit&umid=6327a630‐297a‐4749‐ a588‐a58ee75696eb&auth=0c78d5381d8efeba9ba4477b3ca23a49d0ab462f‐ ed6ed2c83cd49e4057572970473025288021bb5b
[email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Bill Lindelof <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 12:58 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr. Dahla:

Just a note to tell you we support the planned residential project at 707 Commons. We think it is a quality use for the land in an era when less office space is needed post‐pandemic and more residential is needed.

We are residents of Campus Commons, residing at 545 Hartnell Place. Re cently we attended a community meeting at the Campus Commons Clubhouse in which the project developers answered questions.

We like that the number of housing units are fewer than what could be built on the site. We also realize that for the development to pencil out, the trees have to come down.

One quibble:

We viewed artist renderings of the homes and wish they could look a bit more like the building that is coming down— an office complex that in color and style mirrored Campus Commons.

Thanks,
Bill and Victoria Lindelof

Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Ann Alter <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 6:48 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive, Planning Application Z22-079, APN: 295-0402-015-0000 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,

I am a resident of Campus Commons and have concerns regarding the proposed development of the 707 Commons Drive property.

TREES
As I’m sure you have been made aware, the existing trees on the property are very important to the Campus Commons community. Would you please consider denying the perm it to remove the private, protected trees from this
property? In fact, all the existing trees on this property should remain as these trees provide a tree canopy which I understand the City of Sacramento considers vital to our City’s livability. In Sacramento’s 2035 General Plan, Part Two:

Citywide Goal and Policies,
ER 3 Urban Forest addresses tree canopy, trees of significance and urban heat island effect. ER 3.1.2 states that the City shall “Manage and Enhance the City’s Tree Canopy”. ER 3.1.3 states “The City shall require the retention of City trees and Heritage trees by promoting stewardship of such trees and en suring that the design and development of projects provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible”. ER 3.1.6 addresses the heat island effect and in part states that “The City shall continue to promote planting shade trees with substantial canopies…to minimize heat island effects”. The private protected trees on this property are substantial in size and provide these benefits.

In listening to the presentation by the developer, it was stated that the proposed tree removal will be mitigated by planting new trees. Mitigation is only as good as the follow‐through on the watering and care of newly‐planted trees. Ther
e is no guarantee there will be adequate follow‐through by the developer or the proposed HOA in the care of new trees. Furthermore, it will take decades for new trees to provide the mature canopy that already exists.

PARKING
There are no proposed parking spaces for guests or service vehicles shown on the development plan s. It would
appear the developer intends visitor/service vehicle parking to be on Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. This will create a problem for the residents of the established Campus Commons community.

TRAFFIC INCREASE
Is it possible to do a traffic im pact study? With 25 units, potentially 50 additional cars, the intersection of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road will become more congested. This adds to the concerns of Campus Commons residents, and the increase in traffic could be a hazard for pedestrians and cyclists.

DESIGN
The design of this development does not fit in with th e existing community. The appearance of the structures is in stark contrast to the surrounding homes in Campus Commons and the majority of nearby commercial and professional office buildings along University Drive. Also, the proposed colors and materials of the structures do not appear to blend in
with the existing adjacent homes.

The units of this development are set too close to the sidewalk creating an overbearing appearance. This is not in keeping with the neighboring Campus Commons development nor with the nearby commercial and professional offices along University Drive. Can it be considered to increase the setback from th e sidewalk from what is shown on the project site plan?

AMENITIES
2 The are no amenities provided for these 25 units. We in Campus Commons are on private property and have our own amenities that have been paid for by Campus Commons residents over many years. Please have the developers provide amenities such as a fitness center, playground, etc. for their future residents.

QUESTIONS

Is it possible to repurpose the 707 building? Perhaps the City could consider using the existing building for senior housing, a senior center, satellite campuses, etc.

Can the developers develop the University parcel first? Instead of leasing that building for office space, use the 707 building for office space and put some units on the northerly parcel.

Thank you for allowing additional comment time. The Campus Commons community was not able to meet with the developer of the 707 property until November 28th. The majority of us were unaware of how this development was going to look and impact our neighborhood. Many of us are stunned with the proposal and not in agreement with the developer’s plans.

Thank you,

Ann Alter
906 Vanderbilt Way

Sent from Mail for Windows

1 Zachary Dahla
From: CARR KUNZE <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 12:30 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: [email protected]; Matthew Sites
Subject: Z22-079 proposal for 707 Commons Drive
Attachments: 707 Commons Dr Offices.ed4.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Zach,

Attached is an analsis and critique of the proposal for demolition and redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive. As you will note therein, I believe that you together with City staff will hopefully be able to find that the proposal has overlooked several provisions of the City's general plan and Code and should be subject to more serious scrutiny and modification.

In addition to underlying Land Use issues, there are in particular Design Review as well as Historic and Cultural Resource Preservation issues to be taken into consideration.

Most hopefully, a means will be found to preserve and as appropriate and feasible, find an alternative use for the building. Several are suggested; more thought and analysis could be given to yet other uses. And, inasmuch as the applicant is also the owner of the abutting parcel which it is understood they ultimately also intend to redevelop, a means should be sought to apply Transferable Development Rights from the 707 parcel, and increase the developable density of the northerly parcel.

Absent an ability to realize the above, at minimum, further reconfiguration and redesign of the development should be undertaken to effectuate City goals and requirements regarding appropriate and respectful contextual design, compatible spatial planning, and massing, including protection of trees, compatible setbacks, and resolution of parking and equity issues. In regards to the latter, Campus Commons having been developed as PUD in which all its residents participate in supporting its amenities, would suffer an inequitable encroachment and trespass by residents of the new development.

This issue somehow appears to have fallen through the cracks in the planning process, overlooked perhaps through the years, yet now requires an equitable means of resolution.

I would be pleased to provide further insight as to the planning, design and historic preservation considerations of Campus Commons, its place in Mid-Century Modernism of planning and architecture in Northern Californina, and its original architect and planner, the noted Charles Warren Callister. I may be contacted at the above e-mail address or at 707-318-7800. I look forward to discussing this with you and your colleagues.

One last note, I have copied the Design Director and Preservation Director. Inasmuch as this is coming to you just beyond the suggested submission dates, but recognizing the rather time limited 2 and geographically constrained noticing, and that staff reviews may be commencing, I hope you will pardon any deviation from protocols.

With kind regards,

Carr Kunze
1 TO: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner
[email protected]

RE: Comments on Planning Application Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive

DATE: December 3, 2022

Dear Mr. Dahla:

I respectfully submit the following analysis and response re: the above-referenced Planning Application:

707 Commons Drive Office Building – Charles Warren Callister, Architect Architect’s rendering. Source: Univ. of California College of Environmental Design Archives.

Horst Ranch Venture: Campus Commons, 1965-1967

The master planning for Campus Commons was by the architectural firm of Callister and Payne, Charles Warren Callister, architect (1917-2008). Callister’s firm also designed the homes of villages one, two and parts of village four, ,as well as the community building complex together with the offices at 707 Campus Commons Drive.

Callister is recognized as one of the leaders of what has been described as the ‘Bay Area Style’ or the ‘Northern California Tradition’ or ‘attitude’ towards architecture of mid-20th century modernism. The ‘Bay Area Style’ was largely rendered in redwood, and featured strong indoor-outdoor relationships.

2 Callister’s works are discussed and referenced in several books and publications.

In “An Appreciation” upon Callister’s passing, Dave Weinstein wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate (May 31, 2008)

He helped define Bay Area Modernism after World War II as something that was warmer, woodsier and more romantic than comparable work in Southern California or back East. Callister's work was noted for its dramatic, almost baroque use of wooden piers and beams and wooden trim.

Proposed Demolition and Redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive – an Analysis & Critique

Planning Issues

Campus Commons (CC) is a planned community, designated as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), that pursued planning concepts of clustered housing off-set and enriched by broad open spaces. Mixed land uses and densities, carefully designed were part of these concepts. Principles incorporated by garden city and new town developers of the era and earlier prototypes, included light and air, separation of vehicular and pedestrian movement, and large landscaped areas.

The 707 Commons office building was conceived as part of the Campus Commons planning. However, along with the other commercial areas abutting Campus Commons, it appears not to have been included in the final planned unit development of Campus Commons and Campus Commons Park Corporation.

LU 2.1.2 of the Land Use Element to the City’s General Plan provides:

Protect Established Neighborhoods. The City shall preserve, protect, and enhance established neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between these 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 form that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood.

The subject proposal fails to respond to Campus Commons’ physical characteristics, open spaces, urban form and related factors contributing to the community’s character. The subject proposal’s site planning is an exercise in cramming as much structure onto the limited site within the townhouse configuration as possible. Thus, the proposed 25 units per acre is nearly double the adjacent and surrounding units of Village One, with 3 story structures, comprising 2 stories of residential over garage. This is achieved by eliminating open space and landscaping, with virtually non-existent set-backs, minimum street widths and a lack of visitor surface parking.

Without visitor parking cars will spillover onto Campus Commons streets and immediately adjacent Village One homes to the East of the site.

There is an equity issue as well. The new households in the proposed development (as well as any latter phase) will be trespassing, with likely use of 3 CC’s playground facilities, common areas, ponds, fountains, and landscaping investments that are being paid for by Campus Commons homeowners who have just incurred a significant assessment for their maintenance.

The planning proposal should consider preserving the existing structure through re-purposing it to an alternative use or retaining it as office facilities, but conveying the benefit of the residential development, in part, to the adjacent contemplated 2nd phase of the development to the northerly parcel. Thereby, a form of ‘Transferable Development Rights’ could be achieved on the northerly parcel granting it an even higher density than it would otherwise yield. In the process, the developer might consider the market for additional senior housing that the current Campus Commons community lacks yet, given its aging population, is likely to be generating a demand for.

Campus Commons is a ‘Naturally Occurring Residential Community’ (NORC).

Many CC residents may soon or already be in need of some form of alternative housing for seniors while maintaining proximity to their community and friends.

There are a variety of other re-purposing uses that could be considered by the developer and city planners including art gallery, work-living galleries, other university related uses, while deploying the new residential to the north parcel which is also held by the applicant pending future development.

Architectural Issues

The caliber of architecture proposed for redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive falls substantially short of what is needed to be complementary to the community.

This is not simply about the changes in attitudes and approaches to design that have occurred since the office building was conceived, but rather what would be appropriate if even consideration were to be given to its replacement given the community’s significant architectural context and the prominence of the location.

LU 2.4.2 of the Land Use Element provides:

Responsiveness to Context. The City shall require building design that respects and responds to the local context, including use of local materials where feasible, responsiveness to Sacramento’s climate, and consideration of cultural and historic context of Sacramento’s neighborhoods and centers.

The suspended awnings are purely decorative and accomplish little in terms of sun control. They are meaningless. A sunscreen is placed over one window while 4 the adjacent window and room are unprotected. Another wall facing into the western sun is devoid of any screening.

The insensitivity of the proposal to the community context is demonstrated by the roofline that runs in an opposed direction to adjacent rooflines and those of the existing office building. As a result it denies the horizontality that is emphasized in all of Campus Commons’ architecture and was equally reflected in the positioning and design of the 707 office building.

There are also concerning losses of heritage tree issues being cited by others that should be addressed by the City’s Arborist.

Not only does the proposal destroy significant tree-scape, instead there is an utter lack of replacement landscaping, as there is insufficient space remaining in the proposed development to allow for it. Sacramento has been considered a ‘City of Trees’. Campus Commons was planned in a manner so as to not only complement but even enhance the City’s moniker with large swaths set aside for large tree plantings and supporting landscaping. The proposal, rather, despoils the concepts of open space that characterized the development of Campus Commons in all of its prior phases.

There are architects in Northern California today who are familiar with and capable of extending the Northern California Tradition that infuses Campus Commons’ architecture. For reference, Nor-Cal leading firms such as Furneau- Hartman and ACE Architects to name but a couple, are examples of a level of quality capable of building upon the works of Callister, and later work by Dean Unger, and Dreyfus & Blackford in Campus Commons. Regionalism in architecture has been the essence of the Bay Area /Northern CA school of architecture and is still understood to be espoused by the Central Valley chapter of the A.I.A., if not as well by the City’s planners.

The instant proposal is neither reflective of such regionalism, nor respectful of it or the context of the Campus Commons community. The City’s Design Review Maps indicate that the 707 proposal lies within the Campus Commons Design Review Area. Accordingly, the City’s exercise of its design review authority is herewith requested.

Preservation Issues

Sacramento has already lost some of its most exemplary mid-century modern architecture and urban environmental design.1

In the introduction to his book, Preserving the World’s Great Cities (2001), Anthony M. Tung, (fmr. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commissioner) wrote:

“I set out to learn how different people in different places conserved their urban heritage, but I discovered instead a tragedy of history: I learned that during the 5 twentieth century not only has modern civilization destroyed much of the architectural fabric inherited from previous generations, creating a widening chasm between us and our past, but, worse, on every continent we have adopted a culture of destruction that presages further loss.”

As outlined in the Planning Issues section above, Campus Commons is an early (potentially, Sacramento’s first) Planned Unit Development incorporating planning and architectural approaches that built upon advanced urban design and development concepts that were achieving a renewed currency at the time.

As such, it is a unique historic and cultural resource worthy of protection.

Section HCR 2.1.11 of the Cultural and Historic Resources Element to the City’s General Plan, Compatibility with Historic Context requires that, “The City shall review proposed new development, alterations, and rehabilitation/remodels for compatibility with the surrounding historic context. The City shall pay special attention to the scale, massing, and relationship of proposed new development to surrounding historic resources. (RDR)

This section appears to call for two considerations: a) whether or not a proposed development is compatible with a Historic or Cultural resource, and if not, and potentially, if not rejected for those or other reasons, b) that the proposed development be adjusted to be made more compatible. Indeed, the scale, massing, and relationship of the proposed development conflicts with Callister’s adjacent architecture and that of the Campus Commons planned community.

HCR 2.1.12 of the Element states:

Contextual Features . The City shall promote the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and/or reconstruction, as appropriate, of contextual features (e.g., structures, landscapes, street lamps, signs) related to historic resources. (RDR)

The 707 office building as designed by Callister and Payne works as a piece of transitional architecture and planning, serving to link both architecturally as well as through its large landscaped and arbor filled spaces to the office/commercial phases of the larger planned community. Notably, it is not only the (likely; to be verified) first office structure in the overall planned concept, but may well be the overture to one of Sacramento’s first or early ‘office campuses’ which were just emerging on the planning and development scene nationally in the 1960s.

Along with several details and features that are indicative of the works of C. W.

Callister, the building carries wood pergolas upon concrete columns formed with imbedded wood grains. They line the front and back sides of the building. The rear pergola runs the length of the building terminating in a pyramidal canopied sitting area. It is a wonderful, restful, element punctuating the horizontality of the building, but reminiscent of works of the first generation of Northern California Regionalism (Bernard Maybeck, others). It is highly unlikely that any developer would incur the expense to include such elements in today’s buildings.

6 HCR 2.1.13 of the Plan states:

Historic Surveys and Context Statements. Where historic resource surveys may no longer be valid, or for areas that have not been surveyed, the City shall seek funding to prepare new historic context surveys. In these surveys, the potential eligibility of all properties 45 years and older for listing in National, California or Sacramento registers shall be evaluated. (RDR)

In September, 2017, the City of Sacramento released a study, “Mid-Century Modern in the City of Sacramento: Historic Context Statement and Survey Results”. Campus Commons is referenced in three places: an overview of Campus Commons together with an early concept plan (pgs. 2-27 – 2-28), Section 3.4.6 , Sacramento’s Developers of Modernism, 1940-1970, re: Moss & Moss (pg. 3-32), and SacMod’s List of Notable MCM Places in the City of Sacramento, Appendix (pg. B-14).

The study serves as a basis for identifying structures for further investigation and listing with City, State, and/or Federal historic preservation registers. The 707 Campus Commons Office building meets a threshold requirement: it is more than 45 years old.

Three additional provisions of the City’s General Plan Preservation element encourage adaptable reuse when the original use of the resource is no longer feasible (HCR 2.1.15),; discourages demolition of historic resources and that it be permitted only when the rehabilitation of the resource is not feasible (HCR

2.1.16),; and call dfor a Preservation Project Review to “evaluate prosed development projects to minimize impacts on identified historic and cultural resources”, (HCR 2.1.17)). Campus Commons is certainly such a resource as identified in the 2017 Survey cited above.

San Francisco, Marin County, Peninsula cities, and the East Bay, including Oakland and Berkeley, have substantially more significant MCM structures than Sacramento. Thus, the loss of a structure that potentially has as much associated pedigree as the 707 Commons Drive office building would be another especially unfortunate action, doing little to elevate Sacramento beyond its image as a ‘cow-town’.

Respectfully submitted,

7 Carr Kunze
835 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825

1 ca. 2015-16, the City of Sacramento approved the redevelopment of Capitol Towers, a prior redevelopment project, designed and built 1958-65. Capitol Towers was a masterwork of urban environmental design, architecture, and landscape architecture by a nationally renown team of Wurster, Bernardi, and Emmons, Architects; Lawrence Halprin, Landscape Architect, and DeMars & Reay, Planners/Architects. The original project was designed as a high density project and comprised broad treed and landscaped open spaces in the urban core. Its architecture was a quintessential expression of mid-century Nor-Cal regionalism applied to the Sacramento context. In the process, the property was listed in the California Register of Historic Resources and made eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, yet was destroyed. Other examples mount.

RE: Proposal for 707 Commons Drive Project – Number Z22-079

I have emailed before about this project. But, this email addresses specific parts of the proposal which I had not seen previously.

Let me state the bottom line first. I have very serious concerns about several aspects of the project at 707 Commons Drive. They all center around the issue that the design, landscape, density, and resulting lack of open space do not fit within the existing community as required by the City. There are other issues as well, but these are the critical ones.

1. The architectural design of the project does not fit in with the existing community.

2. The landscape design does not fit in with the existing community.

3. The density of the project does not fit in with the existing community.

4. The open space does not fit in with the existing community.

I live at 700 Commons, directly across the street from the proposed development. I attended a meeting where the developers presented their plans, and I have sent a couple of emails to you already addressing some concerns related to traffic and design. However, as I have become aware of the “AgencyCounter” website where I can see the planning documents submitted by the developer, my concerns are more specific and tied to particular guidelines with which the proposal is not compatible. In some of the sections below, text in italics is taken directly from the proposal. 707_COMMONS DR_SUPP.PDF
Multi-Unit Dwelling Design Guidelines Submitted 10-3-2022

Page 1 ends

Part d. states “Design infill development to respect existing residential patterns and development and reinforce the character and functional relationships of existing neighborhoods.”
The developer states that “The project was designed keeping the surrounding neighborhood in mind.”
However, images submitted as part of the plan itself show that the design does not fit in with the existing neighborhood. The Plans/Drawings section, pages 2 and 3 show the existing residential and commercial buildings with moderate to large setbacks from the street, significant numbers of trees, and buildings that are pleasant and harmonious with the environment. When one looks at these pictures and then looks at the design on page 1 of this section, the new design definitely does not meet the design guidelines.

Developing this further, images on page 3, numbers 10 and 11 show the residential areas across the street from 707. These are typical of the condos in Campus Commons, in terms of style, color, setback, and landscaping. The proposed condos shown on page 1 are clearly not in character with the existing structures. In fact, the differences are jarring.

Page 2 ends

Visitor parking is not addressed. The developers only note that they have provided 2- car garages for each unit. Also, given the sizes of the units, there will likely be more than 2 drivers in some of the units, and there is no discussion of the need for more parking in those circumstances. At a meeting with Campus Commons homeowners, the developers said that they own the 2 buildings and parking lot next to and behind 707 Commons, and that residents and visitors could use that parking lot. That plan works for residents at the rear of the development and as long as the developers own both sites. But, ownership can change, and that doesn’t seem like a solid plan.

I addressed the issue of vehicle circulation in a previous email and the need for a 4-way stop sign. I believe the developer is in agreement with that.

Page 3 ends

Page 4 ends

Following are two sections from the document related to Landscaping. e. Landscaping compatible with building design is encouraged. Landscaping should be in scale and compatible with the project and adjacent land uses. Utilize landscaping to soften the differences between infill development and existing adjacent properties g. Provide deciduous trees around the east, west, and south sides of residences to reduce cooling loads during the summer and allow solar gain during the winter The developer makes no comments in these areas which seems to imply that they feel they comply with these requirements. Yet the designs clearly do not meet the guidelines for Landscaping or Open Space due to the density of the buildings.

There are minimal setbacks and spaces in which to grow larger trees which would provide shade and in some way compensate for the large trees that will be removed.

The developers told homeowners at a meeting that they could have put even more units in the space by city codes or guidelines. However, just because they could, doesn’t mean it fits the neighborhood or is a good idea. The developers also mentioned that they have built several similar developments in midtown. The housing density and style that may be appropriate for midtown doesn’t work everywhere in the City and is not consistent with the adjacent neighborhood in this case.

Currently, I believe the most densely populated village within Campus Commons has an average of 12 units per acre, about half that of the proposed condos. This would be a much more reasonable fit with the community and allow for adequate setbacks and landscape.

I also want to acknowledge that the landscaping cannot be the same as what currently exists due to water shortages and the need to install drought tolerant and native plants. All of the communities in Campus Commons are moving in that direction. So, when I say that the landscaping should be compatible, I don’t mean setbacks with grass. I do mean setbacks that provide open space with trees, plants and irrigation that meet the City guidelines.

Page 7 ends

Several sections here address that the style should “consider the scale and character of the adjacent neighborhood”, “transition with surrounding area”, “compatible in scale and character”, “preserve and reinforce the streetscape character.” At the same time, these sections say that the buildings should “Provide variety in the architecture to add interest and character”, “Use material textures and colors to help articulate the building design.”
These are indeed challenging guidelines where the development needs to fit in, provide transitions, be compatible with, while still having unique architectural interest, and not be repetitive.

The developer comments that they have considered the surrounding area and feel the style is compatible. However, as previously noted, the pictures tell the story of the huge style differences between the existing residential areas and the proposed condos. The proposed development looks like the design of a midtown condo was just modified and plopped down into the area rather than looking at the space and designing something to fit he environment

OTHER CONCERNS
Future Plans of the Developers.

The developer said they owned the other 2 properties and the parking lot behind 707. They said they had no current plans to change the uses of these properties. However, I noticed on page 4 in the Plans/Drawings section that a Phase Two is noted at the boundary line behind 707. This looks like maybe there are plans. It makes one wonder if they are trying to change the neighborhood by starting with a high density condo development that is not in character with the community, get it approved, and then try to expand that concept because a precedent has been set.

Studio Rooms on First Floor
The drawings of the condos show 2 front entries, one to a studio and one that goes upstairs to the main living area. There is also an interior door separating the studio from the stairway. The studio has a half bath. The garage is behind the studio with the garage door opening into the driveway behind it. I actually think this is a nice design and a very versatile space. However, I think the space also easily lends itself to a small business or Bed and Breakfast or a separate rental. I have no idea what the codes are for such uses but I wonder if such uses might be made of the first floor of the condos. Does this require a zoning permit? A use permit? Is this opening the way for future conflicts? This type of mixed use is prevalent in downtown and midtown but has not been introduced into purely residential areas. Is this an attempt to so? Any of these possible uses that would change the nature of the community and increase traffic are a concern. I know the City is trying to be creative in developing additional housing, but if this is an intention of the design, or the use could change without notice to the neighbors, I think it should be noted by the City and the developers.

SUMMARY
The proposal is deficient in addressing the City guidelines for compatibility with the existing neighborhood in terms of style, landscaping, setback, open space, and density. It may or may not be possible to save the existing building. I know nothing of that. And new construction or remodeling may damage and require removal of existing trees. I understand that. I believe the current building needs some renovations and perhaps replacement with office or residential space, so we are likely facing some changes to the neighborhood. However, this is not the proposal that would make progress yet keep the nature of the neighborhood.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the process.

Kathy Styc
700 Commons Drive
(916) 484-0881 or (916) 715-7668

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kathie Vaughn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 11:15 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Fwd: 707 development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kathie Vaughn <[email protected]>
Date: December 4, 2022 at 8:33:02 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 707 development

I live on Commons Drive directly across the street from 707 Commons. I want to be on record opposing the development planned for this location.

Currently the buil
ding at 707 Commons fits well with its Campus Commons neighbors, with its natural materials built on a slope set back from the street and nestled among beautiful trees.

What is planned is a dense 25 residences on one acre, built with no setback from the street on a leveled site that e
liminates the majority of beautiful trees. The design will look like mid‐town townhouses lining the sidewalk with no attempt to integrate the design and ambiance aesthetics of its neighborhood.

