respect existing residential patterns and development, and reinforce the character and functional relationships of existing neighborhoods.” Pages 7-8, Items 16-19, Architectural Elements has several sections which 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.” The revised proposal does not meet these critical requirements. I do not know how the Planning and Design Commission could approve this proposal. While the revised proposal increases the setback somewhat and does show the color as being more similar to the surrounding community, these changes still do not meet the guidelines. I know you are getting input from many others in Campus Commons, so I will not state all of the issues. But, following are the issues which I think are critical.
The density is the most obvious issue with the proposed development having 24 units on 1.09 acre, while the surrounding community averages 6.7 units per acre. That is over 3 times the density of the existing community. This density results in very little open space and a very crowded look and feeling. This is not compatible with the existing neighborhood.
The development is at sidewalk level which does not “reinforce the streetscape character” of the surrounding Campus Commons community nor that of the existing adjoining office buildings which the developers own. This is not compatible with the existing neighborhood.
The Landscape Plan is of concern. The Landscape Plan on page 8 lists 11 trees that would be planted and their locations as well as numerous shrubs, grasses and groundcover. Although the types of trees to be planted are the same as those being removed, this does not make sense due to different climate and water conditions as well as the open spaces into which the trees were planted 50 years ago. At an initial meeting with the developers in November, they said they picked trees that were consistent with those in Campus Commons. We advised them that particularly the Liquid Amber trees are not desirable trees due to the seed pods which clog storm drains, create tripping hazards year round resulting in sprained and broken ankles, and the roots cause cracks in foundations and sidewalks. There are 5 Liquid Amber trees on the plan which would be located quite close to buildings. The trees do grow quickly and are very colorful in the fall which may be a drawing card for the developers in selling the units, but the longer term results will cause costly problems for the future homeowners.
Coast Redwoods are plentiful in Campus Commons but they were planted when water was plentiful and free. As a member of the Landscape Committee for Village 1, we would never plant Coast Redwoods, even to replace ones that had been removed. In fact, a few years ago when we were replacing trees, the arborist would not plant Coast Redwoods. He made several suggestions and referred us to a list of drought-tolerant trees for consideration.
Two other trees, the Silver Maple and Tilia trees, are also of concern. The spaces where they would be planted are much too small for their eventual sizes.
Parts of the Landscape Plan are not compatible with drought-tolerant landscaping or healthy tree growth. Different trees are needed for the area and the City Arborist should review the proposal.
The Tree Removal Plan on page 9 shows that all of the trees and shrubs would be removed from 707 Commons Drive, and it looks like a couple of trees from the adjacent property would also be removed. I find it interesting that many of the trees on the adjacent properties which are not being removed are also included. This includes trees that are on Village 1 and Village 2 property as well as the lot owned by the developers.
This gives the impression that, while many trees are being removed, there are still many trees that are not being removed. Is it typical to show plans in this way? Is it shown this way to assure the other property owners that their trees are not being affected? Or is it shown this way to minimize the visual impact of the tree removal? I have never looked at these types of plans before so maybe my comments above on the tree removal and the following comments on the Conceptual Renderings are not appropriate, but I still wanted to advise you of the concerns.
The Conceptual Renderings on pages 10 and 11 show several drawings of what the “finished” development would look like. However, these renderings are very misleading in that they show more than double the number of trees that would be planted and show them in areas where no trees are located on the Landscape Plan. Page 10, View A shows a spreading moderate-sized tree at the corner of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road and about 8-10 smaller trees in front of all of the houses along Commons Drive. View B on the same page shows a similar spreading tree at the northeast end of the units facing Commons Drive. No such trees are on the Landscape Plan. In fact, I believe that trees could not be placed at the ends of the buildings since the Site Plan on page 4 shows “SMUD Area” in both of these locations. I’m not quite sure how large of an area SMUD requires but I don’t think utility boxes and large trees go well together. The same misrepresentations are present on page 11, again with trees shown where none exist on the Landscape Plan, and the areas don’t appear to be big enough for normal and healthy tree growth.