This will be a long‐term (3‐5 years) development which will be a noisy, disruptive, traffic contesting construction project that will disturb
and devalue my personal property. And the end product will be an unattractive eyesore corner complex that will devalue all of its surrounding homes.

As your constituent, I am requesting that serious reconsideration be given to not allowing this ill conceived project to proceed. Public hearings sho
uld be held and impacts on traffic and property
values should be assessed.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Katherine Vaughn
702 Commons Drive
Sacramento CA 95825
916‐832‐4431

Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Nicole James <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 6:25 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive Proposed Demolition and Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Dahla,

I am a concerned resident of Campus Commons regarding this proposed ‘Redevelopment Project’.

I am in total agreement with Carl Kunze in‐depth report on the building history as it enjoys a prominent corner in our community.

Campus Commons has always drawn residents who appreciate the great lengths the architects and landscapers have gone
to in offering homes which honor the landscaping and have taken into consideration our wonderful aboral surroundings we all enjoy. The design and placement of our homes offer a quiet elegance,pleasing to the eye. Many people have waited years to be residents of this Bay Area Modernism comm unity.

The low unassuming rooflines,the connectedness of green spaces and walkways make our Community a hallmark of the connectedness of our neighborhoods and our neighbors as well.

The proposed 707 Campus Commons Drive PROJECT with a two foot easement, three story ‘tickey‐tacky, and they all look just the same’ approach is better off in
another setting where concrete is appreciated.

The sellers have their hearts set on getting the most for their investment with so many apartments on one acre, with no regard or appreciation for this community or nature. The project is an eyesore and an insult to good judg ement and
taste.

Surely good judgement is yours and you will not allow this PROJECT to move forward with appreciation for your achievement and success in your chosen field.

Thank you for allowing us to give voice to the voiceless,707 Commons Drive.

Regards,

A Campus Commons Homeowner

Trees for Sacramento
[email protected]

December 7, 2022
To: Zach Dahla, City of Sacramento Planning, via email
Re: Comment on: Contemporary Commons, 707 Commons, Z22 -079 Dear Mr. Dahla

Trees for Sacramento is a citizen advocacy group concerned about destruction of healthy trees in our region because these trees serve the public good , and protect the neighborhood from heat. In the case of Campus Commons, the tree canopy is an integral part of the community design and the aesthetic of the community.

We are also concerned about a planning process that puts tree removal permits last and deprives the public of the ability to review and comment knowledgeably on tree removal permits prior to project approval. The application for tree removal permit, with associated tree replacement plan, is not available for review on the City's web site. The Director should not consider approving this proposal until the public has had adequate opportunity to review the tree removal permit application and tree replacement plan.

In this case, the developer would remove an office building and associated 26 private trees on a one acre parcel and build 25 residential units. The proposal makes no attempt to respect the City's General Plan and other policies (such as Multi Unit Design Standards) to maintain tree canopy. Nor is the project consistent with the General Plan. We also point to General Plan policies LU 2.1.2 and 2.4.2, with which the project seems to conflic t:

LU 2.1.2 of the Land Use Element to the City’s General Plan provides:

2 • Protect Established Neighborhoods. The City shall preserve, protect, and enhance established neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between these 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 form that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood.

LU 2.4.2 of the Land Use Element provides:
• Responsiveness to Context. The City shall require building design that respects and responds to the local context, including use of local materials where feasible, responsiveness to Sacramento’s climate, and consideration of cultural and historic context of Sacramento’s neighborhoods and centers.

The arborist report notes that no City (public) trees are found a t this site.

However the existing trees were established under a Planned Unit Development which typically mandate certain standards for landscaping and these function as public trees. No mention of the PUD guidelines is made and we are unable to find them on the City's web site. A request to staff to obtain these PUD guidelines has not been acknowledged. We believe that the project should be compared with the PUD guidelines for Campus Commons to determine consistency. We request a copy of the guidelines for 707 Commons when these trees were planted so that we can evaluate the project against these guidelines.

The developer's arborist report establishes that the trees on site are largely healthy and have been well maintained. There is a huge coast redwood that the arborist estimated to be 90 -inches in diameter because their measuring tape only went up to 76 inches. The trees grow very large in this area because of the silt loam soils and being so close to the American River. This proposed project should provide space for large canopy shade trees due to the excellent growing conditions.

Please keep us informed by email of any scheduled public meetings on this project, and any opportunities to meet with the Director prior to his/her decision.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

You may communicate with us at [email protected] and at the individual emails below.

3 Sincerely,

Kate Riley Dan Pskowski
[email protected] [email protected]

Luree Stetson Jude Lamare
[email protected] [email protected]

Francesca Reitano Karen Jacquest
[email protected] [email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Willa Le <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 5:43 PM
To: Eric Guerra; Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project Z22-079
To Mr. Dahla and Mr. Guerra,

My name is Willa Le, and I have been a resident of Sacramento's wonderfully beautiful Campus Commons community for the past 15 years. It has been brought to my attention that a new townhouse structure is being planned for 707 Commons Drive (project Z22‐079). While new reside nts in the neighborhood are more than welcome, the project brings some concerns. Besides the aesthetics issue that I am more than sure has been voiced to both of you by my neighbors, there is a tremendous safety issue to consider.

Have either of you resided in or walked through Campus Commons? If not, please come visit us and be immediately amazed by our greenery and clean, safe sidewalks. Wave high to everyone walking, jogging, and exercising their dogs. Notice the theme? Campus Commons allows for everyone to safely enjoy the Sacramento outdoors. The proposal for project Z22‐079 would gre atly hinder this privilege by forcing visitors to park on the street due to a lack of visitor parking, and it would bring increased traffic into our quiet, peaceful community. Walkers, joggers, families, grandparents, children, and others who create Campus Commons' diverse communal fabric would all be put in harm's way.

I have no doub
t that both of you are reasonable voices for the safety of Sacramento's citizens, so please do your utmost to be reasonable in preventing project Z22‐079 from happening.

Thank you for your care in helping our wonderful city,

Willa Le
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Sandi Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2022 2:25 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project Number Z22-079 Concerns
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Zach Dahla,

I currently live in Campus Commons. After looking at the the developer’s plans for 707 Commons Drive, I have some concerns! The plans are to build 25 3‐story, large townhomes that are placed 3 feet from the sidewalk with little to no green space or trees. This architecture does not keep with the character of our existing Campus Commons neighborhood!

I have five main concerns. I am concerned and object to the removal of of the existing healthy mature trees on the property. I am also concerned and object to the density of 25 3‐story buildings on the prop erty. I would like to see the
buildings set back away from the street, more green space and tree canopy. I am concerned and object that the project does not conform to the Campus Commons neighborhood. I am also concerned and object the increased traffic these plans would cause through the nei ghborhood that would affect driving and walking safety. I am also concerned and object to the lack of visitor parking.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Sandi Turner
432 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 801‐4788
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Sandra Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2022 9:46 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: 707 Commons Drive
Attachments: 707 Commons Dr Offices.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Mr. Dahla:

Many residents of Campus Commons are addressing the #707# Issue, and I particularly reference Carr Kunze. I support his thinking and will not repeat the defense he presents.

However, I would like to add that supporting the idea to provide more housing is not accomplished by destroying something that enhances the whole co
mmunity.

Sandra Hoover
618 Hartnell Place

Sent from my iPad
1 Zachary Dahla
From: STEPHEN BRAND <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 11:44 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: project number z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Zach,

I live at 128 Hartnell Place in Campus Commons and it is distressing to see this proposed project for 707 Commons Drive. It is totally out of character for the neighborhood. Does the city have a preliminary recommendation for the project and do you know the likelihood of it being approved by the City. Please advise.

Thanks,
Steve
Stephen Brand
128 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, Ca 95825
Attorney State Bar #50176
916-804-0622
[email protected]

This e-mail is confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person. To do so could violate State and Federal privacy laws. Thank you for your cooperation.

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Sally Mastos <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2022 9:21 AM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Re:222-079 Development Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good morning, Gentlemen..

I am a resident owner of a condo located at 834 Commons Dr., Sacramento 95825.

After reviewing plans for the above referenced proposed development, I find it incompatible with the character of the long existing Campus Commons development.

The builder proposes to remove all existing trees and replace with cookie cutter blocks of 3 stor y homes more suited in
character to Downtown/Midtown.

There are no allowances for green space or canopy trees. There appears to be no plan for visitor parking.

I vote no for this particular plan and would suggest that the developer tone down its rhetoric about “you a ccept this plan
or low income housing,” which has been the scare tactic while explaining plans to Campus Commons residents .

Many thanks for your attention to this matter and Happy Holidays.

Sally Mastos
(916) 293‐1336
834 Commons Dr.

Sacramento
Sent from my iPhone
Robert W . Jarvis

1208 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 972-1793
E-mail: [email protected]

December 22, 2022

Mr. Zackary Dahla
Planning Director
City of Sacramento
300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811

Re: New Residential Construction Project
707 Commons Drive - Z22-079

Dear Mr. Dahla:

This letter is to comment on a major construction project which is in the final planning approval stages for 707 Commons Drive, Project No. Z22-079

My wife and I reside in Village V in Campus Commons at the above address.

Additionally, I am the president of the Village V Homeowners Association, which consists of 42 single story homes. I am conveying both my personal views and those of vaious residents in Village V with whom I have spoken.

The property in question, which is located on the Northeast corner of the intersection of Campus Commons Drive and Commons Drive, is currently developed with an office building which is well set back from Commons Drive and is partially masked by mature trees.

The property developer proposes to cut down the trees, demolish the building and construct 25 condominiums on the 1.09 acre site. The condominiums will be contained in 3 triplexes and 4 fourplexes. The buildings will each be three stories high.

There have been several recent meetings by several of the Villages and the Park Corporation Board to discuss concerns about this project. While most attendees have expressed general opposition to the proposal, there have been some in favor of it.

While the concerns raised widely ranging issues such as increased traffic, the removal of mature trees, potential use by the residents of the development of the Campus Commons facilities and security, by far the most troubling concern to many was that the proposed condominiums severely clashed with the existing ambiance and architectural design of Campus Commons. There was specific concern over the height of the buildings, the limited setback from the street, the density of the structures in relationship to the size of the land, the destruction and non-replacement of the tree canopy and related issues.

There will be only a limited set back from the sidewalk and there does not appear to be any plans or room for trees. The side walk will abut the street and there will be no planting strip between the street and the sidewalk as there is in much of Campus Commons

As above noted, the project is at the intersection of Campus Commons Drive and Commons Drive. It also is at the corner where Hartnell Place begins and where the driveway into the Clubhouse begins. In other words, it is located at the junction of four roadways. There are no present plans for putting in a traffic control device such as a four way stop. The placement of the project closer to the street will further block the view of motorists approaching the intersection.

It appears that the sole active access to the parking garages of the project will be from Commons Drive utilizing a common driveway with the one which services Village 2. At present, there is little traffic impact on Commons Drive from the office building as its occupants utilize a parking lot behind the building with access on University.

Nor does it appear that there are plans for visitors parking on the project grounds which will increase the parking on Commons Drive.

Even those in favor have expressed concern about access, visual blockage of the intersection and the destruction and non-replacement of the trees. They have suggested that the corner building be reduced in height to improve motorists’ vision, that additional access to the garage area of the project be provided from Campus Commons Drive, and that provision be made for replacement of the trees along Commons Drive. Lastly, they have strongly suggested that the intersection be made a four-way stop,

We request that you consider these concerns and particularly the project’s incompatability with the existing neighborhood when you are reviewing this project.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Jarvis

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Peter Rooney <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 12:21 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Objection to Development Plans for 707 Commons Dr. Sacramento 95825 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Gentlemen,

As a resident living on Commons Drive, I must raise my concerns with the proposed project located at 707 Commons Drive. The current building sits far back on the property and is secluded in large mature trees. Thus the visual and privacy impacts on the homes in the area are minimal.

The proposed drawin
gs paint a completely different vision for our neighborhood. The massing of three story structures very near the sidewalks and the removal of the mature trees brings a total change to the ambiance of the immediate neighborhood.

Please reject this vision and request the developer to come back wit h a scaled down project.

While additional housing in the area is appropriate, it should be consistent with the existing neighborhood

Just as the current office building is part of the original Campus Commons Planed Unit Development, so too please require this new project to compliment the spirit of the original plan. Reasonable set backs, reduced massing and
incorporation of effective shade trees should be salient features of a new addition to our neighborhood.

Sincerely,

Peter M. Rooney
1102 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: phil cabe-law.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 10:23 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra; [email protected]
Subject: Project Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
The building and grounds at 707 Commons most strongly suits its location as an entryway to much of our community. The proposal does not fit, at all.

Phillip Cabe
Cabe Law
260 Hartnell Place
Sacramento CA 95825
916-214-3155
[email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: KERRY O'HARA <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2022 9:57 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Concerns about development application Z22-079 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Zach Dahla and Eric Guerra

I write to express concern with the plan for development Z22-079, which seeks to replace the 707 Commons Drive office building with 25 3 story large townhomes placed close to the sidewalk and includes plans to remove private protected trees. I am concerned that this proposal does not conform to the existing uses of the Campus Commons neighborhood, where homes are set back from the sidewalk and the large tree canopy. I am concerned about the density - this will increase traffic and congestion in the neighborhood, and make walking in the area less safe. It also does not reflect the current density of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The plan does not have plans for visitor parking, which will also increase parking along existing neighborhood streets. Any development must provide its own parking spaces for guests, not encroach on already limited parking in the area.

As you consider this plan, please consider these concerns. I understand that potential need for housing - but it need not be at this density and should respect the existing uses, and the landscaping that has been in this community for decades. I do not think that this plan conforms to the City Plan. And in this time of climate change, removal of protected trees should not be permitted.

I appreciate your consideration of these concerns.

Kerry O'Hara
558 Hartnell PLace
Sacramento, CA 95825
A city resident and voter
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kim Fuller <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 3:53 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Please stop project 222-079 from going forward as planned Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla and Mr. Guerra,
I live in beautiful Campus Commons and love our green space, thoughtful architecture and small town feel in the middle of growing Sacramento. Like many of my neighbors, I am very disturbed by the planned development at 707 Commons Drive, which is not at all in keeping with our communi ty. The developer is proposing to cut down mature trees and to build 25 3 story townhomes placed a few feet from the sidewalk. This will ruin the feel of the community, depress our property values and become an eyesore in our lovely neighborhood.

I would love to see the development of this property with many fewer, smaller, townhomes an d with the maintenance and even addition of more trees and green space.

Thank you,
Kim Fuller
445 Hartnell Place
Sacramento CA 95825

TO: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner
[email protected]

RE: Comments on Planning Application Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive

Dear Mr. Dahla:

I write to express my concerns about the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive. I live approximately one block away at 601 Commons Drive and moved into the neighborhood about a year ago. I am not knowledgeable about the planning process or relevant regulations but would like to share my impressions from my own lived experience, listening to the developer, and reviewing the proposal.

First, the planning of this neighborhood (architecture of the buildings – mid-century modern style – and the feeling of space, especially landscaping, separating pedestrian walkways from cars, and park-like environment) are important to me and part of what attracted me to live here. The proposal to demolish a historical, mid-century modern style building and replace it with 25 homes would seem to change fundamentally a neighborhood that seems to have been thoughtfully planned.

Second, there is a matter of equity insofar as the common spaces and neighborhood facilities are concerned. The developer says that their project will “further create a sense of community” in the neighborhood but this seems implausible when the new homeowners would be using the common spaces, parks, pools, tennis courts, parking, etc that were not designed to support 25 additional homes and that they are not paying to maintain. If anything, this would lead to over- crowding, disputes, and acrimony. The developer’s plan does not address additional parking, access to parks and common spaces, etc. or provide for any new neighborhood facilities that everyone could use. Some neighbors have already started discussing adding fences and gates as the next step.

Third, the prioritization of this project over building on undeveloped land doesn’t make much sense to me. I generally support building more housing (and previously lived in San Francisco where density is really needed). Here, in this neighborhood, it doesn’t seem right to demolish a historical building that could be repurposed when there could be new neighborhoods planned on ample vacant lots nearby – including some the developer said they own. Why not build there? Or alternatively why not refurbish the current historical building?

Ultimately, (and, again, writing as someone who is not knowledgeable of the specific zoning rules or regulations) it is tough for me to understand philosophically how the Planning Department or City would consider this proposal to be an enhancement or improvement to the neighborhood. Why change the plan of a neighborhood that is a model of thoughtful design and pedestrian-friendly landscaping? I’d encourage you and your colleagues to validate the neighborhood for what it is already and encourage developers to create new neighborhoods like this one in currently vacant land. If you’ve not done so already, I’d suggest spending a bit of time walking around the neighborhood and experiencing it as it was designed.

I hope these perspectives are useful to you in the review process and thank you in advance for taking these concerns into account.

Sincerely,

Andrew Keating
601 Commons Drive
[email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Judith Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Proposed Campus Commons Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
December 19, 2022

Zach Dahla
Associate City Planner
City of Sacramento

Dear Mr. Dahla,

We understand that Bardis and Miry Development have applied to the City of Sacramento to demolish the office building at 707 Commons Drive, remove the trees and level the hill in order to build twenty five three‐ story attached townhomes bordered on three sides by Campus Commons homes.

As a Planned Unit Development, care has been taken over the years to incorporate buildings into the design of Campus Commons. The proposed project greatly concerns us for a number of reasons.

1. The proposed project situates townhomes almost directly on the sidewalk, thereby eli minating the greenery which is
an essential element of Campus Commons.

2. The design of the proposed townhomes does not in any way coordinate with the existing design of buildings, one in which both office buildings, homes, and other structures share a similar architecture and use the natural envi ronment as
a backdrop.

3. The density of the proposed development will increase traffic and noise in an area where traffic is already a significant problem.

We appreciate consideration of our concerns and hope that Bardis and Miry can put together a project in keeping with the design of this commu
nity.

Sincerely,

Judith Ray Jones, Ph.D.

Patrick Ray Jones, Ph.D.

100 Elmhurst Circle
Sacramento, CA 95825
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Tonae Hasik <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2022 10:10 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Cc: Tonae Hasik
Subject: Project number Z22-079 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla and Mr. Guerra,
After attending several meetings and researching the proposed project above I am writing to voice my concerns and objections to the current plan. I respectfully ask that you take into consideration the following issues.

1. The design of the building is inconsistent with the architecture of the surrounding area, spec ifically Campus Commons. The plan is for a population density far higher than the 1 home per 1.6 acres we enjoy.

2. The setback in Campus Commons is 20 feet or more, the project will be at the sidewalk.

3. The project condos will be 3 stories high, exceedi ng all structures in the neighborhood including the office buildings on University Ave.

4. There is no planned visitor parking forcing visitors and service vehicles to park on the street.

5. The entrance to the project is on a Commons Drive, a residential street rather than University Ave. This plan would
result in an addition of 50 cars entering a single driveway which does not include visitors or other vehicles.

6. Most concerning is the removal of all the trees. These majestic trees are protected and should not be removed.

7. The strip mall that is currently under construction at Fair Oaks and Howe, less than a block away, coupled with project Z22‐
079, will create extreme traffic congestion posing a safety issue for residents.

I am sure that there are other considerations that I have not included but these are some of the problems that I feel need to be addressed before the proje ct is approved. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
Jon Tonae Hasik
740 Commons Drive
Sacramento CA 95825
[email protected]
916‐7995116

Sent from Mail for Windows

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Inga Holmquist <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 8:59 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: 707 Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Sirs,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed project for 707 Commons Drive, and to share with you the general consensus, as I have heard it expressed, among my neighbors.

As drafted, the proposal would be major departure from the existing, established neighborhood. For example, setbacks for both the residences and the businesses that surround the area are generous and include trees and greenspaces throughout, while setbacks for this project are almost non- existent.

We are not opposed to housing development per se, but believe it should harmonize with the existing character of the neighborhood.

Our density (throughout greater Campus Commons, including the Villages and Nepenthe) is only 1.7 homes per acre. The proposed project, by contract, is a whopping 25 homes per acre, is devoid of open space, and depends on sacrificing every protected tree to achieve this density. This concept does not enhance, nor harmonize with the established neighborhood.

Further it appears inevitable that the proposed project will have a significant impact on traffic, parking, and safety in the area.

In addition to the removal of some 40 protected, mature trees, the proposal will essentially flatten the site, which, again, is not in harmony with the sheltering berms and rolling landscapes that characterize both the commercial and residential developments throughout our neighborhood. Mature trees are integral throughout the landscaping of the area - not just in Campus Commons but in all neighboring business parks as well. Trees like these are protected not just for their beauty, but for their environmental and economic value to a community, and we caution against their over-hasty and wholesale removal.

Based on these and other concerns, we have held community meetings, and the consensus has been to request that a full environment impact study be conducted, and we look forward to that report. We would oppose cutting corners in the project-approval process or fast-tracking any required variances and permits that would allow the project to proceed without careful analysis and consideration of its impacts on the established neighborhood.

As a community, we have nurtured and maintained the character of a quiet urban forest for some 50 years. The area is a gem that enhances values for surrounding developments and of Sacramento as a whole. It should be recognized as such and protected, and in fact, an initiative is being jump- 2 started by our group to have Campus Commons designated as a historical, protected neighborhood, and I ask for your assistance in achieving this well-earned designation.

To reiterate, we do not oppose housing development per se, but reject the idea that housing-at-all- costs outweighs the loss of a unique and valuable neighborhood's character. As proposed, the 707 Commons project neither recognizes, nor respects nor harmonizes with the established character of this neighborhood. Nor does it relieve affordable housing issues in any way, because the proposed units, though commensurate in square footage, are proposed to sell for roughly double the price of existing housing in our neighborhood. You might wonder why our residents aren't uniformly delighted to have their neighborhood go more "upscale," and consider this an enhancement - until you consider the impacts I have outlined above. It is the existing greenspace, forests, play areas, and amenities that would provide the enhanced value to the incoming units, not the other way around. Of overriding concern is also the potential that, once such a project is approved, it would open the door to more such high-density development. Our infrastructure and amenities are supported by private HOA dues, and would not long survive the foreseeable impact of overuse by such increased density in our immediate area.

I understand that a meeting with you regarding this project has been requested by of representatives from our neighborhood, and you have graciously expressed support for this idea. I would very much like to attend. Mondays are best for me, but my schedule can generally be made flexible. I would like to hear how the concerns I have outlined above may be addressed and mitigated by adjusting the proposed development to actually align with its own description of itself -- a development plan must to do better than just pay lip-service to harmonizing with and enhancing the character of neighborhood - it needs to actually do so. This one does not.

Thank you for your careful consideration of our concerns. I look forward to a congenial and productive discussion moving forward.

Inga

Inga Holmquist
1268 Vanderbilt Way
Sacramento, CA 95825
(253) 312-5314
[email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Geraldine Gelfand <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 3:40 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Dr development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
The projected development at this site will be a detriment to an existing neighborhood. Campus Commons is a unique urban forest that offers a distinct lifestyle. The damage that this development will cause.should not be allowed. A deep look into the consequences should be mandatory

Geraldine Gelfand
406 Elmhurst Cir
Sacramento CA 95825

Gerry
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Ralph Gaedeke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 10:30 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project 722-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Sent from my iPhone
Dear City Planner,
My name is Ralph Gaedeke living in Campus Commons for over 50 years. Both my wife and I (both 81 years old) strongly object to the proposed developer plans to replace the 707 Commons Drive office building with Project 222/079. The issues of particular concern to us include the driving and walking safety due to removal of important sightings from Campus Commons road (we drive and/or walk to the Safeway store in University Village), the apparent removal of trees at a time when more trees are needed to help combat our warming climate, and the in creasing traffic throughout Campus Commons that would be inevitable.

Thank you very much for your consideration of our objections to the proposed Project 222‐079. 1 Zachary Dahla
From: Emily White <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2022 2:24 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive - oppose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Zach Dahla and Eric Guerra,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the current proposed development plans for 707 Commons Drive.

Campus Commons is a well‐established, quiet, peaceful, friendly, park‐like neighborhood. People love living here because it is a hidden gem tucked away within the city. It is known for its unassu ming architecture, greenspace, and
beautiful established trees. Campus Commons was planned in the 1960s and includes approximately 1,160 single‐family attached and detached homes.

As proposed, the 707 Commons Drive project would destroy the character of our neighborhood.

Concerns

1. Project does not conform to the Campus Commons neighborhood, where homes are set back 20 or more feet from the curb with berms and a large tree canopy, and does not conform to the City Plan.

2. The development removes the important sightline from the curvy Commons Drive to Campus Commons Road, which is a concern for safety when walk
ing or driving. This intersection can already be tricky, especially during the weekday when office workers from University Ave. use Commons Dr. as a shortcut. With a new development there will be additional traffic 24 hours per day/7 days per week.

3. Wildlife (mainly squirrels, turkeys, and birds) would face addition al dangers from increased traffic.

4. There are no plans for visitor parking for the development. With 3 or 4 bedroom units, it is a safe bet that residents of the new development will be parking additional cars on the street or that their guests will be doing so. This will create addition
al hazards within the neighborhood and cause disruption for Campus Commons residents. Plans need to include adequate onsite visitor parking within the development to reduce parking on Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road.

5. Concern and object to removal of the private, protec ted trees. Plans should include adequate green space to plant canopy trees.

6. Concerns about the density and building architecture. As proposed, the architecture is incredibly close to the sidewalk and the development will bring a large influx of people into our neighborhood.

Bottom line, this type of development may be appropriate for more urban areas like midtown or downtown. As proposed, it is not a suitable fit for the Campus Commons neighborhood. I strongly oppose this development as proposed.

Thank you for your consideration.

2 Sincerely,

Emily White
175 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Dave Stanley <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2022 9:16 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good morning,
I am very concerned about the planned construction at 707 Commons Dr. Most concerning is cutting down the very mature trees. This is the City of Trees after all, and removing such trees for profit seems to go against our philosophy.

Also, the buildings look nothing like the tranquil Campus Common s homes that have been there for over fifty years. If they came close to the design of the existing neighborhood it may not seem so out of place. These buildings with their present design should not be allowed here.

No visitor parking is planned, this will clog the streets of surrounding homes and businesses, making an unsafe walking environment.

The set backs are inadequate to conform with the neighborhood also.

Please look at these concerns. The Campus Commons area is a unique neighborhood that is an asset to the City and new construction should enhance the area, not be a an eyesore.

Thank you,
David Stanley
531 Hartnell Place
Sacramen
to, Ca
95825

Sent from my iPad
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Dyan Pease <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 11:44 AM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Concerns about development application at 707 Commons Dr Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla and Mr. Guerra,

I am writing with concerns about the development application for 707 Commons Dr. I am a homeowner in the Campus Commons neighborhood. The proposed development by Bardis and Miry Development gives me several concerns. First, the street setbacks are too small. To fit in with the neighborhood the setbacks need to be mu ch larger and accommodate large trees. That brings me to my next concern. The Campus Commons neighborhood is a beautiful green space with an amazing tree canopy. When I purchased my home three years ago, part of what I paid for is the amazing green space. The current building at 707 Commons fits in with the neighborhood. The im ages from the developer for the
new development do not at all fit in. The proposed housing looks like it belongs in midtown. Next, the developer is planning to remove trees that are protected (or should be). The den se design of the new housing does not give space for green. Do we need more housing? Of course! Does it need to be ugly and not match or fit in? NO!

According to my research, the proposed project does not conform to the City plan nor to the Campus Commons neighborhood, where homes are set bac
k 20 or more feet with berms and a large tree canopy.

Finally, the plans have no visitor parking and thus our quality of life will be impacted by increased congestion.

I urge you to deny this proposal as it is. Please support th e beauty of Campus Commons by only approving a
development that is actually planned with the existing residents in consideration. Keep the green space and tree canopy and approve designs that are attractive and fit in with the neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Dyan Pease
Mike Pease

118 Hartnell PL
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 479‐5024
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2022 2:13 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive Project Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla:

My name is David Norene. I have lived in Campus Commons Village One for 42 years in the same home. I am writing to express my concerns and opposition to the planned razing of the building at 707 Commons Drive and the subsequent construction of 25 densely packed condos on this one acre plot. All of the existing mature trees will be cut down. Those of us who live in Campus Commons enjoy the park-like nature of our community. We pay a lot of money to own, enjoy, and protect this experience. This new development will convert my community into something we have worked very hard to prevent.

I agree with all of the comments already submitted to you by my neighbor Carr Kunz. There are a number of issues with this planned development that are not compatible with my community and will, in fact, contribute to the degradation of the environment that we have worked hard to keep and protect. This new densely-built development has no plans for green space, no space for visitor parking, no setbacks, no plans for tree canopy, and no plans to integrate this property into the existing community. However, the park-like aspects that this development lacks will be available across the street on my private property. I expect that the residents of this new development will assume that my private land is their community park; my playground, my swimming facility, my tennis courts, my private walkways will be subject to invasion. I live here, I pay for maintenance, I take care of my property. What incentive will the new residents have if they get it all for free? How will these new residents be restricted from using the amenities I pay for? The density of this project is not compatible with the architecture and land use of the surrounding area. In turn, I believe this project is not compatible with the existing goals and mission of the planning department of the City of Sacramento.

I request that you deny permission for this planned project. If you have any questions, please contact me.

Thank you for your consideration.

David L Norene MD
437 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-920-3046
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Daniel Bui Le <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 5:33 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079
To Mr. Dahla and Mr. Guerra,

My name is Daniel B. Le, and I have been a resident of Sacramento's wonderfully beautiful Campus Commons community for the past 15 years. It has been brought to my attention that a new townhouse structure is being planned for 707 Commons Drive (project Z22‐079). While new residents in the neighborhood are more than welcome, the project brings some concerns. Besides the aesthetics issue that I am more than sure has been voiced to both of you by my neighbors, there is a tremendous safety issue to consider.

Have either of you resided in or walked through Campus Commons? If not, please come visit us and be immediately amazed by our greenery and clean, safe sidewalks. Wave high to everyone walking, jogging, and exercising their dogs. Notice the theme? Campus Commons allows for everyone to safely enjoy the Sacramento outdoors. The proposal for project Z22‐079 would greatly hinder this privilege by forcing visitors to park on the street due to a lack of visitor parking, and it would bring increased traffic into our quiet, peaceful community. Walkers, joggers, families, grandparents, children, and others who create Campus Commons' diverse communal fabric would all be put in harm's way.

I have no doub
t that both of you are reasonable voices for the safety of Sacramento's citizens, so please do your utmost to be reasonable in preventing project Z22‐079 from happening.

Thank you for your care in helping our wonderful city,

Daniel B. Le
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Bell/Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2022 2:57 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: 707 Commons Drive - Project Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I'm writing regarding the project to replace 707 Commons Drive office building at the corner of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road with residential townhomes. The developer plans to build a development with much higher density than the existing residential neighborhood. This density is more appropriate for downtown or midtown Sacramento and not Campus Commons. I would like to see street setbacks, green space, tree canopy, and architecture more in line with the existing Campus Commons neighborhood.

My concerns include the following:
 Removal of the existing mature tree canopy. The developer's plans should include adequate green space to plant replacement canopy trees.
 Density and architecture of the proposed buildings, i.e.25 3-story units placed very close to the sidewalk.
 Developer's project does not conform to the existing Campus Commons neighborhood (homes set back 20 or more feet from the curb with berms and a large tree canopy) and to the City Plan.
 The development has no plans for visitor parking. The developer must include adequate onsite visitor parking within the development to reducing parking Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road.

Before approving any plan please require changes so that this project fits in with the existing neighborhood and doesn't look like an eyesore in the Campus Commons.

Thank you,

Herb & Joy Cohen
Campus Commons residents

Sacramento City Planner
Zack Dahla
Re: Plans for 707 Commons Dr.

Project Z22-079

Dear Sir,
I am contacting you regarding plans for 707
Commons Dr.

As a longtime property owner and resident
of Campus Commons , I am very concerned
about the plans for crowding in 25 ,three and
four bedroom townhomes at the corner of
Commons Dr. and Campus Commons Rd. As
well as the removal of beautiful full grown
trees that complement the area; with no
plans to replace them.

Campus Commons is known for its open
spaces, tree canopies and distinctive
architecture , which we currently enjoy.

The current design has no plans for visitor
parking which will cause congestion in a
quiet neighborhood as well as increased
traffic on Commons Dr , an already busy
street..

The lack of trees, very little set back, and
architecture that does not conform to the
established neighborhood, to say nothing of
the increased traffic and onstreet parking are
all good reasons to rethink this project.

It does not fit into our neighborhood!
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Charla King
521 Hartnell Place

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 1 of 21 Date: December 19, 2022
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 Dear Mr. Dahla:

We are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed development to demolish the existing office building at 707 Commons Drive and to replace it with a new 25-townhome development. Our family has resided in the Campus Commons neighborhood for nearly 25 years, currently owning 3 Campus Commons homes. The 707 Commons Drive property is surrounded on 3 sides by the Campus Commons neighborhood, so this development’s design characteristics, scale, and lack of adequate building setbacks and green space will impact our existing neighborhood.

We support:
• Carr Kunze’s letter to you dated December 3, 2022 citing the historical significance of the existing office building and the Campus Commons community, with the recommended preservation of the existing, historic office building.
o Much of the Campus Commons neighborhood was designed by the highly-regarded architect, Charles Warren Callister. Mr. Callister also designed the existing 707 Commons office building planned for demolition. First and foremost, we would like the existing office building to be preserved via a historic preservation. The building could be retrofitted for more economically-profitable use by the developer, such medical office use. This preservation would also retain the private, protected trees that are planned for removal.

If the historic preservation of the existing office building is not approved, we support/request the following:
• Trees for Sacramento letter sent to you on December 7, 2022 citing the preservation of trees and the need for canopy-sized trees in this proposed, new development. • Revisions to the proposed, new development plans. Our comments and requests regarding these development plans are described below in the 7 numbered comments.

1. The building setbacks and grading should be similar to the adjacent homes in the Campus Commons neighborhood.

• The development’s planned setbacks and grading in the proposed plan, are not in keeping with the existing, established neighborhood. The setbacks and grading will look out of place in the context of the Campus Commons neighborhood.
• The minimal building setbacks will diminish the traffic sightlines at the corner of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. Accidents may occur due to the diminished sightlines and increased traffic caused by the new development.

Document CDD-0063 (Planning Entitlement Application) - Project Narrative:

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 2 of 21 “We are proposing to demolish the existing building, re-grade the site to be more level with the surrounding homes and structures, and build a total of 25 units spread between three (3) 3-plex buildings and four (4) 4-plex buildings.”
• The developer’s comment about grading is not accurate. The surrounding Campus Commons residences (on 3 sides) are located on berms elevated from the street level. From both the University Ave and Campus Commons Road sides, the 350 University Ave office building (located behind the property) is also on a berm. Even the 350 University Ave parking lot is slightly elevated from the street level. The development’s proposed leveling of the property grade to street level will not be consistent with the grading and elevation of the surrounding, existing homes and structures.

Document CDD-0063 (Planning Entitlement Application) - Building Setback from Property Lines:
• The developer states that 803 Commons is one of the two nearest adjacent buildings. This address is not accurate. 803 Commons is located farther down the block and is not adjacent to 707 Commons Drive. It appears that 803 Commons Drive was entered by the developer since it has one of the smallest setbacks (5 feet) on Commons Drive. The setback distance of 5 feet entered is from the sidewalk, not the street. It also appears that the setback distance may be to the fence, rather than to the building. The setback distance entered should be from the street to the building. The new development setback should be in keeping with the actual, adjacent buildings’ setbacks.
• 803 Commons Drive is a single-story home, whereas the planned townhomes are a full 3 stories.

The scale of 3-story townhomes, located only a few feet from the street, will appear massive and out of place with the existing neighborhood.
• The nearest adjacent building on the same side of the block is 739 Commons Drive which has a much larger building setback than 803 Commons Drive.
• The proposed front setback states “10’ internal & 0’ external frontage”. Artist drawings do not show a building or fence at 0 feet. Is a fence proposed at 0 feet in the same manner as the developer’s 1234 U Street development?
• The setback for the 350 University Ave building is stated as 10 feet, but appears to be farther than 10 feet.

See below images:

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 3 of 21

Image showing setbacks and berms of adjacent
homes across street on Campus Commons Road.

Image showing setbacks and berms of adjacent
single story homes across street on Commons
Drive.

Two images showing setback immediately next to
707 Commons Drive. This is the 739 Commons
Drive row of homes located on the other side of
the shared driveway

(Another view of 739 Commons Drive)

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 4 of 21

Two images showing setback at developer’s 1234 U Street development.

In a community meeting, the developers stated that the new development will look similar to their 1234 U Street
development, except new development townhomes will be
attached, rather than separated.

This type of setback distance is in
keeping with the downtown and
midtown neighborhoods, not the
Campus Commons neighborhood.

Additional supporting information to this Item #1 comment is provided in the attached Appendix.

2. The development should retain the existing private, protected trees. If some private, protected trees must be removed, the development should provide adequate green space to plant new canopy-sized trees. In particular, the plans should include canopy-sized trees in front of the townhomes along the street face in keeping with the Campus Commons neighborhood. The removal of the existing Commons Drive planting strip should not be approved by the city. The planting strip should be extended around the corner onto Campus Commons Road.

• The developers plan to remove all 26 trees on the property, including the 11 large private, protected trees that are characteristic of the Campus Commons neighborhood. • The developer’s artist drawings depict the removal of the existing Commons Drive planting strip (between the sidewalk and the street) located in front of 707 Commons Drive. Large trees consistent with the existing row of Commons Drive trees in front of homes, should continue in front of the new development. If the townhomes are located too close to the existing planting strip, it will not be possible to plant the necessary, like-size and variety trees. The existing planting strip in front of 707 Commons Drive should not be removed. The planting strip should be extended around the corner onto Campus Commons Road continuing to far end of the property where it meets the 350 University Ave property. This retainment and extension of the existing planting strip will provide space for trees to shade and screen the new townhomes. Removing the existing planting strip is not in keeping with the current neighborhood.

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 5 of 21 • This comment is further supported by Trees for Sacramento’s letter to the city planning department, dated December 7, 2022.

See below images:

Two images showing the large trees in front of the
existing 707 Commons Drive office building.

Artist drawing showing the removal of the existing 707 Commons Drive planting strip (along Commons Drive).

We request retaining the existing planting strip on Commons Drive. and to extend the planting strip around the corner onto Campus Commons Road continuing to far end of the property where it meets the 350 University Ave property. This extension of the existing planting strip will help to shade and screen the new townhomes.

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 6 of 21

Wide-angle image showing corner of Common Drive and Campus Commons Road. (Image was provided in the developer’s submitted plan document.)

The parked cars in this image obscure the planting strip which extends across the majority of the Commons Drive street face in front of 707 Commons Drive. The planting strip begins at the front walkway to building. (where front white car is located in this image). This wide-angle image distorts property proportions.

Image showing planting strip extending to
walkway up to building. Planting strip does not
continue past the walkway to the corner of
Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road.

(View of planting strip looking towards 739
Commons Drive)

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 7 of 21

Image showing planting strip and trees
immediately next to 707 Commons Drive. This is
the 739 Commons Drive row of homes located on
the other side of the shared driveway.

Image showing planting strip and trees in front of
adjacent single story homes across street on
Commons Drive.

Additional supporting information to this Item #2 comment is provided in the attached Appendix.

3. The townhomes should be in the style and scale of existing neighborhood.

• The development as proposed, is not in the style and scale of the existing, established neighborhood.
• This comment is further supported by the Carr Kunze’s letter to the city planning department, dated December 3, 2022.
• The development plans do not include artist drawings showing the scale of the new townhomes in the context of the adjacent 1 and 2 stories homes. We request that the developers include these drawings, as required by the “Streetscape Drawings” item listed in Document CDD-0063 (Planning Entitlement Application).
• 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 in their design plans, but are seeking a “slight urban feel” to the development. Campus Commons is not an urban feel neighborhood. o https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2022/10/26/contemporary-commons- project-miry-bardis.html

Document CDD-0063 (Planning Entitlement Application) -Project Narrative:
“The surrounding homes range between 1-3 stories and are mostly covered in grey siding with mature trees and fencing.”

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 8 of 21 • There are no full 3-story homes in the Campus Commons neighborhood. The highest story homes are a combination of 2 and 3 stories. On the street side, these homes are 2 stories located on a berm. On the alley side, these homes include an additional bottom story containing the garage. This lower bottom garage story is not visible from the front side of the building facing the street. The Campus Commons siding colors are not grey, but are in the tan earthtone family of colors.
“Our proposed homes play homage to the existing community through the integration of dark colored siding while also updating the homes with brick, contemporary railing and awnings, and stucco.” (typos are how comments were entered on application)
• The style and scale of the proposed building architecture are not consistent with the existing community.
• The Campus Commons homes have wood siding in the tan earthtone family of colors. There is no dark color siding on Campus Commons homes, but some Campus Commons villages do have dark brown residential fences.
“We belive the replacement of an underutalized office building with new homes will further create a sense of community for the area and contribute to the overall campus commons neighbohood.” • The development as proposed, will not contribute positively to the neighborhood. It will lower adjacent property values due to the scale, lack of street setback, and lack of similar landscaping with abundant green space and large canopy-sized trees. “The site has been carefully laid out so units face the main street and existing community” • It appears that the proposed development will be capitalizing on the beautiful views from their windows and balconies overlooking Campus Commons’ green, tree-canopied community. The adjacent Campus Commons homes will be looking at a 3-story “wall” of townhomes with minimal trees or landscaping, thereby lowering these homes’ property values.

See below images:

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 9 of 21

Adjacent townhomes are a combination of 2 and 3
stories. The front of the townhomes are 2 stories
on the street side (on berm).

This style of townhome has the highest number
stories in Campus Commons. The new
development is proposing 3 stories on the street.

Image is showing same townhomes which are 3
stories only on the back alley side where the
garage is located.

Image to the left, is showing same 2 and 3 story
townhomes from the side view (on berm).

Two images showing adjacent 2-story
townhomes. This is the 739 Commons Drive row

(Another view of 739 Commons Drive)

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 10 of 21 of homes located on other side of shared
driveway.

Additional supporting information to this Item #3 comment is provided in the attached Appendix.

4. The development should include onsite visitor parking.

• There is no planned visitor parking for the development which will congest street parking. • Increased street parking will be further problematic, if the development does not plan for adequate alley space for the 75 city waste containers (for 25 townhomes) on the city waste collection day.

Without adequate alley space, the 75 containers will be placed on the street on the city waste collection day.

Additional supporting information to this Item #4 comment is provided in the attached Appendix.

5. The development should plan for adequate space in alleys for city waste containers, so they are not placed on the street on the city waste collection day (and the evening prior to collection day).

• There is no plan of where the townhome waste containers will be placed on the city waste collection day. If there is not adequate room in the alleys between the townhomes, the 75 waste containers will be placed along the street causing parking issues and potential traffic issues. Each townhome will have 3 containers – garage, organic material, and recycling. • In the community meeting, the developers said they had not thought about whether the townhome waste containers will be placed on the street or in the alleys behind the townhomes on city waste collection day. The developers should have a plan for alley access and pickup by the city waste trucks, rather than street pickup.

Additional supporting information to this Item #5 comment is provided in the attached Appendix.

6. HVAC units are planned to be located at the front of the townhomes facing the street. The HVAC units should be placed behind the townhomes away from street view. If street side placement is allowed by the city, the HVAC units should be adequately screened for noise and from street view.

• In a community meeting, the developer said that the HVAC units will be located in the front of the townhomes in the same manner as their 1234 U Street development.

See below image:

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 11 of 21

Image is showing HVAC unit location at developer’s 1234 U Street development.

For the new development, the location of the HVAC units is also planned at front of townhomes facing the street,

Additional supporting information to this Item #6 comment is provided in the attached Appendix.

7. The city should request an alternative driveway into the new development, other than the planned, single driveway which will be constructed upon the existing shared driveway with the Campus Commons development. The city should consider requesting that primary vehicle access to the 707 Commons Drive property, continues to be from University Ave, as it is today. It appears that 350 University Ave (owned by the same developers) is planned for future development. We request that the plans for both properties be reviewed by the city at the same time.

• The sole driveway for vehicle ingress and egress to the development will be the existing driveway location that is shared by the Campus Commons development. Currently, there are only 4 office building parking spaces available from the existing driveway. The primary parking for the 707 Commons Drive office building is the 350 University Ave lot, where there is clear “707 Commons Drive” signage and a stairway to the 707 Commons office building. • It appears that the original parking plan for the existing 707 Common Drive office building was intentionally kept to a minimum from Commons Drive, as to not disrupt the residential neighborhood with a high volume of vehicle traffic.
• We question whether the existing documented, property easement provided by Campus Commons for the shared driveway use with 707 Commons Drive, allows for this planned increase of vehicles. Fifty parking spaces are currently planned for the development; this is over a 12-fold increase in the vehicle ingress and egress to the existing 4 parking spaces. Since it appears that these 4 parking spaces are rarely used, the increase will be much more significant. With residential townhomes, the driveway will now be used 7 days a week at all hours, versus the current business use which primarily occurs Monday through Friday during business hours.

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 12 of 21 • Primary vehicle access to the new development should continue from the 350 University Ave side of the property. The developer also owns 350 University Ave. The developer’s site map states “Phase Two” where 350 University Ave is located. We request that the city reviews the plans for both 707 Commons Drive and 350 University Ave together at the same time, in order to ensure that the primary access remains from University Ave and to ensure that the proper amenities are provided for a development of this combined size (707 Commons Drive + 350 University Ave). • In a community meeting, the developer stated that they have no plans for 5 years with 350 University Ave due to a current 5-year lease with an existing tenant. It appears that the developers may have future plans to develop 350 University Ave. We ask the city to keep in mind that the precedent set with 707 Commons Drive will affect further designs for any new development on University Ave. The developer also stated that a family member owns several of the existing office buildings on University Ave. Existing development on University Ave includes berms, setbacks, and large trees that contribute to the beauty and legacy of the area.

See below images:

"Phase Two" is
where the 350
University Ave
property is
located.

(We added the
red arrows to the
map pointing to
the “Phase Two”
text.)

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 13 of 21

Image is showing 707 Commons Drive office building
and address sign from the viewpoint of University Ave.

The 350 University Ave parking lot appears to be shared with the 707 Commons Drive building. Otherwise, 707
Commons Drive would only have the 4 parking spaces
which are accessed from Commons Drive.

Additional supporting information to this Item #7 comment is provided in the attached Appendix.

At the end of this letter is an appendix which contains comments related to the developer’s submitted application, the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD), and the City of Sacramento General Plan.

Thank you for your consideration.

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 14 of 21 Appendix - Supporting Information and Comments

Document CDD-0063 (Planning Entitlement Application)
Page
#
Section Item Document Text / Comments Supports
Letter
Item #
3 All Projects 8 Streetscape drawing.
- Not seeing streetscape drawings depicting how new project appears in scale next to adjacent residences.
- Will the developer put up story poles or create 3D models to show the mass and scale?
3 4 Site Plan(s)
must show
3 Sufficient adjoining areas to enable evaluation of the adjacent impacts.
- Not seeing streetscape drawings depicting how new project appears in scale next to adjacent residences.
3 6 Landscape
Plans must
show
4 Conceptual Landscape Design Plan.

A detailed planting plan.
- Not seeing canopy-sized trees along street face planned in keeping with existing neighborhood. The existing planting strip should not be removed. The planting strip should be extended around the corner onto Campus Commons Road
continuing to far end of the property where it meets the 350 University Ave property.

Grading plan.
- The grading planned for the development is not consistent with existing neighborhood.
1, 2
6 Parking Lot
Tree Shading
5 Landscape plans must include.
- No visitor parking is provided on property. There should be adequate visitor parking provided with tree shading.
2, 4
6 Streetscape
Plans must
show
1 The adjacent building massing and spatial relationships. - Not seeing adequate artist drawings depicting how new project appears in mass and space to adjacent residences. 3 12 All Projects Tech
Rpts
Noise Analysis
- Not seeing a noise analysis technical report
6 13 Site
Character-
istics
Are you proposing any parking offsite?
- The “no” answer is not accurate. The developer is
proposing offsite visitor parking on the street and is not providing any onsite visitor parking. Two garaged, parking spaces are provided for each 3 and 4 bedroom townhome.
4 13,
14 Building
Setback from
Property
Lines
There is significant change to the current setbacks. We request that the planning department requires larger building setbacks to keep the development consistent with the existing
neighborhood.

- 803 Commons is not one of the two nearest adjacent
buildings, as entered by the developer. More information 1 Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 15 of 21 about the adjacent building(s) is provided by us, under our Item #1 on Page 1 of our letter above.
14 Exterior
Materials
The existing office building appears to be more of a tan, versus a grey color. The residential building colors in Campus Commons are in tan earthtone family of colors, not the proposed white and colder grey family of colors.
- Request that the new development buildings are warmer colors in keeping with the neighborhood.
3 15 Building
Height
We have concerns regarding the accuracy of the existing building information and measurements provided, due to the above inaccuracy regarding 803 Commons Drive entered as one of the two closest buildings.
3 18 Design
Guidelines
2 This project meets all of the Design Guidelines listed in the checklist.
- We disagree, as stated in our letter and this appendix.