These conceptual renderings should not be considered when evaluating the compatibility with the existing community. They do soften the appearance of the units and make the buildings look much more like they fit into the community. However, the renderings are a misrepresentation of the Landscape Plan and probably could not even eventually be achieved due to the fact that there is insufficient space in which to plant many of the trees.
I also have concerns with several practical issues. There is no visitor parking at all, and, with the change for half of the units to have tandem parking, there will likely be more cars of residents as well as their visitors parked on the street. Tandem parking is an efficient use of space but not very convenient if there are 2 busy drivers. The intersection at Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road is busy during the week particularly, and more parked cars will reduce the visibility at the intersection. I hope the City is considering a 4-way stop there.
There is also no space for amenities, such as open spaces, or a meeting room for a Homeowners’ Association to meet.
I can’t tell if there is sufficient space for garbage collection along the interior driveways.
I know from experience that it is a challenge for the garbage trucks to maneuver in our carport areas where we can have up to 2-3 garbage cans per week per household. It is difficult to see if the space requirements, that the cans must be 3 feet from structures and 3 feet apart, can be met and still allow for unimpeded car movement into and out of the garages. Would this mean that the garbage cans would be placed along Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road on the evening before and the day of garbage collection? This would add to the potential parking and traffic difficulties at that corner.
Since the developers own the adjoining office building, there are concerns that they have a longer range plan, although they indicated they did not have any current plans at the November meeting. I know the City and the developers can’t foresee the future and the City has to act on the proposal, but it seems that the possibility of residential development or other changes with the adjoining area needs to be addressed. I understand that development of a larger space has more requirements while a smaller, piece-meal approach circumvents some of those requirements. So, some of us are concerned that development of this corner is just the beginning of even greater changes that will affect the character of our neighborhood.
Given what I understand is the condition of the existing building and the high cost to bring it into compliance, I know there will be some changes sooner or later on the 707 Commons property. However, in my opinion neither the first nor the revised proposals meet the City guidelines, and they generate numerous unaddressed practical concerns.
Thank you so much for accepting these comments. If anything is unclear or I am misunderstanding the documents, or you have answers for any of my concerns, I would appreciate it if you would let me know. I am sure you are very busy, so just a reference or link would be great.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Styc
700 Commons Drive
(916) 715-7668 or (916) 484-0881
[email protected]
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: 05/11/2023
Additional Comments Re Discrepancies In Z22-079 Project Development and New Information on Architect Charles Warren Callister
Overview: Please note after the review of discrepancies found in the Z22-079 application, I have included a Supplement that includes new information regarding the architect Charles Warren Callister.
Why should Z22-079 be rejected? Look at all the discrepancies in the original application.
Discrepancies listed in Development Proposal Application Z22-079 submitted 10/03/2022
Z22-079 is misleading because 1) it states the proposed new buildings for 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento, CA 95825 are compatible with existing local residential housing when these new building are not and 2) the application contains several errors and misstatements.
Summary
• Units per Acre density is violated. The Developer’s stated density of 25 units per acre in the original Z22-079 application exceeded the current limit of 6 to 8 units per acre for Campus Commons housing that surrounds 707 Commons Drive. The same is true of the Developer’s revised density based on 24 units, which actually amounts to 22 units per acre (24 units divided by 1.09 acre = 22). Campus Commons housing is zoned as R-1-PUD for single family residential per ‘The City of Sacramento Planning and Development Code Map Book’ at https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-
/media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/Maps/ZoningDefinitions.pdf?la=en • 42 ft height of proposed new 3 story buildings is higher than all of the Campus Commons (PUD) housing which is 1 or 2 stories and also nearby office buildings.