Document CDD-0018 (Multi-Unit Dwelling Design Guidelines):

Page
#
Section Item Document Text / Comments Supports
Letter
Item #
1 Site Design –
Site Planning
1 “Site planning should address how the various components of a development (e.g., buildings, pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, open space, etc.) relate to adjacent streets and existing development, and how the various components relate to each other within the development site to foster a cohesive, safe, and interactive environment.”

- We are not seeing how the site planning relates and fosters foster cohesiveness with the existing development.

All
1 Site Design –
Site Planning
1 a “Arrange residential buildings to provide functional public and private outdoor spaces and locate structures to create
continuity of desirable characteristics along the street face.”

- Buildings are located closer to the street than adjacent buildings, without adequate setbacks and green space for canopy-sized trees to create continuity of desirable
characteristics along the street face.
1, 2, 3
1 Site Design –
Site Planning
1 c “Encourage appropriate amenities to serve anticipated residents and active common spaces.”

- Not seeing much planned for active common spaces.

Without adequate common spaces, there are concerns by
Campus Commons homeowners that new development
residents may trespass on the Campus Commons private
property.
7 Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 16 of 21 1 Site Design –
Site Planning
1 d “Design infill development to respect existing residential patterns and development and reinforce the character and functional relationships of existing neighborhoods.”

- Not seeing that the development respects the existing residential patterns and development, or reenforces the character and functional relationships of existing
neighborhoods.

All
1 Site Design –
Site Planning
- Under the comments, the developer states “The project was designed keeping the surrounding neighborhood in mind”.

- We do not see design characteristics keeping in mind the existing neighborhood. The proposed development
duplicates the “urban feel” of the 1234 U Street
development built by the same developer.

All
1 Site Design –
Building
Orientation/
Relationship
2 b “Locate buildings to minimize potential disruption of adjacent neighborhoods/buildings.”

- The increase of traffic on the shared driveway entrance, increase of street parking, and reduced traffic sightlines will be disruptive.

All
1 Site Design –
Building
Orientation/
Relationship
2 d “If project faces on an alley, develop to enhance livability, visual quality, and safety of the alley.”

- Alleys should have adequate space for waste containers on city waste collection day.
5 2 Parking
Circulation /
Vehicle
Circulation
Parking
4 “Parking should be located at the rear or interior of the complex, where feasible.”

- No visitor parking is planned for the development. The development will should include visitor to avoid congested street parking on both Commons Drive and Campus
Commons Road.
4 2 Parking
Circulation /
Vehicle
Circulation
Parking
4 h “Minimize number and width of driveways and curb cuts.

Encourage shared driveways. Smaller driveways, curb cuts, and parking areas reduce development costs and improve
pedestrian movement and aesthetics of a site.”

- Primary vehicle access and parking to the 707 Commons Drive office building is currently from University Ave. “Phase Two” appears to include the development of 350
University Ave. We would like the city and the developer to consider the continued use of this shared driveway access from University Ave.
4, 7
3 Landscaping
Open Space /
Interior
6 b “Provide common amenities catering to all age ranges such as swimming pools and seating areas.”

7 Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 17 of 21 Common
Space
- The development is at a density that does not allow for amenities mentioned;
- Request that both the development plans for 707 Commons Drive (Phase One) and 350 University Ave (Phase Two) are reviewed and approved together, so proper open common
space and amenities are provided.
3 Landscaping
Open Space /
Interior
Common
Space
6 c “Common open spaces should be designated as a visible, accessible transition between the street and individual units.”

- Not seeing common open spaces to provide adequate
transition between street and individual units.
1, 2
3 Landscaping
Open Space /
Landscaping
7 “Landscaping should be provided within all street side setbacks, common areas, and parking lots to provide shade and create visually appealing exterior spaces.”

- Setbacks are not large enough to provide for canopy-sized shade trees and visually appealing tree screen from the street.
1, 2
3 Landscaping
Open Space /
Landscaping
7 c “Dense landscaping and/or architectural treatments should be provided to screen unattractive views and features, including storage areas, HVAC units, etc.”

- HVAC units will be placed on the street side of the
townhomes. Not seeing plans for adequate screening of
HVAC units.
6 3 Landscaping
Open Space /
Landscaping
7 e “Landscaping compatible with building design is encouraged.

Landscaping should be in scale and compatible with the project and adjacent land uses. Utilize landscaping to soften the differences between infill development and existing adjacent properties.”

- Landscaping, including trees, is not in scale and compatible with adjacent land uses, and does not soften the infill development between existing adjacent properties.
1, 2, 3
3 Landscaping
Open Space /
Landscaping
7 g “Provide deciduous trees around the east, west, and south sides of residences to reduce cooling loads during the summer and allow solar gain during the winter.”

- Not seeing required trees for shade and cooling purposes. 2 3 Landscaping
Open Space /
Landscaping
7 i “Trees should be planted in setbacks and common areas at intervals appropriate to the full spread of mature trees. Retain existing mature trees in landscape and building location plans where possible.”

- All existing trees are planned for removal. The private, protected trees should be retained in the development’s landscaping plan.
1, 2
Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 18 of 21 - Plans do not include room for full spread of mature canopy- sized trees.
3 Landscaping
Open Space /
Landscaping
7 j “Retain street trees. Consult City of Sacramento Parks and Tree Service and/or private tree services if necessary.”

- All existing trees are planned for removal. The private, protected trees should be retained in the landscaping.
2 4 Landscaping
Open Space /
Landscaping
7 l “All planting areas should be landscaped with groundcover to reduce runoff. New planting strips located between the
sidewalk and the street should be at least 6 feet wide to promote health of street trees.”

- The artist’s drawing removes the existing planting strip in front of 707 Commons Drive. The planting strip should not be removed. The planting strip should be extended around the corner onto Campus Commons Road continuing to far
end of the property where it meets the 350 University Ave property.
- Six-foot wide planting strips are not shown on plans to promote health of street trees, nor are street trees shown on plan.
2 4 Landscaping
Open Space /
Landscaping
7 m “Encourage planting of trees in planting strips between the sidewalk and street.”

- Six-foot wide planting strips are not shown on plans. The existing planting strip should not be removed.
2 4 Open Space 9 a “Organize multi-unit projects around usable common space. Site plan for each multi-unit project should address both active and passive open space uses.”

- Not seeing adequate open space consistent with existing neighborhood.
3, 7
5 Accessory
Structure
Infrastructure
/ Mechanical
/ HVAC /
Utility
Equipment
12 c “Integrate mechanical equipment into the design of projects as much as possible. If integration is not possible, screen mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment placed on
building roofs shall not be visible from street or walkways.

Provide shade trees adjacent to mechanical equipment to reduce temperature at air intakes.”

- HVAC units should not be visible from the street.
6 5 Accessory
Structure
Infrastructure
/ Mechanical
/ HVAC /
Utility
Equipment
12 d “Utility equipment should be screened by walls and/or landscaping. Combine the location of utilities and services when possible.”

- Plans do not show walls and/or landscaping to screen the HVAC units that will be located in front of townhomes
facing the street.
6 Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 19 of 21 6 Trash
Recycling
Enclosures
13 d “Views of trash storage should be minimized from public streets and be located to avoid impacting adjacent properties.”

Under the comments, the developer states “All unit shall have their own conceled trash bins”.

- There is no plan by the developer where trash bins will be placed for city collection. More information is provided by us, under our Item #5 on Page 10 of our letter above.
5 6 Fencing Walls 14 “Set back fencing on street sides to avoid a fortress effect.” 1 7 Architectural
Elements /
Architectural
Variety
16 “New multi-unit dwelling developments shall consider the scale and character of the adjacent residential neighborhood through attention to views, building scale and orientation and proximity to adjacent uses.”
1, 2, 3
7 Architectural
Elements /
Architectural
Variety
16 d “Design projects to respect privacy of surrounding uses.

Consider privacy of individual units in location of windows and balconies and design of building features.”

- Balconies and windows along street will look down onto existing homes. Adequate tree screening along the street face in the existing planting strips on Commons Drive will mitigate these privacy issues. Request the extension of planting strips onto Campus Commons Road to provide
similar privacy.
2, 3
7 Architectural
Elements /
Architectural
Variety
16 Under the comments, the developer states “The surrounding community was considered when designing these homes”.

- Not seeing in what capacity surrounding community was considered in the design plans.

All
7 Scale
Massing
Articulation
17 “Multi-unit design should develop massing and scale to best transition with surrounding scale, massing, setbacks, and articulation and maximize integration into the existing streetscape.”
1 7 Scale
Massing
Articulation
17 “Step down buildings at upper levels in areas with a relatively smaller scale character.”
1 7 Scale
Massing
Articulation
17 Under the comments, the developer states “the three story structures are in line with surrounding homes and commercial buildings.”

- There are no homes in the Campus Commons neighborhood with 3 stories on front side facing the street.
3 8 Facades
Entries
18 “The design shall consider the characteristics of the existing developments in the project area.”
All
8 Facades
Entries
18 “New infill residences should preserve and reinforce the streetscape character.”
1, 2, 3
Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 20 of 21 8 Facades
Entries
18 Under the comments, the developer states “we belive our design is new for the area but fits in well with the existing community”

Not seeing in how the design, as proposed, fits in with the existing community.
1, 2, 3

Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD):

Page
#
Section Item Document Text / Comments Supports
Letter
Item #
2 Overall
Develop-
ment Plan
2 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 the community development: land use, traffic circulation, recreation and public facilities.

All
15 Summary C The existing developments within this project have followed the schematic concepts of the original plan submitted in 1965. It is recognized that the development of a large area over a period of time will 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 should carefully consider all basic elements of community development: land use, traffic circulation, recreation, and public facilities.

All

City of Sacramento General Plan:

Page
#
Section Item Document Text / Comments Supports
Letter
Item #
2-17 Land Use and
Urban Design
LU

2.1.2 “Protect Established Neighborhoods. The City shall preserve, protect, and enhance established neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between these 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 form that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood.”
1, 2, 3
2-22 Land Use and
Urban Design
LU

2.4.2 “Responsiveness to Context. The City shall require building design that respects and responds to the local context, including use of local materials where feasible, responsiveness to 3 Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 21 of 21 Sacramento’s climate, and consideration of cultural and historic context of Sacramento’s neighborhoods and centers.”
2-
322
Environ-
mental
Resources /
Urban Forest
ER

3.1.2 “Manage and Enhance the City’s Tree Canopy. The City shall continue to plant new trees, ensure new developments have sufficient right-of-way width for tree plantings, manage and care for all publicly owned trees, and work to retain healthy trees.

The City shall monitor, evaluate and report, by community plan area and city wide, on the entire tree canopy in order to maintain and enhance trees throughout the City and to identify opportunities for new plantings.”
2 2-
322
Environ-
mental
Resources /
Urban Forest
ER

3.1.3 “Trees of Significance. The City shall require the retention of City trees and Heritage Trees by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design of development projects provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible. Where tree removal cannot be avoided, the City shall require tree
replacement or appropriate remediation.”
2 2-
323
Environ-
mental
Resources /
Urban Forest
ER

3.1.6 “Urban Heat Island Effects. The City shall 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.”
2 1
Zachary Dahla
From: Barry Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 11:49 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project Number Z22-079 Concerns
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Zach Dahla,

I currently live in Campus Commons. After looking at the the developer’s plans for 707 Commons Drive, I have some concerns! The plans are to build 25 3-story, large townhomes that are placed 3 feet from the sidewalk with little to no green space or trees. This architecture does not keep with the character of our existing Campus Commons neighborhood!

I have five main concerns. I am concerned and object to the removal of of the existing healthy mature trees on the property. I am also concerned and object to the density of 25 3- story buildings on the property. I would like to see the buildings set back away from the street, more green space and tree canopy. I am concerned and object that the project does not conform to the Campus Commons neighborhood. I am also concerned and object the increased traffic these plans would cause through the neighborhood that would affect driving and walking safety. I am also concerned and object to the lack of visitor parking.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Barry Turner
432 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 717-2047
[email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Bonnie Jacobson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2022 8:50 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons proposal
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,

I have lived in Campus Commons for many years. I am writing to express my strong concerns about the proposal for 707 Commons Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. As drafted, the proposal would be a major departure from the existing, established neighborhood. Setbacks for both the residences and businesses that surround Campus Commons are generous and include trees and greenspaces throughout the area. For over half a century, our community has diligently maintained the character of our neighborhood as a quiet urban forest. Our density for approximately 1000 homes is only 1.7 homes per acre. The developer is proposing 25 homes per acres. This does not enhance nor harmonize with the existing neighborhood. It appears that the proposed project will have a major impact on traffic, parking and safety in our neighborhood.

It includes the removal of 40 protected, mature trees and flattening the site in stark contrast to both the commercial and residential developments that surround it which have rolling landscapes, berms and mature trees. Based on these concerns, I am requesting that a full environmental impact study be conducted and I look forward to that report. I oppose cutting corners in the project approval process, including fast-tracking any variances and permits that would allow the project,so out of character with the existing neighborhood, to proceed without careful analysis and consideration of its impact on the established neighborhood. Thank you for considering these concerns.

Sincerely,
Bonnie Jacobson
2267 Swarthmore Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825

HIPPA Confidentiality Notice: This communication, including any attachments, may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate ly notify the sender by telephone or
email and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached.

1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 9:04 AM
To: Eric Guerra; Zachary Dahla
Cc: [email protected]
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Date: December 19, 2022
To: Eric Guerra, [email protected]
Zach Dahla, [email protected]
From: Robert and Susan Benedetti, [email protected]
Campus Commons Owners (613 and 264 Hartnell Place, 322 Elmhurst Circle) Re: Project Z22-079, Contemporary Commons Development, 707 Commons Drive

Campus Commons continues to be a planned unit development which was build out at different times by different developers. However, each addition or change has been in keeping with the whole. This commitment is documented in the current City Plan for the neighborhood.

The same principals should be applied as 707 Commons Drive is transitioned from office use to residential. Otherwise, the property values of those living in the rest of Campus Commons are threatened. Those who own units here purchased them attracted by the amenities of the whole as well as by those associated with their particular unit. A disregard of this reality constitutes a “taking” of current residents’ properties.

In practical terms, this means a preservation of trees; it is the forest atmosphere that makes Campus Commons distinctive and for which residents purchased their homes here. A focus on the trees and the canopies they provide requires adequate setbacks from the streets; homes should not intrude close to the sidewalks and streets. The current use of 707 Commons Drive has maintained the attention to trees and auxiliary plantings. This practice should be continued and enhanced by a redevelopment. The proposed plans move in the wrong direction by calling for the removal of trees from that area.

Secondly, Campus Commons was developed to provide residents tranquility. In turn, this necessitates a careful management of automobile traffic. Residents have come to expect safe places to walk or bike. It is critical to maintain sightlines for pedestrians and bikers particularly at intersections. In addition, off street parking should be adequate to limit the number of vehicles parked on the street and such parking should take into account visitors as well as residents.

Finally, every care should be taken to limit traffic at the site so cars do not threaten others who seek to use the right of ways. Such concerns are not adequately taken into account in the current plans for 707 Commons Drive.

Residents of Campus Commons have come to expect that the natural environment and pedestrian/ biker safety will receive the highest priority when decisions about maintenance and land use are made. They have found Campus Commons a pleasurable place to live and could welcome the extension of its residential boundaries to include 707 Commons, but only if the new units take seriously the values which have made this planned community so attractive. In fact, to the extent that the redevelopment embodies these values, members of the neighborhood can champion the units among potential buyers.

Cc: [email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: BARBARA BEDDOW <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 8:27 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Barbara Beddow
Subject: AgencyCounter: Z22-079 inquiry
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Zach,
I am Barbara Beddow and I live in the Nepenthe area of Campus Commons.

I am interested in this development, particularly the density, setback from street/sidewalk, tree removal, and building heights. Will there be sufficient off‐street parking for residents? Who is the builder’s proposed demographic? Was an EIR required? If so, done? What variances ar
e under consideration? Have there been or will there be any public meetings with respect to this development?

I am having difficulty downloading the pdf documents‐keep getting “something went wrong. Please try again” message. I operate on a Mac computer.

Thanks for any help you can give,
Barbara
Beddow
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2022 10:01 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive Proposed Development
Attachments: 707 Commons Dr Offices.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr. Dahla:

I am writing to let you know that I am a resident of Campus Commons (225 Hartnell Place) and am opposed to the above referenced development. I support the comments made in Carl Kunze's letter to you of December 3, 2022.

I particularly want to emphasize the beauty of the existing office space, th e removal of trees and the overall waste of destroying something that is still functional.

Thank you,

Ann Hodges
1 TO: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner
[email protected]

RE: Comments on Planning Application Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive

DATE: December 3, 2022

Dear Mr. Dahla:

I respectfully submit the following analysis and response re: the above- referenced Planning Application:

707 Commons Drive Office Building – Charles Warren Callister, Architect Architect’s rendering. Source: Univ. of California College of Environmental Design Archives.

Horst Ranch Venture: Campus Commons, 1965-1967

Callister is recognized as one of the leaders of what has been described as the ‘Bay Area Style’ or the ‘Northern California Tradition’ or ‘attitude’ towards architecture of mid-20
th century modernism. The ‘Bay Area Style’ was largely
rendered in redwood, and featured strong indoor-outdoor relationships.

2 Callister’s works are discussed and referenced in several books and publications.

In “An Appreciation” upon Callister’s passing, Dave Weinstein wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate (May 31, 2008)

Proposed Demolition and Redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive – an Analysis & Critique

Planning Issues

LU 2.1.2 of the Land Use Element to the City’s General Plan provides:

Without visitor parking cars will spillover onto Campus Commons streets and immediately adjacent Village One homes to the East of the site. 3 There is an equity issue as well. The new households in the proposed development (as well as any latter phase) will be trespassing, with likely use of CC’s playground facilities, common areas, ponds, fountains, and landscaping investments that are being paid for by Campus Commons homeowners who have just incurred a significant assessment for their maintenance.

The planning proposal should consider preserving the existing structure through re-purposing it to an alternative use or retaining it as office facilities, but conveying the benefit of the residential development, in part, to the adjacent contemplated 2
nd phase of the development to the northerly parcel. Thereby, a form of ‘Transferable Development Rights’ could be achieved on the northerly parcel granting it an even higher density than it would otherwise yield. In the process, the developer might consider the market for additional senior housing that the current Campus Commons community lacks yet, given its aging population, is likely to be generating a demand for.

Campus Commons is a ‘Naturally Occurring Residential Community’ (NORC).

Many CC residents may soon or already be in need of some form of alternative housing for seniors while maintaining proximity to their community and friends.

Architectural Issues

The caliber of architecture proposed for redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive falls substantially short of what is needed to be complementary to the community.

LU 2.4.2 of the Land Use Element provides:

I
The proposal’s architectural character is similar to that of the apartment buildings recently constructed in the vicinity of 65
th Street and Folsom Ave., southwest of
the University. The design is ridden with today’s so-called post-modernist clichés—a few projecting and receding planar elements with broad bands of window trim or outlines. All of this is handled in a simplistic, painterly manner. 4 The suspended awnings are purely decorative and accomplish little in terms of sun control. They are meaningless. A sunscreen is placed over one window while the adjacent window and room are unprotected. Another wall facing into the western sun is devoid of any screening.

There are also concerning losses of heritage tree issues being cited by others that should be addressed by the City’s Arborist.

Preservation Issues

Sacramento has already lost some of its most exemplary mid-century modern architecture and urban environmental design.
1 5

In the introduction to his book, Preserving the World’s Great Cities (2001), Anthony M. Tung, (fmr. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commissioner) wrote:

“I set out to learn how different people in different places conserved their urban heritage, but I discovered instead a tragedy of history: I learned that during the twentieth century not only has modern civilization destroyed much of the architectural fabric inherited from previous generations, creating a widening chasm between us and our past, but, worse, on every continent we have adopted a culture of destruction that presages further loss.”

As such, it is a unique historic and cultural resource worthy of protection.

HCR 2.1.12 of the Element states:

Contextual Features þ. The City shall promote the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and/or reconstruction, as appropriate, of contextual features (e.g., structures, landscapes, street lamps, signs) related to historic resources. (RDR)

6 Along with several details and features that are indicative of the works of C. W.

HCR 2.1.13 of the Plan states:

Apropos the City’s listing of the above cited Historic Context Statement and Survey Results, per the City’s “Historic Preservation: Special Projects” list together with Campus Commons’ and 707 Commons Drives’ delineation within the afore-referenced Campus Commons Design Review Area, it is requested that the Director of Preservation review the subject proposal for an appropriate determination and efforts to secure its preservation, including but not limited to, referring the proposal to Preservation Commission level of review of site plan and design review, per section 17.808.170 of the code.
7 San Francisco, Marin County, Peninsula cities, and the East Bay, including Oakland and Berkeley, have substantially more significant MCM structures than Sacramento. Thus, the loss of a structure that potentially has as much associated pedigree as the 707 Commons Drive office building would be another especially unfortunate action, doing little to elevate Sacramento beyond its image as a ‘cow-town’.

Respectfully submitted,

Carr Kunze
835 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Marcy Best <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 5:26 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: 707 Commons Proposed development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
I am a 32 year resident of Campus Commons and I strongly oppose the intrusion of this project into my well established neighborhood. It does not meet any of the current architectural design that has been well established and highly protected and restricted for 50 years.

There are many reasons why this project should not move forward and I am sure you have heard th em all! Ugly design, removal of established trees, traffic and street parking, use of private CC property, removal of a building that is perfectly useful and can be repurposed and outlandish prices in a city that needs affordable housing.

My suggestio
n would be for the developers to consider turning the current 707 building into independent senior housing. This could be perfect for some of the older CC residents who can no longer maintain their current home, but not loose their connections with their CC neighbors. 707 is large enough to ma ke small individual living arrangements to include dining facilities and other services. There is a need for this type of step down housing that is not a skilled nursing facility in Sacramento.

Please support our efforts to not let this project move forward. Miry and Bardis have the money and conn ections to
push their agenda! Don’t let them bully their way into my beloved neighborhood. I look forward to seeing you both tomorrow night.

Thank you. Marcy Best

1 Zachary Dahla
From: lo_shar68 <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 9:36 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: [email protected]; Eric Guerra; [email protected] Subject: Environmental, and Public Health and Safety Concerns with Development of 707 Commons Drive...

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,

My husband and I moved to Sacramento because it describes itself as an environmentally-friendly, City of Trees:

Campus Commons fit the bill. As you have received many emails and letters from my friends and neighbors regarding their concerns with this proposed development, I wanted to add mine so that you have an opportunity to consider another point of view. Although I agree with their concern about the significant safety issues and aesthetics of the proposed development, it will stick out like a sore thumb and create huge risk to the local residents and proposed buyers, that is not my primary concern. Mine is the impact on the environment; both the local, micro- climate and larger area, as well as its effect on the safety, health, and well-being of the community residents in the short- and long-term. This planned development suggests that there could up be upwards of a hundred additional motor vehicles introduced into the area; There is little to no public transportation, so each potential buyer/resident will need to own or rent a vehicle in order to get from place to place. Additionally, the developer is planning to remove the large, old trees, level the ground, and replace the existing soil, trees, and greenery with buildings and little greenery, thereby removing the natural flood control mechanisms and impediments to air pollution. The increased air pollution and flood risk not only presents an environmental problem, but also impacts the safety, health, and well-being of all the residents in the area, a greater public-health and safety concern.

Given that the City has described itself as an environmentally friendly one, I have the following questions:

What studies have been done to evaluate the environmental impact this development will have not only on the local environment, but also the larger community? Specifically,

(1) How will the city planners require the developer to mitigate the increased air pollution that will be created by the removal of the trees and greenery in conjunction with the additional motor vehicles that will be introduced into the area, and

(2) What is the city doing, given the changing climate, to require the developer to put in place flood mitigating systems, as they plan to remove large, old trees with large roots, and soil with lots of greenery that are a natural barrier or mitigating factor in preventing or controlling the impact of flooding in the area?

I look forward to hearing how to make this proposed development a safer and more environmentally-friendly one for both the local and greater community.

Sincerely,
Lorene Sarne
889 Commons Drive
Sacrament, CA 95825
916-418-4569

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: JOANNE MEDWID <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 3:20 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 commons drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
This is so unfair that this business office building will be used for residences, which adversely affect our Campus Commons community. If this property is zoned for residences, it's obviously a mistake. Stop vilifying our desire to protect our neighborhood. The new residences will inevitably encroach on the amenities that we have paid for, for the last 50 years. The property should remain as business offices.

If you insist on allowing residences, then al least you should require that it keep in step with the neighborhood. These horrible huge homes with no set backs and no amenities are an abomination. Shame on you, city planners.

Joanne Medwid

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Ed Cline <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 4:21 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project #z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Mr.Dahla

My name is Ed Cline and my wife and I moved to 744 Commons Dr. five years ago for me to recieve and recover from radiation treatment for cancer and a quiet retirement.

I am 80 years old and after a life of hard work we were able to buy a "fixer up per" in Campus Commons where we brought it up to living standards. Now I find that a developer is going to reduce my quality of life, in this settled neighborhood, to add riches to their quality life. Housing for the rich by the rich.

Is this the city that Sacra
mento has become?

Ed Cline
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Doug deVries, Mediator <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 9:42 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 707 Commons Drive Development - Objections
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

To Zach Dahla, City Planning Dept.,

As a resident of Campus Commons, I am writing to register my objections to the proposed development project at 707 Commons Drive, which would involve demolishing the existing commercial building and adding 24 proposed townhouses in its place. My objection is not to converting the property from commercial us e to residential use, nor to developers
profiting from their project, but rather to the scope and manner of the proposed redevelopment. In particular, a number of aspects of the proposed project will predictably be incompatible with and produce serious adverse impacts on the immediate surrounding neighborhood, as follows:

1. Building 24 townhouse
s on this property is in the nature of high‐density urban infill in a neighborhood that is neither high‐density nor urban in nature;

2. The project proposes to remove the existing trees on the property, while the immediate surrounding neighborhood is densely wooded with trees everywhere ;

3. In order to cram 24 proposed 3‐4 bedroom townhouses onto the property, no provision is made for any open or green space, while the immediate surrounding neighbor is characterized by, and indeed known for, its open green spaces and walking paths;

4. Likewise, in order to accomplish the proposed de nsity of housing, the project has no planned off street parking to accommodate anticipated residents of the condos or their guests, while the immediate surrounding neighborhood has amply provided onsite covered parking and restricted (permit required) guest on‐street parking;

5. The proposed color scheme of the densely pa cked townhouses is reported to be white‐dominant, while the color scheme of the immediate surrounding neighborhood is overwhelmingly earth‐toned.

In view of the foregoing, I respectfully suggest (and hereby request) that mitigating conditions be imposed by the City on this project in assessing and approving its implementation going forward, as follows:

1. The number of units be reduced from 24 to such lower number as will allow for appropriate open and green space as well as on‐site parking for anticipated residents and guests;

2. No trees be removed other than as absolutely necessary to accomplish construction and then for all trees removed a corresponding nu
mber of mature compatible trees be planted on‐site;

3. Adjoining street parking be made subject to the same restrictions and permitting requirements existing and applicable to the streets in the immediate surrounding neighborhood;

4. Require the color scheme for the unit exteriors to be compat ible with the color scheme of the immediate surrounding neighborhood.

In closing, I would like to raise another issue that I have not seen discussed in articles I have read concerning this project (although I will confess that I have not attended what I understand may have been one or more com munity meetings that may have been held). The issue relates to whether or not this project is a condominium development or planned unit development (PUD) and whether it will have a homeowners’ association (HOA). Campus Commons, the immediate 2 surrounding neighborhood, is a planned unit development with corresponding HOAs responsible for the maintenance and appearance of all common areas and acquisition of insurance for same. If, on the one hand, this project will constitute individually owned homes with no common interest, it may create another incompatibility with the immediate surrounding neighborhood that should be investiga ted and evaluated. On the other hand, if it is to be a planned condominium or unit development with an HOA, provision should be made for compatibility and coordination with the Campus Commons HOAs.

Thank you for your attention,
Doug deVries, Mediator

Judicate West
(c) 916‐768‐1116
(e) doug@dkdmedia
tion.com
https://cas5‐0‐urlprotect.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=www.dkdmediation.com&umid=e68f242a‐ 7067‐4920‐9491‐1b0777934032&auth=0c78d5381d8efeba9ba4477b3ca23a49d0ab462f‐ 85dec30bda462027134fdf8323eba4b370550b47
Statewide ‐ No Travel Charges

To schedule mediations please contact:

Angela Lamarre
(t) 800‐488‐8805
(e) [email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Brenda Nasser <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 4:48 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: RE: 707 Commons Drive Development - "Contemporary Commons" Project Z22-079 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

TO: Mr. Zach Dahla and Mr. Eric Guerra

FROM: Brenda Nasser & Edwin Cline (wife and husband)
744 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825

We are writing you today because we want you to know what an egregious mistake is being visited upon us here in our wonderful, beautiful neighborhood of Campus Commons, namely the aforementione d Project Z22‐079. If this project
were to go through as planned, our life in retirement will quite literally go down the toilet! And let me tell you why...

My husband and I moved here 5 years ago from the foothills so that we could be close to medical personn el and
hospitals, as my husband was undergoing 3 full months of radiation treatment for cancer. We chose this beautiful, peaceful parklike setting as the most perfect place in Sacramento that we could find and afford. And now, right across the street from our home, if the proposed plan is ex ecuted, we will spend our remaining days here listening to constant construction noise, in addition to a constant flow of traffic and parking on our street! And, the property at 707 Commons Dr. has some of the largest, oldest and most beautiful shade trees that act as a buffer to the eventual nois es that will surely be an obnoxious addition to our quiet and peaceful street. So many people here walk, ride bicycles, walk our dogs, visit with neighbors, etc. simply because the nature one experiences is so life‐affirming and enjoyable.

We cannot express enough how much disdain and depression we feel at this very moment that the thought of you‐‐the City of Sacramento‐‐would allow this project to advance! Please consider this decision very carefully, as the quality of so many lives are at stake.

Your humble constituents,
Brenda Nasser & Ed Cline

Sent from my Galaxy Tab® S2
1 Zachary Dahla
From: bob baskerville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 7:07 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Bardis development in Campus Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Sir, Hopefully the residents of Campus Commons will bring their concerns to city hall. Architecturely it doesn’t seem to fit with the surrounding area and the townhouses appear to be ugly and cheaply constructed. I know Bardis project on Broadway ,The Mill , is ugly, densely built and built on the cheap. Would you like it in your neighborhood? R Baskerville

Sent from my iPad
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Susan OConnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2023 8:39 PM
To: Eric Guerra; Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project #Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Mr. Guerra and Ms. Dahla:

As a condo owner in Campus Commons, I'm writing to you to object to the development of 707 Commons Drive, "Contemporary Commons" Project Z22-079. The placement of the attached townhomes is too close to the sidewalk. The project will remove all mature trees, which will greatly detract from our neighborhood. The housing will be high density and increase foot and car traffic, the latter of which already is too much. Moreover, the addition of such an eyesore to our area will detract from the beauty of our neighborhood and possibly drive down the value of our condos.

Sincerely,

Susan B. O'Connell

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Marcy Meyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2023 11:07 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707-land development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
1/7/2023

Dear Mr. Dahla

I am adamantly opposed to the Campus Commons 707‐land development as proposed. It is destructive and totally inappropriate for the area.

Sincerely,

Marcy Meyer
926 Commons Drive
Sacramento CA 95825
[email protected]
916.927.1918

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mary Darlow <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 3:39 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: 707 Commons Dr.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Gentlemen. I am writing this to express my concern regarding the proposed development at 707 Commons Dr. I have lived in Campus Commons Village 1 for 51 years and seen many changes to the area. When first developed Campus Commons was the second planned unit in California, I believe. The original design of the buildi ngs was by a famous architect. Included in the concept of the overall plan were large open spaces for lawns, shrubs and trees. In fact each home included a patio or area for planting etc. Trees became a central ingredient to the development along with landscaped open spaces. Every developer after Moss and Moss adhered to this plan as they built different Villages within Campus Commons. Even the surrounding office buildings included green space in their plans for building! As I viewed the proposed development for 707 Commons I am reminded of San Francisco and the many duplexes and hom
es in certain area of the City. Tall skinny buildings with a garage underneath and right up to the sidewalk with nothing to visually break their stark ugliness! In my humble opinion that is what the current proposed plan will look like! It does not fit in with the surrounding area at all! Those home s will stick out like ‘a sore thumb’! Another factor of course is the traffic. This is a residential area with 3 roads giving access to Howe Ave. from Fair Oaks which many people use now! So not only will it Increase the traffic to Campus Common s Rd. and Commons Dr. but to American River Dr.and Swathmore.

In my 51 years of living in Village One I have seen many changes and all of these changes be it residential or commercial have included some areas of green space and set back from the sidewalk. I do not see that in the current proposed pla
n for 707 Commons Dr. Nor do I see any way the proposed homes fit into the surrounding area.

Perhaps some modifications of the homes would make them more likely to blend in with area.

Thank you, in advance for reading this Sent from my iPad (Misspellings, erro rs, and formatting issues are the fault of the iPad, not the author)
1 Zachary Dahla
From: June Gillam <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2023 7:29 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Debbie Skalisky; Marilyn Buehler
Subject: 707 commons drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Associate Planner Dahla,

As the former owner of 700 Commons Drive, I am alarmed by aspects of the application Z22‐079. As I understand it, the neighborhood would be blighted by loss of the current open space and parking facilities, to start with my biggest concerns.

Please let me know you received this emai
l and how I may further express my issues with the plan.

Thank you kindly.

June Gillam, PhD
916‐599‐9947

Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Deneal Hooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 5:37 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Campus Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please find a message from my mother regarding the proposed development in Campus Commons.

Her name is Deana Frandsen and lives at 538 Hartnell Place. Please let me know if you need anything further. This proposed development sounds like a nightmare for the community and will destroy the environment.

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Claire Fuller <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2023 8:35 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 commons drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good morning,

I am a home owner in Campus Commons. I strongly object to the development, as currently proposed, for 707 commons drive. Please keep requirements for distance of buildings from the curb, green space, and protection of old growth trees consistent with Camous Commons.

A very concerned citizen,
Claire Fuller
114 Hartnell Place

Sent from my iPhone
Dear Mr. Dahla,

Both Sacramento and Paris have the well earned distinction as the City of Trees. Fortunately over the years Sacramento has experienced the many benefits of trees for human physical health and emotional well being.

The heritage trees including a well established healthy redwood tree at 707 Commons Drive are beautiful examples of Sacramento’s recognition of the importance of forests and trees. Within a city, these benefits are ever more important to people of all ages.

Exposure to forests and trees:
• boosts your the immune system.
• lowers blood pressure.
• reduces stress.
• improves mood.
• increases ability to focus, even in children with ADHD. • accelerates recovery from surgery or illness.
• increases energy level.
• improves sleep.
• calms and renews health and wellbeing.
• reduces outdoor temperatures.

As an Associate Planner for the City of Sacramento, I sincerely appeal to you to stop this high density project proposal.

Sincerely,

Mary Anna Tamraz, MHSA
1010 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
Email: [email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mike Shower <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 6:28 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project #Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
As contrary as it is to the revenue driven planning and development, and political interests, please consider making preservation of one the the city’s true gems a priority. Consider modifying Miry Development’s plans by reducing density, preserving natural landscape and existing setbacks.

Thank you for your consideration.

Michael Shower
Third generation Sacramento native,
Campus Commons resident/owner

Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Desiree Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 1:42 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079 - Contemporary Commons Development at 707 Commons Drive Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Zach and Councilmember Guerra –

I am writing to express my concerns about the project being planned for 707 Commons Drive, in Campus Commons. I have been a long time resident of Campus Commons and have serious concerns about several items:

The removal of all of the trees on that property. Besides being aesthetically unpleasing, it is not environmentally sound.

It is my understanding that the project does not conform to the City Plan and the Campus Commons neighborhood regarding the set back of the homes.

The density of the project will drive much more traffic to this area that is not designed to handle it. Cars will be zipping in and through the neighborhood. Many of us walk, either alone or with our dogs or children, and this is of grave concern.

The planned development has no plans for visitor parking, which means visitors will be parking on what is already a congested street for parking.

I hope you take these concerns seriously before considering this project. Along with my neighbors, we vehemently oppose this project.

Sincerely,

Desirée Wilson

"Service Above Self"

Proud member of the Rotary Club of Point West - Sacramento pointwestrotary.org

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Diana Hawkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 5:31 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project # Z22-079, (707 Commons Drive)
Attachments: Letter to the Planning Department.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good evening,
We have lived in the Campus Commons neighborhood for 4 years now. Love our neighborhood, pay high HOA dues in order to keep it nice.

We are concerned about the possibility of the new building that is proposed in our area.

Attached is a copy of a letter to your office from our Campus Commons Park Board. It shares information about our area and lists the concerns the residents here are having regarding the proposed project.

My husband and I are in agreement with the information shared in the attached letter.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter....

Diana Hawkins
112 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Anthony Galvez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 7:49 PM
To: Eric Guerra; Zachary Dahla
Cc: [email protected]; Anthony Galvez
Subject: Project #Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr. Guerra,

I just found out about a proposal on the table for some business owner to tear down 707 Commons Dr., rip out some beautifully aged trees, so they could build some high‐density housing and I am extremely pissed !!

In 2020, my wife and I settled down to buy our retirement home in Campus Commons. We chose this location for one reason, ESTABLISHED! We did not buy this home only to find out, surprise, surprise, this is not an established neighborhood. They want to build some HIGH‐DENSITY HOUSING in our neighborhood that doesn't even fit our buildings.

None of our homes have any stucco. EVERY home is wood constructed. How can some modern stucco equipped housing even supposed to match our beautifully established neighborhood. Not to mention all the cars that will fill up our neighborhood streets. We picked this neighborhood because the streets are not packed with cars!

GO FIND SOMEWHERE ELSE TO MAKE YOUR MONEY WITH HIGH‐DENSITY HOUSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Guerra, please do not allow this project to move forward.

Anthony & Nanda Galvez
254 Hartnell Place
Campus Commons

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Susan Schepker <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 9:18 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 722-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This email is in regards to the revision of the plans at 707 Commons Dr. Sacramento.

I don’t see any change to demolition of the office building. I don’t see a change in the removal of all the trees.

Where is the second automobile going to park, along with guests automobiles.

I could contin
ue addressing all the points that concern the residents in Campus Commons, however we all know what those are from previous letters.

It seems at this point the only concern for the owners of the property is to make money on the sale of the homes. There was no though t about the neighborhood and the residents who live here. There are so many different ideas that the buildings and property could be used for which would enhance the neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Susan Schepker
957 Commons Dr.

Sacramento
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Sally Mastos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 8:02 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,

I have reviewed the amended/revised plans for development of 707 Commons Dr ., Sacramento, CA 95825.

As a resident of Campus Commons who will be directly aﬀected by this development as I live at 834 Commons Drive, I am no more saƟsﬁed with the current plan than I was the original.

It will bring un
told traﬃc and parking into an area not designed for, or desired here.

AddiƟonally, nothing about this design is coherent with the current homes.

I appreciate your Ɵme and aƩenƟon to my input.

Many thanks,
Sally Mastos

Sent fr
om my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 8:03 PM
To: i; Zachary Dahla
Subject: Re: 707 Commons Drive "One Pager" from Planning Dept. re: Process, Next Steps, Hearings Attachments: 707 Commons Drive One Pager.pdf
My name is Robert W.Hardy,,,my address is 726 Commons Drive(within 500 yards) of this misguided and improperly researched proposal across the street..Itimized..

#1) I have lived here at this resident for 28 years and have not only enjoyed this ambiance and life- style, but also THE SAFETY OF COMING AND GOING in and out of my driveway, because there was usually clear visability on Commons Drive!!! However; if you approve 24 2/3/4 bedroom condos with only one or two car parking accomodations, the result will be congestion and hazardous conditions on Commons!?!

#2) It's obvious that these units will be purchased by investors meaning a pelefera of college students with not only multple cars, but a great desire to explore our beautiful "UNGATED" community "just for a swim" on into the wee hours!?! And that will result in a massive class action suit!!!

#3) There is more, but you have been briefed by many other residents, and if you ignore us and this unique (ofice building is beautiful at 707) neighborhood, we will be outraged, and we may be protesting in the BLM fashion

Subject: 707 Commons Drive "One Pager" from Planning Dept. re: Process, Next Steps, Hearings pproveAnd
Following the Jan. 30 meeting at the CC Clubhouse, residents requested a summary of the steps in the planning process. Councilmember Guerra's office sent the attached flyer to Howard Levine for distribution to the community. Please share it with others who are not on this list.

If you want to be notified of hearing dates and have not already done so, please send a request to Zach Dahla.

Contacts for Project #Z22-079:

Send comments to Associate City Planner Zach Dahla [email protected] and City Councilmember Eric Guerra [email protected]
View the developer’s application and plans at the AgencyCounter website https://sacramento.agencycounter.com/

Mary Ann Robinson
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Bob Burton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 11:41 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Proposed townhomes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr . Dahla,
I believe the proposed 707 Commons Dr . townhomes are inconsistent with the appearance of Campus Commons. The lack of appropriate oﬀ‐street parking will produce congesƟon now avoided by surrounding HOA regulaƟons. Please protect our neighborhood.

Robert Burton
320 Elmhurst Circle
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 990‐8250
1 Zachary Dahla
From: phil cabe-law.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 4:52 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
The developer of 707 Commons Dr should not be permitted to do any such change to the architectural and aesthetic requirements of this community. Each of the owners has, by investing in Campus Commons, agreed that new construction should be substantially similar to the overall plan. This proposal is not in any way similar, it is a radical idea for our community.

Phillip Cabe
260 Hartnell Place
Sacramento CA 95825
916-214-3155
[email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Nicole James <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 8:14 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr . Dahala,

I have already wriƩen to you regarding my issues with 707 Commons Drive sale. The amendments to design are minimal.

This project is unsightly and as I read the proposal near the site,it removes “PRIVATE AND PROTECTED” trees. I surmise they feel,if you throw enough money at it, these pr otec Ɵons have no merit.

Please refer back to my iniƟal concerns and ruminate over them one more Ɵme.

We do not want this plan to move forward and desire an alternate locaƟon for this company to ﬁnd a ‘MORE APPROPRIATE’ area for this project. I thank yo u again for your devoƟon to your community and reﬂecƟon on your educaƟon to assist us in denying this project to move forward in any fashion,

Sincerely,

Nicole Jams
2315 American River Drive
Village 4
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Nancy Comstock <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 12:37 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive Revised Plan Set 3-7-23 - Opposed

Dear Mr. Dahla,

I am a resident of Campus Commons and again am writing in opposition to the property development proposal for 707 Commons Drive, Z22-079, APN:295-0402-015-0000.

The 707 Commons Drive Revised Plan Set 3-7-23 still calls for a massive change to the current use and look of the property. It seeks to tear down an existing office building and many heritage trees to erect now 24 instead of 25 housing units. This is still the wrong development for this property for the following reasons:

Trees & landscaping
All the trees and landscaping are planned for removal to accommodate the 24 housing units. The trees that are to be removed are beautiful heritage trees that have been there for decades and provide a visible example of Sacramento's claim to be "the city of trees." The developers plan to achieve mitigation for the tree removal by paying a fee. This is not mitigation - it is a mere budget item for the developers and is not acceptable. As with the removal of the trees, there is still too little attention to the landscaping.

Architectural Design
The proposed architectural style is not at all appropriate for nor compatible with the mid-century style of Campus Commons. It is stark, crowded and obtrusive in appearance. Campus Commons buildings and the business buildings along nearby University Avenue were designed to blend in with the natural environment. These buildings are still the opposite of that. They are virtually copies of the same buildings the developer has built in downtown where they fit. They do not fit in Campus Commons.

Parking
The density of the housing will still present parking problems because the developer does not provide space for visitor parking within the complex. Visitors will be parking on Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive, and will be a problem for the current residents of Campus Commons.

Campus Commons Amenities
There is nothing to prohibit the residents of the new development from using some of the Campus Commons amenities directly across the street. These include the Campus Commons playground, ponds, and walkways, amenities that have been paid for by Campus Commons residents over many years. We suggest a playground and exercise room for these new homeowners within their own complex.

Site Planning
The developer has packed the 24 units into a one-acre parcel. This is still almost twice the number of housing units in the adjacent village (which is representative of the rest of Campus Commons) and is 2 a dramatic contrast with Campus Commons homes, which have ample space for walkways, landscaping, and cluster housing.

Repurposing the 707 Building
I am not opposed to development of the property, and can imagine several welcome uses for the building that is currently there. The developer has stated that nothing will work there except his project. The Revised Plan is for all intents and purposes the same as the original plan. The Phase 2 site could also be repurposed for other uses that would be complementary to whatever is decided upon for the current 707 Commons Drive building.

Please keep me informed of any deadlines and/or hearings on this matter. My contact information is:

Nancy Comstock
[email protected]
916 296-2171

Thank you,

Nancy Comstock
2321 American River Drive

1 Zachary Dahla
From: MARILYN PIAZZA <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 10:50 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 commons
In good conscience can you really allow these developers to signiﬁcantly degrade this one of only a few remaining beauƟful neighborhood in Sacramento? Is this really the place for inﬁll or just another development grab? Please do the right thing and just say no.

Marilyn Piazza
Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Marcie Mortensson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 10:49 AM
To: Eric Guerra; Zachary Dahla
Cc: Marcia Mortensson
Subject: 707 Commons Project z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hello
I apologize for the lateness of this email. I just came across the notice regarding this project at 707 Commons.

Even late, I hope you will take my comment into consideration.

I think it is unconscionable in this area to build 25 townhouses and not provide parking! Is this a subtle way to drive people to rapid transit? We do not have the infrastructure of buses and trains to handle this. I am not opposed to buses etc. I lived in Paris for 5 years and depended on the bus and metro system. But we are NOT Paris.

If I am too late for this project, I do hope that you will take my comment into consideration for any future projects that think parking is not necessary.

Marcia Mortensson
Adelphi Ct Sac 95825

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Marcy Meyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 2:38 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Associate Planner Zach Dahla

I am adamantly opposed to the revised Campus Commons 707 development plan as i as proposed. It is intrusive, disruptive, and inappropriate.

Marcy Meyer
926 Commons Drive
Sacramento,

CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Eve Survivor <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 10:46 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Fwd: Proposed project 707 Commons Drive
Dear Mr. Dahla:

I recently read about the proposed Campus Commons project by Bardis & Miry Development and want to express my objection to this project. I am married to a civil engineer who has done many projects for D&S Development when Bay Miry worked there. My husband also owns an investment con do on Commons Drive that we both property managed for over 10 years. The following comments are my opinion and do not reflect what my husband may think about this proposed project.

What I can wholeheartedly tell you is this proposed 24 townhome development is the wrong project in the wrong place.

The design and high density housing is in conflict with the Campus Commons community which was built in the 1960s and 1970s, now filled with many professionals who have invested into this upscale beautiful environment filled with trees, swaths of walking paths and nature. The increased traffic and off street parking will be awful and unsightly.

Please do not buy into the thinki
ng that this proposal will create more needed housing. I’m sure Bardis & Miry will be marketing these townhomes for over $1 million each so there’s no “affordability” built into this concept and design; just huge profit margin s. My friend lived across the street from their Albright Village project at 13th & U streets and those townhomes are in a pretty blighted area, but were being sold in the $800k+ to $900k+ price range. I toured them, and although nicely staged and urbanely upscale, within weeks of completion there was graffiti on the build ings and broken front windows with homeless encampments less than a quarter mile away. So much for another “successful” residential housing project. The only new and/or first time homebuyers who can afford these townhomes (without yards ir additional parking) are Bay Area transplants inflating Sacramen to housing and rental prices.

Again, I oppose this development and fully support those Campus Commons residents who are expressing their criticisms and objections. Even from a rental investor’s perspective, I strongly oppose this project. Keep this site office development or a medical facility since the demographic in Campus Commons would benefit from this ty pe of use.

When will the City and County building departments do what’s right for the residents and not just look at increasing property taxes and business profits at the expense of us tax paying citizens & homeowners?

Thank you for receiving my comments.

Laurie Pejuhesh
916‐752‐8214
1220 La Sierr
a Drive
Sacramento, CA 95864

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kim Fuller <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 3:04 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Mr. Dahla,
Are they kidding? The new development plan for 707 Commons Drive is not much of an improvement over the original one, if any. 24 units on an acre vs 7 units? Really? And no guest parking? What about developing 12 units on that land? The developers don't seem to have any concern for the neighborhood atmosphere.

Sincerely,
Kim Fuller
445 Hartnell Place 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kelly Cole <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 2:29 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Proposed development at 707 Commons Drive/Z22-079 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I am writing to express my extreme opposition to the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive in Campus Commons, Sacramento.

This type of development is not a good idea not only for our area, but for any area. In Sacramento we have just been given another example of the effect of climate change and the power of weather. I have never experienced su ch fear and anxiety in my life. I have lived in Campus Commons for over 12 years now and am always proud to tell people that our neighborhood is an urban forest. While I understand the need for housing, I do not think it should come at the price of raping our land by the removal of old growth trees. This action only increases the problem of climate change.

Additionally, this will add traffic congestion, and the pollution that comes with it, to our area.