The proposed Z22-079 development violates the maximum 35 ft height limit for the Office Building (OB) zoning as stated in the ‘The City of Sacramento Planning 2 and Development Code Map Book’ at https://www.cityofsacramento.org/- /media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/Maps/ZoningDefinitions.pdf?la=en • Currently, 707 Commons Drive is listed as Office Business Low-Rise Mixed-Use (OB-PUD) zone within the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD). zone classification. See: https://sacramento.agencycounter.com/?tab=map for 707 Commons Drive.
However, the developer wants to build multiple dwelling residential housing and will need to apply for a zoning change to reflect this change. Campus Commons is not classified as being downtown or central Sacramento. Most of Campus Commons, especially the original older houses that surround the 707 Commons Drive property is considered low density, single family residential which are zoned as R-1-PUD. However Campus Commons does have newer villages with R-1A-R-PUD zoning classification that allow single family alternative residential up to 15 units per acre density and these mostly 1 story detached houses are located several blocks away at 1100 Commons Drive. See:
https://generalmap.gis.saccounty.gov/JSViewer/county_portal.html#
If Z22-079 is approved, then other areas like Campus Commons can easily be converted into a high density central corridor with buildings that exceed the max
3 35 ft height anytime a developer is able to purchase Office Building parcels adjacent to Campus Commons such as 350 University Avenue. • To clarify, Campus Commons is unusual in that the streets, interior carports and enclosed garages in Campus Commons are lower than the ‘ground level’ from which the buildings are on. This ‘ground level’ in Campus Commons has been shaped, contoured such that the ground level is raised above the street level ranging from 4 ft to as much as 15 ft. The office building at 707 Commons Drive and the 2 story CCV1 houses on Campus Commons Road across the street from 707 Commons Drive have the highest ‘ground level’ (est at 15 ft) of anywhere in the area such that the buildings appear much higher than they are because they were built on top of the ‘ground level’ which was created by taking excavated dirt and building a terrace or a raised ‘berm’.
1 This landscaping was purposely
designed by Architect Charles Warren Callister for several reasons, mostly to make the area more interesting by adding raised terraces upon which the houses could be built upon, and another reason was to create a protective buffer from the noise and dirt from nearby Fair Oaks Blvd/Howe Ave.2 Without this massive landscaping, the Campus Commons area would be as flat as a pancake as can be seen outside of Campus Commons. For example, look at the nearby UV, Pavilions, Arden Arcade and other commercial and apartment buildings outside of Campus Commons—these areas are flat.
• Most Campus Commons housing is just 1 story high, with some 2 story buildings.
Most of the 2 story Campus Commons buildings can be found in the newer Campus Commons Villages 3, 10 and Nepenthe. There are some 2 story Campus Commons Village 1 (CCV1) buildings on Campus Commons Road across the street from 707 Commons Drive that appear to be 3 story because they have an enclosed garage on street level behind the these buildings and those garages are built below grade adjacent to the berm. However, Campus Commons Village 2 Resident Carr Kunze explains further that “
the Campus Commons Village 1 homes
facing Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road, are 2 stories at their frontages facing these respective streets. They are constructed as 2 stories above grade at their fronts with the garage built below grade at the rear.”
1 https://www.thespruce.com/how-to-build-berm-4160528 (last accessed 05/07/2023) 2 Freshwater, P. (1966, July 17). Architect Sees Campus Commons as City Within City. Sacramento Bee, 65.
4 See photos on page 5 and 6. These 2 story houses on Campus Commons Road and at the corner of Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive appear to be 2 story but appear higher because the first and second floors are built on top of a tall berm (est at 12 ft high) making it look as if these houses are 3 story. Each of these houses has an enclosed garage in the back which cannot be seen from the front of the 2 story building, because each garage was built adjacent to the berm and the berm hides the garage.
The ‘berm’ is a small mound of soil that was used by Architect Charles Warren Callister to place houses anywhere from 4 ft to 15 ft high above ground level.
Using raised berms is a key feature of Campus Commons housing: “The most visible difference about Campus Commons is the land sculpturing, by which the flat hop ranch land has been changed to provide interesting variations in height.