I believe the developers have an opport unity to create something useful, consistent with the existing design of our community without removing our precious old growth trees and set an example of how to design an energy efficient and environmentally innovative and sound development. Who wouldn’t be proud to be a part of and live in such a developmen
t, perhaps enough so that they would be willing to spend a little more?

Please, I hope you will reconsider your existing plans and strive for something with an environmental conscious and integrity. While Sacramento needs housing, the price point suggested is out of range for those who most need it. Again, there is an op
portunity here to develop something more consistent with the Campus Commons area and to a different community need.

Regards,
Kelly Cole
Campus Commons/Nepenthe

Sent from Mail for Windows

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kirk Campbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 9:16 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Proposed Development at 707 Commons Dr
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr. Dahla,

I am writing you to voice my objections to the proposed development at 707 Commons Dr of the 3 story 25 unit town homes (apartments). I know there is a strong demand for housing and to create infill projects, but this development would totally go against the character of the Campus Commons area and create parking issues. This project, with the lack of parking and the close proximi
ty to the sidewalk, would be the only residential structure in the Campus Commons area with those characteristics and would really stick out like a sore thumb.

Thank‐you,

Kirk Campbell

1218 Vanderbilt Way
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Nonie Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 7:54 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive
Hi Zach,
I am a homeowner in Campus Commons who is concerned about the proposed three story invasive condos which will eliminate valuable trees and green space. It is an unsound ecological project that will add pollution, traffic, and create an invitation for condo owners to use our beautifully cared for green belts direct ly across the street as a place to walk their dogs.

Thank you,
Joan Stevens
1 Zachary Dahla
From: IRINA KRAVTCHENKO <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:09 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Fw: 707 Commons Dr., Project Z22-079
Dear Sirs/Madam,

I have been a resident of Campus Commons for more than 20 years. I own two properties in Campus Commons.

I strongly object to the proposed 707 Commons Drive Development. My personal objections are in line with the Campus Commons - Nepenthe residents' comments which have been made by hundreds of our residents and conveyed to you as well as should be addressed at the public meeting with the City Council member Eric Guerra and City staff on January 30, 2023. Basically, I believe that the proposed development violates the Sacramento General Plan and design criteria.

Having a PhD in economics, I would like to emphasize the long-term socio-economic impact of the proposed development. It is obvious that the developers are trying to maximize the net dollar results without considering the effect on the existing neighborhood. This is supposed to be achieved through high density residential development practically sitting on top of the surrounding historic residential area disregarding established architectural design. The plan envisages cutting heritage mature urban forest trees and demolition of the office building, which compliments the existing community and landscape, does not affect traffic and livability of the adjacent communities and can be repurposed if necessary. The office can be made available for professional usage or public services if the owners reduce the high rate they are charging now. The design of the proposed buildings is completely different from the entire surrounding neighborhoods. There is no place for guest parking or for residents with more than two vehicles or who use their garage for other purposes. There is limited access for service vehicles and the garbage containers will apparently be set on the street.

The buildings are proposed to almost be on the sidewalks without the current setbacks which exist throughout the surrounding areas. The current developments present a pleasant appearance whereas the planned one will be a stark contrast and be an eye sore.

The proposed project will be a tipping point in the community. The individual condos are planned to be sold for about $800,000. While apparently comfortable inside they lack any grounds for recreational activities, playing with children, walking with dogs etc. This means that the residents are essentially compelled to utilize our existing facilities, which are privately owned, as there are limited public facilities readily available for them.

There is a high probability, that they are more suitable as temporary short term rental units. With the Sacramento State university nearby, they may be desirable places to rent for students. This will bring a completely different demographic group into the area with its own cultural and habitual principles. It will change the identity of the neighborhood. It is worth noting, that the residents of both communities are mostly retired or close to retirement professionals.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Irina Kravtchenko Lane
812 Commons Dr.
1258 Commons Dr.
916-925-7916

TO: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner
[email protected]

RE: Comments on Planning Application Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive

DATE: December 1, 2022

Dear Mr. Dahla:

I would like to make the following comments on the above-referenced revised Planning Application:

These general comments proceed followed by comments as they relate to the general plan. The applicant has made no attempt to save any of the trees of significance nor has it changed any of the elevation grading to protect the trees. The removal of the trees is contrary to the City of Sacramento’s policies in the General Plan 2035 as well as its tree removal permit ordinance. There is “no” guarantee that a project must be approved as submitted. The landscaping coverage on this plan does not meet the threshold that is consistent with the neighborhood as it is the major entryway to Campus Commons. The Campus Commons neighborhood was Master Plan designed to be uniquely park-like with over 10,000 plants in its initial stage and more added. The 707 parcel was part of the Master Plan and should be held to the same approvals as to style of walking space and “cluster-style” development when the project was approved in 1965. All buildings along the “Drive” were designed with “berms” to hide a half-story behind the landscaping and 707 should be designed to meet the style of the Master Plan. The current 707 building is mostly accessed off of University Ave. and is combined in concept to the adjacent lot that is on 350 University. These two properties should be considered together as a “cumulative” opportunity that has great impact on the Commons Dr. and Campus Commons Rd. They should not be divided in the planning process.

Again, the General Plan calls for a historical review of a building such as that at 707 Commons Dr. At this time we do not know what has been done; however, the results should be made public and reviewed before any permits for demolition are issued. This building has an impressive front on the University Ave. side as well and deserves more consideration on this point independently.

PRIVATE PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL:

I would ask that the request for a permit to remove the private protected trees be denied. Tree canopy in Sacramento is vital to our city’s livability. The 24 units proposed will require all of the trees on the property be cut down, not just these mature trees.

The city of Sacramento is losing a percentage of trees every year due to the ongoing drought. The city has urged citizens to water trees on their properties to maintain our shared tree canopy. Sacramento’s Draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan has a key strategy to increase Carbon Sequestration. It states that “currently, tree canopy covers 19% of Sacramento’s land surface area” and “by expanding tree canopy cover to 25% by 2030 will increase carbon sequestration and provide co-benefits like mitigation of the urban heat island effect, increased habitat and improved soil, water and air quality”. In addition, tree canopy, trees of significance, and urban heat island effect are addressed in Sacramento’s 2035 General Plan, Part Two: Citywide Goal and Policies, ER 3 Urban Forest. ER 3.1.2 States that the city shall “Manage and Enhance the City’s Tree Canopy”. ER 3.1.3 states “The city shall require the retention of City trees and Heritage trees by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design and development of projects provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible”. ER 3.1.6 addresses the heat island effect and states in part that ”The city shall continue to promote planting shade trees with substantial canopies…to minimize heat island affects”. The private protected trees on the proposed development site are “significant” and substantial in size and provide these benefits. Therefore the request to remove the protected trees does not align with the city's stated, serious concern to retain as many trees as possible. I ask the City deny any request to remove significant trees.

By removing the trees, the development will look barren and quite different from the surrounding area which has mature trees. The developer claims that the proposed tree removal will be mitigated by planting new trees. However, new tree planting takes decades before it equals the removal of mature trees. Equally important, “mitigation” is only as good as follow-through on the watering and care of young, newly-planted trees. This is especially true in a hot, drought climate like Sacramento. There can be no assurance the developer, or the HOA that it sets up for the proposed development, will follow through adequately. In other words, “mitigation” could easily prove to be nothing more than semantics.

Maintaining a mature canopy which already exists, however, is a sure thing. Also, the amount of carbon sequestration will be significantly less in contrast to Sacramento’s published Climate Action Plan!

DEVELOPMENT SETBACKS:

I would ask that the proposed setbacks from the sidewalks be increased from what is shown on the project site plan. The eight feet which is now proposed contributes to the overbearing appearance of the development. It is not in keeping with the adjacent existing Campus Commons development — nor with the nearby commercial and professional offices along University Ave. — where the homes and offices are set back from the sidewalk. Average set back in Campus Commons is much greater than 8 feet and 9.5 feet. There are NO trees along Commons Dr. which again is not in harmony with the current development as the set back with a planting strip should be mandatory.

VISITOR AND SERVICE VEHICLE PARKING:

I have hi-lighted below areas of the General Plan Land Use policies that are not in compliance.

Sacramento 2035 General Plan

Citywide Land Use and Urban Design

Policies

LU 2.1.1 Neighborhoods as a Basic Unit. Recognizing that Sacramento’s neighborhoods are the basic living environments that make-up the city’s urban fabric, the City shall strive through its planning and urban design to preserve and enhance their distinctiveness, identity, and livability from the downtown core to well integrated new growth areas. (RDR/MPSP)

As stated many times by many people, the 707 Commons Dr. proposal does not make an effort to adhere to or enhance the identity of the Campus Commons Master Planned neighborhood. There is no walkable area, commensurate landscaping or other amenities that were established in the Campus Commons neighborhood when it was proposed and built.

It is obvious that the Master Planned area of Campus Commons is being compromised by this proposed development. This proposal does not protect the integrity of what was designed and maintained by a community with great private investment for over one half century. If the proposal had any respect if would maintain the significant trees, have more open space and provide for and enhance the liviability of the neighborhood.

Again, this proposal does not live up to this adopted Land Use policy. There is no mix that promotoes walk as other areas of the Campus Commons neighborhood have. The Master Plan community including the building that is being proposed for demolition are part of the park like setting designed to promote a physical layout is well structured and balanced.

The building that is proposed to “be demoed” is one of the first buildings to be erected. It is one of the original parts of the Master Plan to buffer and demonstrate positive integration of live-work in a time when that idea was foreign. The embedded energy and the elevation changes show how to integrate an OP use along with housing. Although it may not survive the transition it should demonstrate the topography of the parcel that should be maintained. The parcel should not be scraped, denuded and destroyed to maximize single family housing in an area which had a whole different concept initially as a PUD, cluster housing concept with elevation changes.

Although the applicant has re-imagined the color palette there is no consideration of the original concept of the Master Planned community, or the historic consider of the architect and original architects concept.

Citywide Historic and Cultural Preservation

Policies

HCR 2.1.11 Compatibility with Historic Context . The City shall review proposed new development, alterations, and rehabilitation/remodels for compatibility with the surrounding historic context. The City shall pay special attention to the scale, massing, and relationship of proposed new development to surrounding historic resources. (RDR)
There is no connection, comparison, scale or relationship between the proposed 707 Commons Dr. proposal and the Master Planned Campus Commons community.

Thank you,

Howard Levine
191 Hartnell Pl.

Sacramento, CA 95825
5302772787

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Holly Keller <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:17 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Zach Dahla,

I am a resident of Campus Commons and am very concerned with the proposed new development at 707 Commons Drive.

The building that has been there as an office space is set back from the community and it is flanked with trees on the curb, in the atrium area and around the sides. The new proposed development is right on the main street of our community and the trees will be removed. The design and scope of this plan do not fit in with the community that has been there since the early 1970’s. I am not opposed to having new homes put into my community, but I would hope that they would fit into the development scheme that is already there and has been there for over 50 years.

I also understand that there will be no additional guest parking for these homes. This is very unfortunate since the street is not a reliable or nice place to have your guests park. I believe it requires a permit for times over 2 hours. The congestion is another issue, this neighborhood is very walkable currently, with the additional traffic and with the concern o f
many additional parked vehicles on the street, it turns it into a dangerous crowded thoroughfare.

I hope that the developers; Bardis and Miry consider the above concerns and find a better way to fit their development into our community. We as a community would like to be able to welcome new owners in this development rather than feel resentful towards them as if they don’t belong.

Please consider my concerns,
Thank you very much,

Holly Keller
Campus Commons Resident
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Gary Slavit <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 11:13 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Comments on revised plan for 707 Commons Dr.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good Morning Zach,

I know you have received emails with the comments to the revised plans for the 707 Commons Dr. development and I have copied those below as I am in total agreement with the concerns. My only additional comments are that the revisions made are not significant and do not come cl ose to adequately addressing my concerns. I have a few additional comments and they are as follows:

 With respect to the overall design of the proposed residences, Campus Commons is primarily a retirement community.  The design of these units require stairs to enter the unit from the garage and are multiple floors.  These residence units are more likely to attract younger buyers, which is great, however they will want ameniti
es such as parks.  Our private property (Campus Commons Park Corp.) is the only park‐like setting and will attract the residents to our private property.  This creates liability and other issues.  As I publicly stated to you and Vice‐Mayor Guerra at the community meeting held at the Campus Commons Clubhouse, we have been denied on many occasions the ability to remove or even significantly (large branches over a certain size) prune trees due to city restrictions.  Point number 9 below addresses the removal of many trees that far exce
ed the size of trees we were not allowed to remove or even prune.  I expect (and quite frankly insist upon) the developers to be subject to the same scrutiny and strict adherence to restrictions we have been held to.
 The driveway access on Campus Commons Road is designated for emergency vehicle access only.  I don't understand why this cannot be full access.  This should be in addition to University Avenue access as described in number13 below.
 The parking issue described in 15 below is highly concerning.  Not only will those units with single file parking possibly use the street, but these are small homes with limited storage.  Even in larger homes with yards garages are storage facilities often eliminating the ability to park one and sometimes two cars.  Cars on the street will not only limit the space for visitors but will also restr ict visibility at the intersection of Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive.
 Traffic and speeding on Commons Drive is an ongoing issue.  During rush hours, cars use Commons Drive as an alternate route to avoid the traffic and signals from the Howe Avenue/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection to Howe Avenue and Swarthmore Drive.  The high‐density housing will only service to exacerbate the problem.

Thank you for
your consideration of these issues.

—Gary Slavit
959 Commons Dr.

Campus Commons Village Four

2 1. The changes are appreciated, but they fall significantly short of resolving primary neighborhood concerns.

2. One unit has been eliminated in the front row of condos, leaving 24 units instead of 25. Square footage has been reduced in 12 of the units. Twelve of the units now have 2 bedrooms instead of 4.

3. The revised plans do not address concerns about leveling the site and constructing 3 story condos in the midst of a residential neighborhood of rolling landscape and 1-2 story homes. Scale and grading require further accommodation.

4. Concerns about housing density are not alleviated with 24 units per acre proposed compared to approximately 12 units per acre in the surrounding neighborhood and 6.7 units per acre overall in the Campus Commons community. The proposal remains altogether contrary to the language and intent of Sacramento 2035 General Plan LU 2.1.2 and fails to provide “a sensitive transition” to an established neighborhood as to density and form.

5. Revised building setbacks from the street are 8’ from Campus Commons Drive (previously 5’) and 5’ to 9.5’ from Commons Dr. (previously 5’).

6. Increases in setbacks are not adequate to align with the surrounding, established neighborhood. The setback from the street for the nearest adjacent buildings at 739 Commons Drive is approx. 40 feet. The new condos need a similar setback.

7. The removal of one unit opens 1 small open space at the street corner and 1 at the driveway. The areas are inadequate for one canopy-sized tree and does not mitigate the removal of the 24 existing trees, including 11 private protected trees. More open space is needed for trees.

8. The small open spaces are marked “SMUD area.” If designated for underground or overhead utilities, the spaces are unsuitable for all but small (at maturity) ornamental trees.

9. All private protected trees are still slated for removal which will eliminate all tree canopy benefits from this area of the neighborhood, in stark contrast to the shade, habitat, and other benefits from trees in the surrounding neighborhood.

10. The existing parking strip is eliminated on Commons Drive, and needed parking strips have not been added where they are absent on Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road.

11. The new building color is an improvement, subject to change at any time by an HOA.

12. Moving HVAC units from the front to the side of end units is an improvement. Have the HVAC units for the center condos also been moved off the street facing side?

13. The location of the driveway has not changed, nor has the fact that it is still shared with a Campus Commons village. Driveway entry is needed from University Avenue to avoid an exponential increase in entry and exit traffic from the development.

14. The absence of on-site parking remains an issue which will cause increased street parking.

16. There is no indication of a suitable location for trash cans on pick-up day. Will Commons Drive be further burdened with 72 cans one day per week.

Gary R. Slavit, PMP
Cell: (916) 705‐5494
https://cas5‐0‐
urlprotect.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=www.facebook.com%2fgslavit&umid=8086ffba‐274b‐4eb5‐ b45f‐11a7e0c6efc5&auth=0c78d5381d8efeba9ba4477b3ca23a49d0ab462f‐ eaba5fe78e0a54cd4177c7a145846327aa5d39ea
[email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Elizabeth Georgis <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 1:02 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: 707 Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

This is to inform you that 350
University Ave, East bound lane routinely floods which remains after the rain has stopped. The attached photo was taken three days after rain.

Form follows function. There is a reason beyond esthetic, that the properties of 707 Commons and 350 University are graded properly.

In
addition the expansive green set back and trees facilitate water absorption.

Developer plans for 707 Commons are short sighted and irresponsible.

Elizabeth Georgis

2 Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Ed Cline <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 3:26 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079. 707 Commons Dr.

After reviewing the revised plans for this project I see nothing has changed to make it less of a nightmare for those of us living in Campus Commons. As a matter of fact one aspect is worse. Now some of the homes two car garages are to end to end as opposed to side by side. More cars parked on the street?

Since the project has no o
utdoor common space, does this mean the Sacramento police will remove trespassers on our private property common spaces?

Sincerely, one 80 year old, pissed‐off, Campus Commons home owner.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Daryl Rowland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 9:56 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Unacceptable development plan for 707 building Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Hello.

I am a resident of Campus Commons Village One. I am writing to say that I am deeply concerned about the proposed plan to build a wholly inappropriate structure at 707.

Several factors are unacceptable to the existing community:

1. Building to the curb, which is flagrantly contrary to the uniform aesthetic of the Campus Co mmons Community.

2. Destroying mature trees that are the signature look and unique value of our community, on which our property values largely depend.

3. Changing the entry point to the Campus Commons side of the structure, needlessly creating significant change to the flow and atmosphere of the nei ghborhood, not to mention additional traffic and noise

4. Providing zero amenities and ultimately no parking, which will adversely affect the existing communities in a foreseeable and negative way.

5. Most importantly, approving such a plan would set a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT for future developers to point to to win approval for structures that do not sui
t the neighborhood, destroy its aesthetic charm and drastically diminish home values. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Further, you should know that many other homeowners have expressed extremely strong objections to the current plans and will organize and fight if adjustments are not mad e to accommodate these reasonable and addressable
concerns.

I hope we as a community will do everything possible to correct these plans to make them comport favorably with the existing neighborhood. Maintaining the look and character of the neighborhood is in all of our interests and ultimately increases the value of the proposed new buil
ding. Thank you.

Daryl V. Rowland
310.625.9731

[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: don brandt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 6:12 AM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 707 Commons Dr.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Sirs or Ma’am,
I was given your address recently because of the concerns our community has with regard to a development project being proposed in our neighborhood at 707 University/Commons. You’re probably aware of the meetings we’ve been having on the subject. Our community has been encouraged to reach out to you to express our concerns on this issue. I moved to Campus Commons in 1995 and continue to appreciate living here because of its appeal as a well kept community, the style and design of the neighborhoods and homes, and the type of responsible people who live in our community. I see the 707 Commons de
velopment project as a departure from what Campus Commons has been about, and an invasion of different living concepts and of the issues which come with it I understand that high density rental units are necessary in large cities but most of us here prefer it to be somewhere other than near this comm unity. From discussions in the meetings I gather that those who are proposing the development have a lot to gain at the expense of Campus Commons. In other words, it runs down our community, while building cheap housing in a well kept neighborhood. For the for
egoing reasons I see this as a bad idea which will further decrease my quality of life in Sacramento.

My sincere thanks and appreciation to you for your attention and consideration in this matter.

From, Don Brandt
271 Hartnell Place
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Claire Kinsley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 1:52 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
proposal for 707 Commons Drive

My two cents:: the exterior of the units is ugly ‐‐ it does not look like any other group of buildings in this area ‐ and the color is wrong. (all other buildings are dark or medium brown). The developer has a good example of a 3 story structure ‐ the units at that end of C
ommons Dr and the ones on Campus Common. These units incorporate a garage on the 1st level.. And the trees! They support local wildlife (turkeys, squirrels etc.). and help reduce pollution. The set back doesn't have to be 40 feet, or more. But not cramme d into the space available. If these will be high end housing,. the development should reflect it. Going to 24 units is hardly a reduction at all! Parking will be a problem and traffic will be awful.r..
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 12:29 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Campus Commons new build
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Zach,
I read Gary Delshon’s article in Inside, and so agree.

While the proposed ‘white architecture’ town home is nice, it does not fit at all in the Campus Commons Area.

Why not use this opportunity to create a “new modern” ‐ 2023 cutting edge design that is a modern version of Campus Commons.

Great design does not cost more, and this is a nice lo
cation to showcase new architecture.

If builder Powell, built new today, what would it look like?

Some ideas of what I am speaking of, below. There are many architects in Sacramento who could design cutting edge condos that
would be a complement to the original CC design.

Maybe add some mixed‐use – there is no coffee or lunch spot shop in Campus Commons!

Thank you for listening.

Claudia Bordin, CID
Claudia Bordin Design, McKinley Park

2 3

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 1:59 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project #Z22-079
Dear Mr. Dahla:

I am a resident of Campus Commons at 225 Hartnell Place and want to let you know that I am in agreement with the following comments regarding the revised plans for the 707 Commons Drive development.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ann Hodges

1. The changes are appreciated, but they fall significantly short of resolving primary neighborhood concerns.

2. One unit has been eliminated in the front row of condos, leaving 24 units instead of 25. Square footage has been reduced in 12 of the units. Twelve of the units now have 2 bedrooms instead of 4.

5. Revised building setbacks from the street are 8’ from Campus Commons Drive (previously 5’) and 5’ to 9.5’ from Commons Dr. (previously 5’).

8. The small open spaces are marked “SMUD area.” If designated for underground or overhead utilities, the spaces are unsuitable for all but small (at maturity) ornamental trees.

10. The existing parking strip is eliminated on Commons Drive, and needed parking strips have not been added where they are absent on Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road.

11. The new building color is an improvement, subject to change at any time by an HOA.

12. Moving HVAC units from the front to the side of end units is an improvement. Have the HVAC units for the center condos also been moved off the street facing side?

14. The absence of on-site parking remains an issue which will cause increased street parking.

15. In the revised plan, 12 units have garages that require single-file parking, compared to side-by-side parking for all units in the previous plan. In order to avoid juggling single-file parked cars, residents are likely to park a second car on the street, adding to already increased street parking. Adequate on-site parking is needed. 2 16. There is no indication of a suitable location for trash cans on pick-up day. Will Commons Drive be further burdened with 72 cans one day per week.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Bryant Burmich <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 10:37 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Zach,

I received a letter about the changes to the plans for Commons Drive and am not understanding how the changes address the concerns below. Would you please get back to me? It is important that the trees are not removed, that amenities and appropriate parking are provided, that building does not go to the curb , and that the current peaceful flow of traffic is not altered. Communities should be planned in an environmentally and socially conscious way. Trees should be being planted instead of removed. The Campus Commons neighborhood is a beautiful community and should be serving as a standard for other neighborhoods. It is extremely important that this beautiful neighborhood is preserved. Please respond back to me as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

‐ Bryant Burmich
Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Daryl Rowland <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 12:18 PM
Subject: 707 Application ‐ Grave Concern
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Cherie Dimmerling <[email protected]>

Hello, Katherine. I am a resident of Campus Commons Village One. I am writing to say that I am deeply concerned about the proposed plan to build a wholly inappropriate structure at 707.

Several factors are unacceptable to the existing community:

1. Building to the curb, which is flagrantly contrary to the uniform aesthetic of the Campus Co mmons Community.

2. Destroying mature trees that are the signature look and unique value of our community, on which our property values largely depend.

3. Changing the entry point to the Campus Commons side of the structure, needlessly creating significant change to the flow and atmosphere of the neighborhood, not to mention addi tional traffic and noise

4. Providing zero amenities and ultimately no parking, which will adversely affect the existing communities in a foreseeable and negative way.
2 5. Most importantly, approving such a plan would set a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT for future developers to point to to win approval for structures that do not suit the neighborhood, destroy its aesthetic charm and drastically diminish home values. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Further, you should know that many other homeowners have expressed extre mely strong objections to the current plans and will organize and fight if adjustments are not made to accommodate these reasonable and addressable concerns.

I hope we as a community will do everything possible to correct these plans to make them comport favorably with the existing neighborhood. Maintaining th e look and character of the neighborhood is in
all of our interests and ultimately increases the value of the proposed new building. Thank you.