The street levels have been lowered and the building sites raised. The practical result is a measure of separation between automobiles and housing the visual effect is the creation of “canals” which, when the street plantings reach size, will appear to be tree-shaded creeks along which automobiles will travel, with only the tops visible, like rafts.“
3 Notice the house is higher than street level.
3 Freshwater, P. (1966, July 17). Architect Sees Campus Commons as City Within City. Sacramento Bee, 65.
5 Notice the downward slope towards street level of this CCV1 house at 888 Campus Commons Road on the corner of Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive in the photo below. This is the side view of a 2 story CCV1 house (888 Campus Commons Road) facing Campus Commons Road if one is standing across the street on Commons Drive with 707 Commons Drive in the background to the right.
Notice the garage is street level but both houses at 888 and 878 Campus Commons Road are built on a ridge or a ‘berm’ that is at least 12 feet in the second photo below.
This is 878 Campus Commons Drive in the photo below is across the street from the 350 University/707 Commons Drive office buildings and shows stairs from the street level going up to the ground level of this 2 story house.
6 The garage cannot be seen from the front of this CCV1 house next to 878 Campus Commons Road as it is behind the ridge aka ‘berm’ in the photo below.
The photo above and below of Campus Commons Road that ends at Commons Drive shows the lovely integration of trees that provides a canopy and protects the houses from street noise and traffic below. In both photos, the 707 Commons building is on the left side of Campus Commons Road. In the photo below, the proposed development would remove all trees, level the berm to street level and construct tall 42 ft high white and grey buildings on the left hand side from the corner of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road all the way down (over 100 ft) Campus Commons Road to the 2nd tree from left bottom corner in photo below. This is quite a change.
7 • Moreover, none of the nearby office buildings exceed the max 35 ft height limit for office buildings and none are higher than 2 stories along the University Avenue corridor from Howe Avenue towards Sacramento State University. Also, the 350 University Ave office building is only 2 stories and 350 University Ave is owned by BMSE University LLC and Sutter Estates. RBM Commons owns 707 Commons Drive. Two partners of BMSE University LLC are also partners of RBM Commons LLC. 350 University is also zoned as an Office Building or OB.
• The proposed 42 ft height of the SEVEN 3-story buildings will tower above Campus Commons housing in Campus Commons Villages 1 and 2 which are roughly 15 to 18 ft high for single-story housing and 22 to 28 ft for 2-story housing. See Chapter 5, section 5-12, ‘Height Criteria’ of the Sacramento County Zoning code accessed from
https://planning.saccounty.gov/LandUseRegulationDocuments/Pages/Sacrament o%20County%20Zoning%20Code.aspx specifically states the height criteria listed in 5.2.2D #1, #2 and #3 the reasons why the proposed building height are too tall for the surrounding Campus Commons area. See below for screenshot of Chapter 5, section 5-12.
8 Not to mention the loss of privacy of locating a 3 story building next to 1 and 2 story houses that are adjacent to the seven 42 ft high buildings at 707 Commons Drive, or that the sunshine will be blocked to an extent for surrounding houses or that all of the vegetation, trees and plants will be removed from 707 Commons. • Setback from street is violated. Proposed 9.5 ft versus 22 to 40 ft setback of existing housing and 9.5 ft setback isn’t enough to provide ‘treescaping’. See Chapter 5, section 5-2 of the Sacramento County Zoning code https://planning.saccounty.gov/LandUseRegulationDocuments/Pages/Sacrament o%20County%20Zoning%20Code.aspx which clearly states that the minimum setback for single residential housing is 24 ft which is in line with the setback figures listed for Campus Commons residential housing. See screenshot on next page from Chapter 5, section 5-2.
9 For multi-family residential setback, the setback is even greater at 25 ft:
10 • Setback figure is not 5 ft, it is 21.5 ft for 803 Commons Drive which is a block away from 707 Commons and 5 ft is the width of the sidewalk from the curb. • Please note the width of the sidewalk on Commons Drive near Campus Commons Road from the curb is 5 ft. See photo below:
• However, the width of the sidewalk (5 ft) plus a grass lawn strip (4 ft 11 inches) is nearly 10 feet which is the standard in Campus Commons and is more than the proposed 9.5 ft setback, not just a setback of 5 ft concrete sidewalk from the street. The proposed Development would require getting rid of the existing grass lawn strip and concrete sidewalk as shown in the photo below. However, the grass strip and sidewalk are public property and the proposed development encroaches on public property.
11 The tape measure shows where 9.5 ft setback is as displayed by the black tape that is perpendicular to the yellow tape measure which is just 5 inches short.
Please note that the grass strip with sidewalk of 9.5 ft setback changes to just a setback of the 5 ft wide concrete sidewalk from the curb as one walks in front of 707 Commons Drive towards the corner of Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive. See photo on next page.
12 • On the Z22-079 application filed 10/03/2022 (see page 18 of this document), the 350 University office building was mistakenly listed as being on the same side of the street as 707 Commons Drive on Commons Drive. The front of 707 Commons Drive is on Commons Drive but the back of 707 Commons faces the 350 University Avenue parking lot and is adjacent to the 350 University Avenue building. In fact, 350 University Avenue has a setback of over 40 ft from University Avenue, not 10 ft, and is made up of two buildings along Campus Commons Road. In fact, one of the 350 University buildings has a setback of over 40 ft and the second building which is closest to the 707 Commons Drive building has a setback of nearly 50 ft from Campus Commons Road.
13 See map below that shows University Avenue is parallel to Commons Drive at 707 Commons Drive and is connected via Campus Commons Drive.
• New proposed post modern townhouses are not in keeping with existing Campus Commons housing designed by Architect Charles Warren Callister who is known for working in the style of Second Bay Area Tradition aka ‘Bay Area Modernism’.4 “Callister's work was noted for its dramatic, almost baroque use of wooden piers and beams and wooden trim.”5 See point 1 on next page. Page 10 of 19 on Z22-079 Application under ‘Project Narrative’ lists 2 major discrepancies in a screenshot displayed on page 15 of this document.
• Z22-079 Application lists under ‘Neighborhood Contact’ that Campus Commons Village 1 (CCV1) Board President and Secretary had reportedly ‘coordinated’ with the developer –see a screenshot on page 16 of this document--for the new proposed 707 Commons Drive in undisclosed meetings that took place in September before the Z22-079 Application was filed on 10/03/2022. Campus Commons Village 1 residents were first notified about the new development in the July 2022 Campus Commons monthly Commentator newsletter (on page 4 of the newsletter) under ‘Village One News’: “
The office building at 707 Commons has been
sold to a developer who plans to raze the office building and build a 26-unit housing development. The current plan also includes 350 University, which is in escrow. The planned footprint of the housing development includes the 707 Commons and 350 University parcels.”
4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Warren_Callister (last accessed 05/07/2023) 5 https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Appreciation-Architect-Warren-Callister-3212823.php (last accessed 05/07/2023)
14 • Most Campus Commons Village members only became aware about the proposed 707 Commons Drive new development once a notice sign was installed outside 707 Commons Drive towards the end of October 2022. The photo below shows where the 9 ft 5 inches setback encroaches on the public sidewalk in front of 707 Commons Drive. The photo also shows that the house’s setbacks slope down to the Commons Drive street level.
See sign regarding new Z22-079 development in front of 707 Commons Drive in photo below. Also notice where the measurement tape shows where the proposed setback of 9 ft 5 inches ends.
15 • Campus Commons Village 1 (CCV1) members contacted the CCV1 Board with their concerns about the proposed 707 Commons Development Project in Nov and Dec 2022, not realizing that their own Board President and Board Secretary had according to the Developer already ‘coordinated’ with the Developer for the proposed development in September 2022. See point 2) Page 12 of 19 of Z22-079 application under ‘Neighborhood Contact’ section on page 16 of this document.