Daryl

Daryl V. Rowland
Rowland Consulting
310.625.9731

[email protected]
Village One, Campus Commons

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Brenda Nasser <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 3:58 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: RE: Z22-079 (707 Commons Drive Project)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

To: Mr. ZACH DAHLA, Associate Planner
Sacramento City Planning Commission

Dear Mr. Dahla,

Unfortunately, this is the second time I have had to write to you requesting that you and your department take a real hard look at what you would allow to be built on the property located in Campus Commons on the corner of 707 Commons Drive. After loo
king over the "revised" plans, it appears there is very little that has changed from the original plan‐‐most notably the so‐called 2 garage spaces, which is a tandem‐type situation. This means that there inevitably will be many cars & vehicles park ed on Commons Drive, which has always been a very quiet street with no cars parked, and right across the street from our home at 744 Commons Dr.

I'm not going to reiterate all the comments I made in my first letter to you because it all stands as of today! I'm ju st going to tell you now how angry I and my husband are that you may allow this damn 'project' to literally ruin the end of our lives here in what we thought would be a peaceful haven for our "golden years" ("golden years" my ass!). Oops! Sorry for the outburst, but you get the point, right? You have ma de a lot of old people very very angry and we will fight this tooth, nail, canes and walkers!

Please help us protect our beautiful, valuable and priceless neighborhood that is Campus Commons! Tell the developers to build somewhere else!

A
soon to be 75 year old little pissed off lady Campus Commons homeowner,

Brenda Nasser
744 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
(209) 304‐6105

Sent from my Galaxy Tab® S2
April, 5, 2023

TO: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner,

Re: Z22-079 Application for Redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive

Comments Regarding the Resubmitted Plans of 3/7/2023

Landscaping

There is no tree scape offered along the frontage of Commons Drive. There is only a partial planting strip along Commons Drive on the easterly half. Whereas, the Campus Commons portion of Commons Drive is lined with Bradford Pear trees.

Sheet A1.0.1 of the submittal , Renderings, continue to show trees at the Southeast and Southerly corners of Commons Drive even though these are indicated as SMUD bio retention areas and no trees are shown on the Landscape Plans L1.0. This is deceptive, perpetrating a visual lie.

Sweet Gums (liquidambar) shown on the interior of the site on what is an approximately 12 to 15 foot planting strip will grow to in excess of 50 ft. tall and at maturity will spread to more than 15 feet. The sweet gum is a ‘dirty tree’, prone to shedding branches especially from high winds causing roof damage. As well, they have a shallow, aggressive root system that tends to undermine any closely adjacent foundation structures or sidewalks.

There is a redwood tree shown to be planted on the walkway/alley way linking from Commons Drive to the interior of the proposed housing units, with another at the NE corner of the site. These are high risk. Redwoods need to be planted in groups so that the root system interlocks and provides mutual support for each other. This is a very tightly enclosed area of structures. What happens in 40 to 50 years when the redwood attains fuller growth of 100 feet or more? We have already experienced in Campus Commons, incidences of high wind damage toppling the upper half of a redwood tree planted in the early phases of the community onto an adjacent home with severe damage. Moreover, given the proposed location in the subject plans, such a redwood will be extremely difficult to remove at a later date without risk of damage to adjacent structures. While, the existing redwoods have space around them and are interlocked.

As proposed, trees are substantially relegated to the interior of the site, denying the larger community of continuity with its street oriented tree scape. Since the developer owns the adjacent property, they could add a 10 ft. to 20 ft. strip from the NE portion of the rear of the site and add greater setbacks, planting strips, and tree scape to the front of the site. The developer is operating on what is still a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and they should be honoring the prior physical character and functional purposes of the PUD and design any new proposal in a manner that provides architectural and landscaping continuity with its neighboring PUD.

Architecture

The resubmitted architectural proposals continue to be trite and lack meaningful contextual responsiveness to the Campus Commons community and PUD. The boxed-out projections with wide-band fascias framing selected vertically and horizontally aligned windows replicates a theme used by a few recent designers who use such elements (to avoid characterizing it as a vocabulary) principally in multifamily structures—not single family or townhouses (with perhaps rare exceptions in the latter instances), Such replication reflects an absence of imagination and results in borrowing idioms from other mediocritized work that will quickly go out of fashion. As such, the proposal continues to be wholly lacking of respect for the neighboring architecture, lacks contextual awareness, and a creative ability to resolve these relationships.

The site planning continues to pack-in the maximum number of units—twice the density of the adjacent Village 1 units and an even greater multiple of the Village 2 units and the overall Campus Commons PUD. Again, this ignores the purposes of the PUD that it is located within. The developer should utilize and design the entirety of the PUD that they hold in a manner complementary to the larger community’s PUD rather than first splitting off the subject parcel proposal.

The newly introduced attempts to provide some ‘horizontality’ in deference to prior critiques, as exhibited in the Elevation A, Fourplex proposal for the corner of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road (Rendering A, sheet A1.0.1 and sheet A3.1) fails to resolve itself. It remains a box with a variety of punched out elements, trite awnings (still), and roof peaks that lack any meaning or relationship to the neighborhood, and fails to read because the clipped roof-line trim does not reinforce the limited horizontally expressed mid section.

The interior courtyard elevation is even more shameful. While fortunately it doesn’t face the street, its residents will have to put up with its harsh back-alley character: neither industrial nor residential.

The proposed Hardi-panel siding elements are a cheap imitation of wood materials. Campus Commons homes on the other hand, utilize a variety of wood, textured plywood, shingle, and stucco materials, all with bold, and uniquely and carefully detailed wood fascias and trims.

Why are ersatz stone facades being introduced at the lower levels? Again, such ersatz stonework lacks any relationship to the community. Stonework, real stonework, is utilized in selected landscape retaining walls, principally in village 1 of Campus Commons, but not on the homes themselves.

Historic Preservation

The subjects’ Historic Resource Evaluation for 707 Commons Drive, was posted 3/28/2023 to the project’s City agency website. Recognizing the size of the document, some 64 pages and some of the cross examination and investigation necessary for adequate review, it is requested that an additional week be allowed for further remarks and critical analysis.

The Evaluation appears to have at minimum, some errors as to historic dates of some of the referenced work C.W. Callister, some perhaps minor but nonetheless relevant as they bracket the subject property’s date of construction as well as those of the larger contextual community. As well, the relationship and relevance of 707 Commons Drive to the larger community, functioning as an important architectural link between the office and residential PUDs appears to be underplayed or neglected.

Moreover, a discussion of the applicability of Sacramento Register criteria A.1.a.iii. – vi, and A.1.b. and A.1.c. will be thereby submitted.

Thank you,
Respectfully submitted,

Carr Kunze, B. Arch., MSUP
835 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: David Lane <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 5:11 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: planning application Z22-079 -- 707 Commons Dr.

Attachments: Planning application Z22-079; 707 Commons Dr.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Zach Dahla,

I have looked at the updated applicaƟon and believe that it is sƟll in violaƟon of the Sacramento Codes and is enƟrely inconsistent with the exisƟng zoning. I will not repeat the comments which are sƟll applicable to this revision but aƩach my prior email. In addiƟon, you have received a leƩer from me regarding the concerns expressed by the residents of Campus Commons and I invite your aƩenƟon to that.

The changes made in the revision are not signiﬁcant. EssenƟally, they have proposed moving the home s a few
feet which actually makes very liƩle diﬀerence. At this Ɵme, the area currently has sidewalks primarily with a green planted area between the roads and the sidewalks, the homes are located well back from the sidewalk, there are green areas between the sidewalks and the building, there are berms wit h vegetaƟon between the streets and the buildings which conceal the height of the mulƟ‐story buildings.

To the contrary, the current applicaƟon provides the buildings almost immediately against the sidewalks, presenƟng a three story stark block of buildings which will sƟll be a blight to the nei ghborhood.

It is interesƟng to note that the new plans appear to make the parking situaƟon worse since some of the garages appear to provide verƟcal parking which is most likely to mean that one car will be parked in the garage and any other on the streets. Ther
e is not enough parking available on the streets and this compounds the problem.

As I previously reported, the 707 Commons lot and the 350 University lot are owned by the same people and have been physically associated and used together in their history. The revised plan has a driveway which is apparently intended to be blocked from the 350/707 University parking lot. If this or a simi lar plan is accepted, it must be
condiƟoned on the requirement that access to the 707 property remain through this driveway to alleviate the parking and access problems.

The removal of the trees and the other items which I previously addressed as major problems.

Again, this might be a very nice project in another neighborhood, but it violates the code as previously set forth and is damaging to Campus Commons and the surrounding established neighborhoods.

I will be pleased to discuss this further. Please make sure that I am noƟﬁed of all progress in this applicaƟon and of any hearings.

Thank you for considering this,

David Lane
1258 Commons Dr.
2 530‐632‐9423
To: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner, City of Sacramento
From: Inderjit Rye, Campus Commons Resident (906 Commons Dr) on 4-5-23 Re: Z22-079 Commons
It would be a grave disservice to the more than one or two thousand Campus Commons residents who drive, walk, or bike past 707 Commons, on a daily or weekly basis, to see the current building, and trees, and rising berm, and landscaping, removed and replaced by what Bardis & Miry are proposing for the site.

A current resident of Campus Commons and former tenant of 707 Commons said: the building and grounds at 707 Commons mostly strongly suits its location as an entryway to much of our community…the proposal does not fit, at all”. I agree.

It is hard to find perfect neighborhoods. Currently Campus Commons is a perfect neighborhood. The loss of 707 Commons, as it currently is, will destroy that. It would be a loss for Sacramento, as well.

Here are my main objections to the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive:
- The design of the proposed units is not at all complementary to the residential units within the Campus Commons neighborhood whereas the design of the current office building is complementary. (Please read and consider Carr Kunze’s comments on design, as I concur with him and do not want to unnecessarily lengthen this letter.) - The three-story residential buildings across Campus Commons Rd and along Commons Dr are set behind a half story berm, and are not at street level. In fact no homes along Commons Rd are as level with the street as the proposed units are.
- Setbacks from Commons Dr to the proposed units are much smaller (5’ to 9.5’) compared to setbacks from Commons Dr to the immediately adjacent 2-story Campus Commons row of homes at 739 to 747 Commons Dr (approximately 40’). Even the one story homes across Commons Dr have large setbacks (approximately 27’). And the three story homes across Campus Commons Rd have large setbacks (approximately 25’ to 39”) compared to the setback from Campus Commons Rd to the proposed units (8’).
- The important sight line from Campus Commons Rd to Commons Dr will be gone. This will be a safety hazard for the bikers and walkers (many older than 60 years of age) who live in Campus Commons. (Because Commons Dr from Campus Commons Rd to American River Dr curves as much as it does, this sight line is very important.)
- The trees, especially the private protected trees, should not be removed. They provide health benefits to the community.
- If the 707 Commons lot contains 24 units, the average density on that 1.09 acres would be twice that of the nearest village (12 units per acre) and more than three times that of all the Campus Commons villages (6.7 units per acre).
- There is no provision for visitor parking as there is in all other nearby homes along Commons Dr and Campus Commons Rd.
- The residents of the proposed 24 units will not be dues contributing members of the park lands of the Campus Commons Park Corp and Nepenthe portions of the Campus Commons neighborhood (which is all but the 1.09 acres at 707 Commons. If the entrance to the 24 units were from 350 University Ave (owned by the current owners of 707 Commons Dr), the potential for inequity and conflict would be greatly reduced because it is much clearer that the new development is separate). The current residents of Campus Commons should not have to lose the beautiful (PUD-conforming) office building built on a lovely berm with lovely mature trees and landscaping, and instead get a PUD-nonconforming residential community and also have to share the beautiful lands that they have paid to build and maintain for over 50 years. They also should not have to build a wall around themselves.

Moreover, it appears clear that the proposed development violates the Sacramento 2035 General Plan.

I’d like to list sections of the general plan and how they are violated by the proposed development:

Citywide Land Use and Urban Design Policies
LU 2.1.1 Neighborhoods as a Basic Unit. Recognizing that Sacramento’s neighborhoods are the basic living environments that make-up the city’s urban fabric, the City shall strive through its planning and urban design to preserve and enhance their distinctiveness, identity, and livability from the downtown core to well integrated new growth areas.
➢ The distinctiveness and identity of our Campus Commons neighborhood will be ruined by a development more suited to downtown, midtown, or new areas (such as The Mill). Our livability (being able to safely walk, bike, and drive by Commons Dr at Campus Commons Rd) will be adversely altered by the proposed development.

LU 2.1.2 Protect Established Neighborhoods. The City shall preserve, protect, and enhance established neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between these 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 form that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood.
➢ The current building, on a raised berm, with its mature landscape is a sensitive transition from current residential Campus Commons to commercial University Ave. If future redevelopment of University Ave office buildings to residential units occurs (as Bardis & Miry alluded to at a November 28, 2022 meeting with Campus Commons Village Two), the setbacks and design and density at 707 Commons should be very similar to setbacks and design and density to other currently built units along Commons Dr. And somehow transition to the more dense development that is surely coming to University Ave.

LU 2.1.3 Complete and Well-Structured Neighborhoods. The City shall promote the design of complete and well-structured neighborhoods whose physical layout and land use mix promote walking to services, biking, and transit use; foster community pride; enhance neighborhood identity; ensure public safety; are family-friendly and address the needs of all ages and abilities. ➢ We currently have a complete and well-structured neighborhood. Our Campus Commons community pride is being shattered by the thought of 707 Commons, as is, disappearing, and a dense, overbearing development replacing green lawns and mature trees, and a sight line from Commons Dr to Campus Commons Rd disappearing and creating unsafe conditions for walkers, bikers, and drivers, many over 60 years of age.

LU 2.1.8 Neighborhood Enhancement. The City shall promote infill development, reuse, rehabilitation, and reuse efforts that contribute positively (e.g., architectural design) to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas.
➢ Our neighborhood will not be enhanced by the proposed development, not aesthetically. I believe Bardis & Miry love their design, but I have yet to meet a Campus Commons resident or visitor who thinks it will contribute positively.

LU 2.4.2 Responsiveness to Context. The City shall require building design that respects and responds to the local context, including use of local materials where feasible, responsiveness to Sacramento’s climate, and consideration of cultural and historic context of Sacramento’s neighborhoods and centers. ➢ The design of the proposed units is very different from the design of all other units in Campus Commons. Please come and walk our neighborhood to see this. This is a neighborhood where the land and landscaping is noticed first. With this proposed development, the land and landscaping will disappear, and one will feel like a block from midtown landed in Campus Commons. Moreover, the proposed removal of the trees and the lawn and replacement by concrete and asphalt will contribute to a heat island effect.

Environmental Resources Policies
ER 3.1.2 Manage and Enhance. The City shall continue to plant new trees, ensure new developments have sufficient right-of-way width for tree plantings, manage and care for all publicly owned trees, and work to retain healthy trees.
➢ All healthy trees on the 707 Commons’ 1.09 acre lot should be retained. The decision as to healthy trees should be made by an independent organization, not anyone paid by the developer. The city should consider unit setbacks sufficient enough to enable the planting and healthy growth of canopy ornamental pear trees on a lawn strip, along the Commons Dr side of the development, to tie into the rest of Commons Dr.

ER 3.1.6 Urban Heat Island Effects. The City shall 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.

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 1 of 2 Date: April 5, 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
Dear Mr. Dahla:

Thank you for visiting our Campus Commons community, along with Eric Guerra to hear our concerns.

We appreciate the time that you have given to our community.

We are writing to express our concerns regarding the revised plans submitted for the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive. 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 and green space will impact our existing neighborhood.

We appreciate that the developer has made revisions to their originally submitted plans. However, we feel the revisions fall short of what is necessary to meet the City Plan and City ordinances which we described in our letter to you dated December 19, 2022. We would still like to see the concerns in our December 19, 2022 letter addressed in further revised plans.

We have summarized our requests to the revised plans:
1) We see that a historic resources report was submitted by the developers. We still feel strongly that more work is required to save the existing, architecturally-important building from demolition. We are in support of Carr Kunze’s comments regarding the historic preservation of the building. 2) There does not appear to be any changes to address our concerns about the scale of the new buildings and the grading of the land to be in accordance with the surrounding neighborhood. The scale and grading require more changes.
3) The increase in the building setback is minimal and not adequate to be in accordance 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. The new condos should have a similar setback distance from the street as these adjacent set of homes. 4) The slight amount of common space opened up on the corner by removing one unit is appreciated but is inadequate as far as providing space 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. 5) No private protected trees are retained, as requested. We would like to see all of the private, protected trees remain. But at a minimum, we feel it is reasonable to request the preservation of the 90-inch coast redwood #3417, the 28-inch tulip tree #3425, and the 55-inch coast redwood #3426. 6) The existing planting strip has not been retained on Commons Drive. Planting strips have not been added along all street faces surrounding the development, as requested.

Project Z22-079 Comments to City of Sacramento Planning Page 2 of 2 7) The new building color is an improved change, but it is not a guaranteed, enduring change since at any time in the future, the development's HOA can change the paint colors. 8) It appears that the HVAC’s have been moved from the front to the side of the end-unit condos in each 4-plex. This is improvement. Where are the HVAC's located for the 2 center condos in the 4-plexes? 9) There does not appear to be any changes to address the concerns about the driveway location and that it is a shared driveway with the Campus Commons community. Driveway entry was requested from University Avenue which is the primary vehicle entry location today to 707 Commons Drive. 10) There does not appear to be any changes to add on-site visitor parking. 11) The newly planned 16-foot wide condos have a tandem (single-car-width) garage for single-file parking. In the previous development plan, all condos had a double car garage that allowed for side-by- side parking. This garage configuration change will result in increased street parking since most people wish to avoid the hassle of juggling single-file parked cars. Instead, they will likely park their 2nd car on the street instead in the garage. There are 2 of the new, smaller 16-foot wide condos in each of the 4- plexes. With six 4-plexes, this garage configuration change may result in the addition of up to 12 more cars parking on the street. There needs to be adequate on-site visitor parking to mitigate the impact to street parking resulting from this change, or a further reduction of condos that will allow double car garages in all condos.
12) There is still no mention of adequate room being planned in the alleyways for the trash bins (3 per condo) on pick-up day.

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: 04/04/2023
Comments Regarding the Resubmitted Plans of 3/7/2023
I am living in Campus Commons, Village 2, on Commons Drive and walk by 707 Commons Drive every day and am shocked by the development proposal that the entire Palo Alto open space park ranch styled building with lovely wood accents along with all 24 trees, including 11 protected trees, will be cut down, removed, the plateau/hill leveled and replaced by high density unattractive modern 3 story high townhouses with that urban ‘crammed in’ look.

See this photo of why the 707 Commons Drive building includes many features of midcentury ranch style buildings like the 1936 Charles K. Sumner Early Modern Style in Palo Alto, and San Francisco. The 707 Commons Drive office building is not just some cheaply constructed box structure but instead it looks like it could be the home of a cultural center or think tank as it sits on a plateau, surrounded by open space and beautiful landscaping and lovely trees.

I respectfully submit the following analysis and response regarding the above referenced Planning Application Z22-079:

Regrettably, the proposed development for 24 townhouses at 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento, CA within a small 1.09acre space would be out of place for the following reasons:

2 • Proposed development with seven modern 3 story high buildings crowded together is a completely different style from the existing Campus Common Village open ranch style housing with lots of open space and trees.
• No room for tree landscaping to match existing treescaping and landscape. • 9.5’ setback from Commons Drive and 8’ setback from Campus Commons Drive instead of a 40’ setback—see closest address at 739 Commons Drive which is 40’ setback. • Apartment styled triplex and quadplex buildings are 3 floors high instead of the 1 to 2 floors housing
• High density unit per acre, 25.5 units per acre proposed compared to approximately 12 units per acre in the surrounding neighborhood.
• Loss of 24 scenic trees, 11 of the trees are protected and one redwood tree located in front of the building is particularly unique because it is twinned (shares the same trunk) and has a girth of 12.5 ft –see photos taken on page 3
• Loss of architecturally significant building built in 1967 by architect Charles Warren Callister, architect (1917-2008). Callister’s firm, Callister and Payne, also designed the homes of villages one, two and parts of village four, as well as the community building complex together with the offices at 707 Campus Commons Drive. • Removal of 24 trees and levelling a small hill on the 1.09 parcel sized lot with 7 crammed houses located at the corner of Commons Drive and Campus Drive will forever clash with the existing open space architectural style of the Campus Commons housing. • Serious safety concerns must be addressed because 14 Campus Commons residents will be sharing a single lane common access driveway from Commons Drive with 48 cars entering or exiting the new underground parking garage of the new development. 3 With no sidewalks! Please see this photo:

• There is no neighborhood support for this new development for the reasons stated above.
• See this Inside Sacramento article about why this is the wrong development:
https://insidesacramento.com/a-commons-mistake/
• The development is better suited in an urban downtown center where space is at a premium.

I am against the development because it would forever destroy a building of great architectural significance, change the neighborhood completely by a very different architectural style, height difference, not to mention there would be no trees at all outside the proposed townhouses.

This current photo of 707 Commons Drive taken from Google maps street level is much more scenic and is consistent with the open ranch style housing of Campus Commons and was built at same time as other Campus Commons Village 1 and 2 and the Clubhouse and also complements the existing Campus Commons housing.

4 707 Commons Drive office building is NOT some empty big box office building, it is a unique and important building and should be preserved, not bulldozed.

And a view from 707 Commons Drive to the ranch style houses across the street:

5 Consider the scenic aesthetic root systems of these large trees which are located near the shared access lane with 735-749 Commons Drive

Versus:

https://sfyimby.com/2023/03/application-for-707-commons-drive-campus-commons- sacramento.html

The coast redwood tree is quite significant because I understand it is a native protected tree due to its trunk exceeds a certain diameter and there are two redwood trees growing together from the same trunk (sorry if I am repeating myself but this is important!) and has a 12.5 ft perimeter or a 6 foot diameter. See the photo below showing the twinned redwood trees and the lovely flowering hedges with walkways from the driveway.

6 Unfortunately, a tree tag by CAL TLC #3417 in Auburn, CA has been placed on this lovely redwood tree for removal, see photo at top of page 4.

7 I measured the trunk of the redwood tree that has two trees growing, it shows 282”.

Here is
Here is a photo of 707 Commons taken from the 350 University parking lot:

8 Here is a photo taken from the front of 707 Commons drive center walkway showing the existing Campus Commons housing and trees and how this current property nicely compliments the neighborhood.

Here is a view across the street from the corner of Campus Commons and Commons Drive showing a similar plateau for 2 story housing:

9 Here is a photo from across the street of 707 Commons Drive to the other side of Commons Drive:

So, please consider my request to not approve Z22-079 as currently planned. Approval of this proposal will be the beginning of the end to the peace and tranquility of the Campus Commons housing and destroy the park style setting with concrete and tall 3 story buildings and lots of traffic.

10 Remember the beauty of these protected trees in spring:

Thank you for your consideration.

MK Hickox
[email protected]

Supplemental photos, dated 6th April 2023
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: 04/06/2023
Additional photos related to the comments submitted 04/05/2023 Regarding the Resubmitted Plans of 3/7/2023 The photos in my comments for development proposal Z22-079 were not high resolution and got pixalated so I am taking the time and effort to provide better resolution photos of 707 Commons Drive such as the front of 707 Commons Drive from the top of the plateau:

2 Photo upclose from the University Avenue side of the 707 Commons Drive with the lovely decorative awnings on this walkway that runs parallel to the 707 Commons building :

3 Photo upclose of twinned redwood trees from the top of the plateau/stars of 707 Commons outisde main entrance:

4 Photo upclose of the right side of the 707 Commons building adjacent to the shared access lane with Campus Commons, notice the lovely shrubs are blooming and nice attention to building details with the awnings:

5 Lastly, I finally found a photo of this spectacular art by renowned international Spanish artist Cristina Iglesias outside the Bloomberg building in London.. https://www.hiddenhydrology.org/forgotten-streams-cristina-iglesias/ https://www.hiddenhydrology.org/forgotten-streams-cristina-iglesias/ “… they are pretty beautiful, but it was funny to read the review from the Guardian on the Norman Foster designed
building, and a specific reference to this work: “In a civic-minded gesture, there are three new public spaces at the corners of the site, adorned with water features by Spanish artist Cristina Iglesias, although her green-patinated bronze layers of matted foliage resemble fetid swamps – perhaps a sly comment on the financial services industry.”

6 Here’s a better resolution photo of Commons Drive Campus Commons housing on the same side of the Commons Drive as the 707 Commons building:

Thank you for your consideration. As you can see bulldozing this 1.09 acre for high density 3 story townhouses means losing this building, the park like setting, and beautiful trees.

Once these townhouses are built, the next development project will be of course to tear down and bulldoze the 350 University adjacent plot which the developers also own and presumeably will want to build more high density townhouses and a bigger garage.

Thus there will be ongoing construction for the next 5 years easily and this area will soon have more traffic.

These townhouses really belong one block up on University Ave across from the UV shopping centre where there is currently a development project with an empty slab 3 story high office building that is on the corner of Howe and University with an car entrance on University.