Point 1) Page 10 of 19 of Z22-079 Application lists 2 major discrepancies:
a) Developer is not complying with much lower density standards in the surrounding neighborhood and area: Concerns about housing density are not alleviated with 22 units per acre proposed compared to approximately 6 to 8 units per acre overall in the Campus Commons community. The proposal remains altogether contrary to the language and intent of LU 2.1.2 and fails to provide “a sensitive transition” to an established neighborhood as to density and form.
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.
16 b) It is a misrepresentation to state that “the surrounding homes range between 1-3 stories”. There are no residential or office buildings that are 3 stories high from ground level in the surrounding neighborhood or Campus Commons Villages. The CCV1 2 story homes on Campus Commons Road across the street from 707 Commons Drive are approximately 2 stories above ground level since the garages are at street level and built below ground level, nestled into the berm.
Point 2) Page 12 of 19 of Z22-079 under ‘Neighborhood Contact’ raises some questions about Campus Commons Village 1 (CCV1) Board President Georgia McGreal and CCV1 Board Secretary Bill McCarthy reportedly ‘coordinated’ with the 707 Commons Drive proposed development according to the developer without first consulting local CCV1 residents and first getting the support of their CCV1 residents.
It appears that Georgia McGreal and Bill McCarthy (the last name is cutoff in the screenshot above) met with the developers in September 2022 without disclosing to the rest of the Campus Commons Villages 1 (CCV1) HOA members that they had ‘coordinated’ with the developer until after the Z22-079 application was filed on 3rd October at the 10/20/22 CCV1 Board meeting.
In the CCV1 Board Meeting Minutes October 20, 2022 under the ‘Committee Reports’ section, Georgia McGreal disclosed that she and CCV1 Board Secretary Bill McCarthy had met with Developer Bardis-Miry but did not state that the developer had listed them as having ‘coordinated’ as listed on the Z22-079 application as shown in the screenshot above. Typically residents/HOA members would be consulted first by their Board if they would be interested in supporting the new proposed development.
17 From the Oct 20 2022 CCV1 Board Meeting Minutes:
The December 15th 2022 CCV1 Board Meeting Minutes still do not disclose that the CCV1 Board President Georgia McGreal and Board Secretary Bill McCarthy had 'coordinated’ with the developer as stated in the developer’s proposal Z22-079 application filed 10/03/2022 under ‘Neighborhood Contact’ as shown in the screenshot of the Z22-079 application on the previous page (page 16) of this document.
Point 3) On page 14 of 19 of Z22-079, (see page 18 of this document) there are further discrepancies regarding setbacks as 350 University should not be listed at all as it is around the corner on University Avenue and is an office building, not a house. Also, 803 Commons Drive is not the nearest building to 707 Commons Drive. It is in fact, 739 Commons Drive, and then next to that is 741 Commons Drive, both of which have been measured as having a 40 ft setback from the street.
In addition, 803 Commons Drive does not have a 5 ft setback. I measured it and 803 Commons Drive has a 21.5 ft setback from the street. So this is further evidence that this application includes many material discrepancies and should be rejected at this time. 803 Commons Drive is a block away from the 707 Commons office building is. 707 Commons building has a 66 ft setback from Commons Drive.
18 The form asks ‘What are the front setbacks of the two nearest buildings on the same side of the block?’ Both addresses listed setback values that are incorrect. As noted earlier, the actual setback from the curb is 9 ft 11 inches which includes a 4 ft 11 inches grass strip, but without the grass strip, the setback from the curb is 5 ft.
Lastly the supplemental document pdf (see screenshot at the top of page 21) titled ‘Multi-Unit Dwelling Design Guidelines’ under the ‘Site Design’ section regarding site design states that “The project was designed keeping the surrounding neighborhood in mind” is wrong because:
1) 3 stories instead of 1-2 story height.
2) 22 units per acre density instead of 6 to 8 units per acre density. 3) N o treescaping in front of new buildings or even room for eventual treescape. 4) S etback is proposed at 9.5 ft instead of 22 to 30 ft setback (includes 9 ft 11 inches with existing sidewalk and grass strip from street).