MK Hickox
[email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mary Ann <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 3:21 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive, Project #Z22-079
To Zach Dahla, Associate City Planner,

Dear Mr. Dahla,

I am a Campus Commons resident writing to you about the proposed development at 707 Commons Dr., Project #Z22- 079. I have become aware of much more about this project since I first noticed it in Fall 2022. Foremost is my clearer understanding that once the development is completed, the developers no longer have any interest in the ongoing fallout on the neighborhood from this alien structure. Their interest is solely in the profit on their investment, not in the livability issues they create for residents of Campus Commons and Nepenthe. Therefore it is critical that your department recognize these issues on behalf of the residents of our long-established and coherent neighborhood and mitigate them as fully as possible through your process.

I have studied the revised development plans that were submitted to the City in March 2023 and I credit the developers with changes that begin to move the proposal in a more positive direction. However, the whole proposal is so completely incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood that the submitted alterations hardly begin to address major neighborhood concerns.

Even with the revisions, the entire design of the new buildings show little relationship to the history and architectural style, color schemes, limited density, sidewalk setbacks, elevations, trees and landscaping of the Campus Commons residences that surround them on three sides. The developers need to redouble their efforts to remedy these omissions:

1. There is no transition whatever to the established neighborhood in these respects:
 The levelled site is incongruous with the neighborhood of rolling landscapes.  Three story condos tower over neighboring 1-2 story homes.  Housing density is still double to triple that of the surrounding community.  Building setbacks are still inadequate to align with the neighborhood. The setback for 739 Commons Drive is ~40 feet.
 There are virtually no trees on the site, in a nei ghborhood notable for its extensive shade, habitat, and other canopy benefits.

2. More about trees:
 The plans still call for removal of ALL 24 existing trees, including 11 private protected trees, eliminating all tree canopy benefits from this acre of the neighborhood.  There are now 2 small open spaces at the ends of the front building. The spaces are too small for canopy trees (does SMUD mean underground utilities?).
 Canopy trees are essential to the health of a neighborhood, and a city. Sacramento has expressed a commitment to preservation of City trees. Approve this plan without preserving the canopy and other developers will expect the same.

3. Unmitigated traffic and parking difficulties:
 All entry and exit from the site is still via the single driveway shared with Campus Commons, overloading the driveway and Commons Drive with traffic. Where is a driveway from University Ave?  The continued absence of on-site parking will greatly increase street parking and traffic on surrounding streets.
 New single-file garages will cause residents to park a second car on the street, further loading Commons Drive with cars and traffic.
 Where will anyone park with 72 refuse cans lined up on Commons Drive 1-2 days per week?

The developers of this incongruous annex to Campus Commons have a lot more work to do before their vision begins to align with that of the residents in our coherent and established neighborhood. The revised proposal still stands in stark and institutional contrast to its more widely distributed and leafy neighbors. 2 I am distressed at the developer's insistence that they have a "right" to develop 36 units on this acre. They appear to believe that right extends to imposing their incompatible vision on the coherent, established neighborhood in which this acre is embedded. I defend our right to continue to enjoy the neighborhood where we chose to buy our homes, a neighborhood where we fully expected continuance of the architectural style, history and character, trees, open space, safety, and amenities.

Thank you for your attention.

Mary Ann Robinson
Campus Commons

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Maureen Price <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 4:30 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: PAUL STIFFLER; Eric Guerra; Koy Saeteurn
Subject: Z22-079 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attn: Zach Dahla

RE: 707 Commons Drive

I am a 17-year resident of Campus Commons Village 4.

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed housing development of 707 Commons Drive.

 There will be significant traffic congestion on both Commons Drive and Campus Commons due to the high- density number of units. This congestion will impact the quality of life and safety in a quiet, calm neighborhood which is one of the reasons I bought my condo in Campus Commons.  The proposed development negatively impacts current residents. Parking on Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road will be insufficient for current Campus Commons residents and for the proposed number of residents at 707 Commons Drive.
 The change in the number of garages that will be single f ile as opposed to double garages further increases the likelihood of insufficient street parking as there is less likelihood that residents of the proposed development with two cars will park their cars one behind the other due to inconvenience.  Bringing down the berm between the proposed development and the adjacent campus commons village will negatively impact the privacy of current residents of that village.  The coming and going per the driveway on Commons Drive will negatively impact traffic on Commons Drive.  The architectural plan does not fit well with the current architectural and beauty of Campus Commons. The design looks stark and out of place.
 Campus Commons, especially Commons Drive to Amer ican River Drive, is known for its beautiful trees.

Removing trees to build the proposed development does not support the current beauty, shade and related seasonal ambience of Campus Commons.
 The proposed 24-unit density is much higher than curr ent unit density and does not fit well with the current community norms.
 There is nothing in the proposed development to prohibit residents from using some of the Campus Commons amenities since it is directly adjacent across the street. Some will use our playgrounds, ponds, landscaping and walkways. These amenities have been and continue to be paid for by homeowners. Homeowner dues are expensive and necessary to keep up the beauty of Campus Commons.  The developers of the proposed development have not a ttempted to create housing that can fit with the current standards of beauty and design in Campus Commons. I question their willingness and interest to work cooperatively with Campus Commons to join out community in a positive way given their proposal.

I strongly oppose the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive.

Maureen Price
909 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825

916 442-8334
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Peter Clive Mundy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 8:11 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Kim Fuller ([email protected])
Subject: Response to revised 707 Commons Drive application Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Zach,

I have reviewed the revised application proposal for 707 Commons Drive and I believe it still falls far short of proposal for development that is appropriate for the Campus Commons neighborhood. One major problem remains that the density of house planned for the acreage available is several time greater than in residential developme nt in the immediate area. The second major problem that is not clear that the proposal contains an adequate landscape architecture plan. The increased set‐back does not clearly address this issue. For both environmental and aesthetic reasons all the homes in campus commons not only have significant set backs from road way s but also significant road screening with a great variety of trees. These serve to create a very significant part of the ambience of the community, while also serving to regulate heat in the residences and energy costs in the summer. Not only is this a characteristic of the resi
dential community of Campus Commons, it is also a characteristic of the landscape architecture of the many businesses that line the broad expanse of University Ave which surrounds the Campus Commons Business community from Howe Ave to Brekenwood Way. This is true even for the large high density apartment complexes cl ose to the Sacramento State. It’s very difficult to understand why one development group would be allowed to move forward with a project that does not abide by both the residential and mercantile landscape architecture of the community. After examining the schematic of their new proposal tt seems likely that the develope rs may be able to solve this problem if they would consider conserving space by developing the residences with adjoining rear walls as well as side walls. This would allow the residences to be built in a more central portion of acreage allowing for less road construction, and larger setbacks that would allow for a more appropriate lands cape architecture plan.

With best regards,

Peter
Peter Mundy, Ph.D.

Distinguished Professor of Education and
Lisa Capps Professor of Psychiatry at the MIND Institute University of California, Davis
Past‐President and Board Member, International Society for Autism Research Senior Associate Editor, Autism Research
https://profil
es.ucdavis.edu/peter.mundy

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Jonathan Hayes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To whom it may concern,

My name is Dr . Jonathan Hayes and I have been a resident of campus commons for the last 10 years.

I am wriƟng to you with concerns over the proposed development at 707 commons Drive.

My concerns stem from two aspects of the proposed plan:

1. The de
nsity of the proposed development is incredibly high compared to the surrounding area, with 24 units planned on a single acre compared to 6.7 units on the exisƟng development. I believe this increase density will degrade the quality of the exisƟng community, and I would ask that yo ur oﬃce intervene to decrease the proposed building density to bring it more in accordance with the exisƟng development.

2. The lack of visitor parking in the proposed plan will negaƟvely impact the safety as well as estheƟcs of the exisƟng development. It is note wo rthy that the exisƟng oﬃce complex has its parking and entrance and exit routes oriented away from campus commons, thus limiƟng the traﬃc and congesƟon that is directed into the campus common residenƟal development. It seems as though requesƟng a similar conﬁguraƟ on for the new development would be wise.

We are all pained by the loss of so many signiﬁcant trees and the lack of green space aﬀorded by such a minimal setback on the planned development, however I do recognize the need to accept change to welcome our new neighbors in to the
community. That being said, I respecƞully ask that your oﬃce conƟnues to work diligently to ensure that all planned developments in the city of Sacramento are posiƟve and move our city in a direcƟon that will be admired and Cherished by future ge nera Ɵons‐ just as campus commons is today.

It is no easy task to build the future, but I conﬁdent in your oﬃce and in you. Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon.

Respecƞully,

Dr . Jonathan Hayes

1 Zachary Dahla
From: HerbAndJoy Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2023 11:15 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Proposed development at 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,

I strongly urge you to oppose the proposed reciprocal access agreement for 707 Commons Dr. It will change the character of the area and lower our property values

Herbert Cohen
309 Hartnell Pl.

Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Gail Burriss <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2023 4:36 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Mr. Dahla:

My fellow residents of Campus Commons and Nepenthe have sent our objecƟons to the revised 707 Commons project in detail. Please do not let such a project go forward as is. It is wrong to remove all the old trees, level the land, ﬁll the lot with 3‐stor
y houses and concrete driveways, and worst of all, widen an easement around a busy corner and through Campus Commons property. At the very least, any access to that property should be from University Ave.

Sincerely, Gail Burriss
272 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, Ca 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:15 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project #Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla:

I am writing again to express my concerns about the above noted proposed project at 707 Commons Drive. The revised plan submitted by the property owners barely addresses any of the concerns that have been expressed by me and fellow Campus Commons residents. The design and layout of this project are certainly not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. This by itself appears to be in direct conflict with the stated purpose and mission of the City of Sacramento Planning Department. This new development would have much shorter setbacks, no tree canopy, limited parking for residents, no visitor parking, limited vegetation, much higher housing density, no on-site amenities, and limited driveway access. Heritage trees and the berm will be lost - leading to more noise pollution and a less healthy environment. This project, if completed, would irrevocably alter the nature, character, and appearance of my community.

Campus Commons is private property - not a public park. The maintenance and upgrades of the common areas are paid for by Campus Commons residents through monthly HOA fees and special assessments. I pay a $500 per month HOA fee. The 707 plan does not address the concerns regarding invasion by and trespassing of 707 residents into our private property. Who will pay for added security to keep these people from using our facilities and not paying or contributing to their costs of upkeep? This includes our clubhouse, pools, ponds, tennis courts, playgrounds, exercise facilities, and walking paths.

There are abundant issues that have not been addressed by the revised plans for the development of this property. The current plans should be denied until each and every issue raised has been thoroughly addressed and remedied.

Thank you for your attention.

David Norene
437 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
Campus Commons Village One
1545 River Park Drive, Ste 100. Sacramento, CA 95815. Ph: (916) 565-8080. Fax: (916) 565-8070

ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS
WWW.ASSOCMC.COM

April 27, 2023

Dear Katherine and Bay:

The Campus Commons Village One Board of Directors recently agreed to confirm in writing the following facts that we believe to be true and correct regarding your property at 707 Commons Drive. There is no recorded easement or written joint use agreement with the Campus Commons Village One Homeowners Association (V-1 HOA) allowing your use of the driveway on V-1 HOA property located on the east side of your proposed
development providing access to Commons Drive.

Should you desire such an arrangement, please present a proposal that reflects the interests of our community.

Thank you,
Georgia McGreal, President Campus Commons Village One

cc: Zach Dahla, Sacramento City Planning Department (via email:
[email protected])

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Sandi Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2023 12:27 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project Number Z22-079 Concerns
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Zach Dahla,

I live in Campus Commons. After looking at the the developer’s revised application for 707 Commons Drive, I still have some concerns! The plans are to build 24 large townhomes that are placed close to the road with little to no green space or trees. This architecture does not keep with the character of our existing Campus Commons neighborhood!

I have five main concerns. I am concerned and object to the removal of of the existing healthy mature trees on the property. I am also concerned and object to the density of 24 buildings on the property. I would like to see fewer buildings set further back away from the street, mor
e green space and tree canopy. I am concerned and object that the project does not conform to the Campus Commons neighborhood. I am also concerned and object the increased traffic these plans would cause through the neighborhood that would affect driving and walking safety. I am also concerned and object to the lack of visitor pa
rking.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Sandi Turner
432 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 801‐4788
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: shwrma <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 11:22 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: AgencyCounter: Z22-079 inquiry
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
First, I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concern. Thank you...

Secondly, I just realized that all this work is happening in 1 acre! The 25 units will be created in a space that often serves 1 home. 25!

Third, your greed is what is reflected in your work. I wonder what would happ en if you cut this project in half? What if you developed 12 beautiful single level homes/duplexes? Are you adding to beauty of our city or promoting packed living conditions which ultimately creates more traffic, noise, smog, and a significant loss to a very peaceful neighborhood?

Finally, my investment in my home is how I will retir
e after a lifetime of work. Your addition is selfish and greedy. How wonderful it could be to know as a developer who helps to beautify Sacramento vs otherwise. You might find an appreciation beyond what you can imagin....

Please consider another plan...

With respect,
Shellie

Sent from Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Paula <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 7:29 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 707 Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I'm a resident long-time resident of the Campus Commons.

The "revised plan" submitted by the contractor does not address most of the major issues. The revision does not address the decimation of heritage trees or the leveling of the landscape that harmonizing with our community. Eliminating only one home is laughable. This will still be a high- density, close-set mass of concrete buildings.

In addition to ruining the character of our neighborhood, the irreplaceable loss of trees and the gentle landscape, there will be parking issues, increased traffic and residents intruding into our community and our facilities. This is inevitable.

This is an urban project that belongs downtown. It does not belong here.

Paula Zaby
251 Hartnell Place

1 Zachary Dahla
From: phil cabe-law.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 11:27 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: FW: Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
The new proposals by the developer do not change my objections to the project.

This project is out of line for our community I strenuously object to it. Thank you.

P Cabe 260 Commons Dr.

From: phil cabe‐law.com
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 4:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Z22‐079

The developer of 707 Commons Dr should not be permitted to do any such change to the architectural and aesthetic requirements of this community. Each of the owners has, by investing in Campus Commons, agreed that new construction should be substantially similar to the overall plan. This proposal is not in any way similar, it is a radical idea for our community.

Phillip Cabe
260 Hartnell Place
Sacramento CA 95825
916-214-3155
[email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mary Tamraz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 5:41 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Proposed 707 Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good afternoon Mr. Dahla,

The current March/April, 2023 of Sactown magazine features the beauty of Sacramento. “The City of Trees: A Love Letter” And “Welcome to Sacramento: City of Trees” are on the cover itself. Inside is an article “The Giving Trees: A Loving Look at their Beauty, Benefits, and Why We need them Now More than Ever”.

It would seem that the proponents of the 707 Property should be required to maintain the heritage trees on that property. Construction plans would have to be altered to accommodate these trees for the benefit of the wider community.

Sincerely,

Mary Anna Tamraz
1010 Commons Drive
(209) 217-4026
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Matthew G. Lasner <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 2:21 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project #Z22-079, Further Comments
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Messrs. Dahla and Guerra,

I am a historian of urban planning and architecture who teaches at Calif. College of the Arts (and was for the past 12 years professor of urban studies and planning at Hunter College, City University of New York), with experƟse in / who has published peer‐revi ewed scholarship on planned communiƟes in the mid‐20th century U.S., including those designed by Charles Warren Callister . My purpose in wriƟng is to underscore three claims made by Carr Kunze in “CriƟque and Proposed Re‐evaluaƟon Re: Historic Resource EvaluaƟon: 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento, Calif ornia”:

1) that the structure in quesƟon, 707 Commons Dr ., is an integral part of the Campus Commons whole,

2) that it is a ﬁne, and increasingly uncommon, example of a suburban oﬃce building in the Second Bay TradiƟon, parƟcularly one set in a planned development, and

3) tha
t the designer, C.W . Callister, was among the most talented architects designing in the Bay Area tradiƟon in the 1960s—and beyond that, one of the most talented and inﬂuenƟal architects or urban planners working in the ﬁeld of mulƟ‐use planned communiƟes in the 20 th century U.S.

PART OF A WHOLE

Since 2011, I have combed through Callister's papers — personal papers, oﬃce records, plans and drawings, etc. — at the Environmental Design Archives at UC Berkeley, including those relaƟng to Campus Commons, as part of my research for a book‐in‐progress on the his
tory of planned communiƟes in the United States designed by Bay Area architects.

Evidence I found — chieﬂy in Callister's notes — underscores that from the ﬁrst, he conceived of the commercial structure in quesƟon as a central and integral feature of Campus Commons, wriƟ ng that he envisioned its public and recreaƟon buildings "as working together to bring the people together ." Of note, as he was designing Campus Commons, Callister very much had in mind other contemporaneous examples of planned communiƟes, such as Reston, Va., and The Sea Ranch, which were conceived by idealis ts to beƩer integrate housing, work, and leisure than standard suburban developments were doing, largely through a mixture of land uses and cohesive (rather than incremental) design and development. Callister’s plan for Campus Commons follows their lead.

FINE EXTANT EXAMPLE

While the building in quesƟon — like all the buildings at Cam pus Commons and that Callister built for property developers — the craŌsmanship is not bespoke, but it is innovaƟve, exemplary of its zeitgeist, and remarkable for transcending its modest budget. (Callister was known for achieving striking designs on ordinary budgets.) It also achieved Callist
er's aims, unlike the commercial buildings at most of the beƩer known compeƟng developments, such as those I menƟon above. At those other projects, which were much larger than Campus Commons and, as a consequence, took much longer to develop (in some cases, decades), original designs were modiﬁed before bu ild‐out. Campus Commons, by contrast, was built largely as planned. (That said, this was also true of two of Callister’s other [mostly] completed PUD projects in the 1960s: Rossmoor in Walnut Creek, CA, and Heritage Village in Southbury, CT .) Campus Commons is also an 2 increasingly rare extant example of this sort of "complete" community (as PUDs were oŌen referred to at the Ɵme), as structures in others, including some in planned communiƟes that Callister worked on, have been torn down. (Again, though, Campus Commons is not enƟrely unique: the commercial buildings remain mostly in tact at both Rossmoor and Heritage Village, although at the laƩer a highly innovaƟve shopping center with painted supergraphics by Barbara Stauﬀacher, famous for her paintwork at The Sea Ranch, has been razed.)

CALLISTER’S TALENT & REPUTATION

Callister, though not well remembered today, was one of the leading archit ects of mid‐20th century Northern California.

As I detail in my arƟcle "ReƟrement Planning," published in the Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians in 2021, he was boldly innovaƟve in his use of wood and of references to Japanese design and craŌsmanship, as well as in making older Northern California architectural tradiƟons relevant to the Space Age. His early houses, schools, and churches, in the late 1940s and 1950s, won naƟonal acclaim. As he began to work with developers (rather than individual clients) in the early 1960s, he proved the rare skilled ar chitect willing and able to apply ideas, largely in tact, at a large scale. It’s worth noƟng, too, that unlike other leading architects of his Ɵme, in accepƟng commissions for projects like Campus Commons, he acƟvely, consciously, worked to beƩer the ordinary U.S. metropolitan built environment, producin g beauƟful places, with oﬃce, shops, and a variety of housing types, that families of average means could aﬀord. There are many other U.S. architects who worked in the ﬁeld of planned communiƟes in the second half of the 20th century but none with the dedicaƟon or clarity of vision as Callist er . Through projects like Campus Commons, along with Rossmoor, Heritage Village, and Hiller Highlands in Oakland, CA (destroyed by the ﬁrestorm of 1991), Callister marked himself in the mid‐60s as the single most creaƟve and successful designer of planned communiƟes in the U.S., a posiƟ on he conƟnued to enjoy through the 1970s and ‘80s.

IN SUM

The need for new homes is acute and the owners of the site have proposed to build row houses that saƟsfy contemporary mainstream tastes, and which will surely ﬁnd willing buyers. But that pr oject — certainly as currently
designed, with setbacks, heights, and an aestheƟc that are sharply at odds with Campus Commons' — will without quesƟon rupture the visual and spaƟal cohesion of the planned community, and, crucially, the delicate balance that Callister achieved between building and nature, which was another hallmark of his c ommunity designs. As I wrote in my arƟcle about Callister, through his planned communiƟes he "tried to create a new urban paƩern that was relaƟvely dense yet dominated by natural features as the result of clustering, the use of natural‐looking materials and landsc aping, and the studied rejecƟon of applied ornament. This was in contrast to convenƟonal suburbs, with their regularly laid‐out streets, lawns, and disƟnct individualized structures (whether houses or apartment buildings)." The new proposed houses run counter to that spirit.

‐MaƩhew Lasner

___

MaƩhew Go
rdon Lasner
maƩhewlasner .com

Founding co‐editor, PLATFORM
hƩps://cas5‐0‐urlprotect.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clickƟme/v1/query?url=www.plaƞormspace.net&umid=e8a06d0c‐ f10a‐11ed‐8159‐6045bd02532f&auth=0c78d5381d8efeba9ba4477b3ca23a49d0ab462f‐ 92f6cba4cd4ede9b2190f7ea64e55e05e6ed9146

1 Zachary Dahla
From: lo_shar68 <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 5:51 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: lo_shar68
Subject: Project #Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,

Although the developers of 707 Commons Drive have appeared to make some adjustments to their proposed development, it does not address in any way my concerns about the health and safety of the residents in the development and in Campus Commons. Making space to plan two small trees certainly doesn't fit the bill. These trees will not in any way mitigate the increased air pollution or potential water deluges that the current trees help mitigate - especially with the increased number of motor vehicles in the area. Regarding water pollution and deluges, there are many ways to mitigate the risk of flooding and I don't see that the developer has taken any of it into account, from porous concrete, to designing their development around some of the large trees, and keeping the ground intact rather than covering it with concrete. A skilled architect can work within these parameters. It appears to me that the developer's want to use their preconceived and cheap plans and put them onto an area where they don't fit.

There is still no indication that the parking for these potentially 100 additional vehicles has been addressed. Nor has the safety of pedestrians been incorporated into this change of plan. For example, putting in speed bumps. The city denied Campus Commons' request for speed bumps in the past because of low traffic volume, however, this scenario will certainly change if this proposed development is approved. How will the city and developer address this safety issue, given the current and changing demographics of the area?

If Sacramento wants to maintain that they are the city of trees, then allowing this development to go forward with the approval of cutting down so many large and private trees, makes this assertion suspect at best and disingenuous at worst.

Best,
Lorene Sarne

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Doug Dempster <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 3:05 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; [email protected]
Subject: Re: 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

We, the undersigned, join with our neighbors in opposing the plan to convert the office building at 707 Commons Dr. into 24 townhouses. Compared to the original Campus Commons neighborhoods directly north, east and south of this parcel, this would squeeze way too many units on that site. The present building, with mature trees sitting on a hill, was designed to fit in with the nearby villages of original Campus Commons. In contrast, the proposed replacement structures will stick up like sore thumbs.

Commons Drive already has heavy traffic. This will add to it. There will be no practical way for original Campus Commons to keep the townhome residents from using the community amenities we pay for in our dues but they won't. Such a development might work better many other places in Sacramento including parts of nearby University Avenue close to Guy West Bridge and CSUS.

The recent amendments to the developers' plans are hardly a change from the original one. Just because members of a prominent development family recently bought the site should not mean that we nearby residents have to bail them out. They should assume the risks, not us..

Marilyn Piazza and Doug Dempster, 489 Hartnell Pl, Sacramento 95825

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kathie Vaughn <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 5:09 PM
To: [email protected]; Zachary Dahla
Subject: Fwd: 707 Commons Development Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kathie Vaughn <[email protected]>
Date: April 28, 2023 at 9:22:04 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 707 Commons Development Project

I live directly across the street from the 707 Commons project and have submitted previous comments and concerns about the design and density of the dev
elopment and it’s impacts on my residence as well
as the Campus Commons community.

The developer has made what can only be described as de minimus changes which do nothing to allay my concerns. Others in my community have provided voluminous technical and environmental concerns with which I completely conc
ur.

Please keep me informed as plans for this property evolve. I plan to attend any future hearings on this project.

Respectfully,

Kathie Vaughn
702 Commons Dr
916‐832‐4431

Sent from my iPhone
April 20, 2023
Dear Mr. Dahla,
Following and attached are comments regarding Project Z22-079 at 707 Commons Drive. The attachment is the same as this in case it is easier to read as a document.

Regarding the revised proposal, there are a few changes the developers made which are very minor and do not address the largest issue which is compatibility with the existing community. In two previous emails to you in November and December, 2022, I cited several sections of the developers’ first proposal that did not, in my opinion, meet the planning guidelines. Following are the specific guidelines which relate to most of the continuing concerns below.

Page 1 ends

Sacramento City CouncilJune 18, 2024

Sacramento City Council
June 18, 2024