5) The proposed seven buildings are close together on a 1.09 acre lot and building materials are using bricks, railings, and synthetic wood sidings to mimic ‘wood’.
Each building will have between 3 and 4 so called townhouses, but I would not call them townhouses. They are in fact rowhouses since a townhouse is considered a semi-detached structure and these rowhouses share walls and a roof. Each of the proposed seven buildings will include 3 or 4 rowhouses for a total of 24 units.
19 6) “The proposed 'post-modernistic' style (of the proposed new buildings) clashes with, and insufficiently accommodates the NorCal Tradition of Mid Century Modernism of Campus Commons” per CCV2 Resident Carr Kunze. 7) R emoval of the original ‘berm’ that 707 Commons Drive building is built upon and completely levelling the entire property back to street level completely changes the look to the flat Sacramento surrounding area and gets rid of the unique Callister designed landscaping that characterizes the Campus Commons area. 8) The installation of 42 ft tall walls of proposed new buildings are built at street level along a 9.5 ft setback on Commons Drive is a sharp change with current Callister designed landscaping in which the ALL of buildings have a setback more than 21.5 ft and All buildings are higher than street level. The proposed 707 Commons Drive buildings will all be STREET LEVEL with no integration of plants and trees because the current 9.5 ft setback encroaches on the 5 ft concrete sidewalk and a 4 ft 11 inches grass strip which is not shown in this proposed drawing below:
20 9) The proposed buildings would be white, light gray/tan and would contrast significantly from the general earth and light brown tones throughout the Campus Commons housing. See photos on pages 5, 6 and 22 of this document. 10) A retaining wall may need to be built as the adjacent 350 University Avenue office building shares the same 15 ft high ‘berm’ that the 707 Commons Drive structure is currently built on. There is a possibility that levelling the ground for the entire
1.09 parcel may undermine the foundation of 350 University office building when the berm below the 707 Commons Drive building is removed. 11) The ridge that the 707 Commons Drive office building is on appears to be a similar height (it may be higher) as the ridge across the street on Campus Commons Road that the CCV1 Campus Commons 2 story houses are built on so removing this ridge will change the look of the entire Campus Commons housing development forever as the Campus Commons Road was considered the ‘main entrance’ for the Campus Commons community. See photo on bottom of page 6 of this document.
12) The current Office Building (OB) zone for 707 Commons will need to be rezoned to reflect a high density multi-dwelling residential housing. If this project is approved, then other high density, tall buildings far exceeding the max 35 ft height can be built to take advantage of the Campus Commons low density and single family residential area with nearly 60 years of HOA member dues that have helped create the wonderful parklets, shaded paths, forest canopy, and integration of trees and plants with Callister designed single family residential housing.
21 Automobile entry and exit from the proposed high density development at 707 Commons with 22 units per acre would be much safer from University Ave than from Commons Drive or from Campus Commons Road because University Ave is wider (and has bike lanes on both sides), plus the 350 University Avenue parking lot entrance is already a generous 25 ft width.
No visitor parking is included in the proposed 707 Commons Drive garage parking, so any visitors would have to park on Commons Drive, Campus Commons Road or University Avenue. 2 hour parking street signs would have to be added along Commons Drive to respect a 2 hour parking limit especially on Commons Drive as street parking may be congested not only on weekends but also during weekdays as shown in the photos on the next page.
22 See photo on Commons Drive on taken 05/07/2023 7PM.
See photo on Commons Drive taken 05/08/2023 3PM.
23 The new buildings will make it harder to see traffic travelling from Campus Commons Road to Commons Drive and will require stop signs and possibly installation of a traffic light at that intersection especially if all traffic (roughly 48 parking spaces located on private ground floor garages in the seven buildings) is using the CCV1 privately owned access road for entry to and exit from 707 Commons Drive. This CCV1 privately owned access road that is adjacent to 707 Commons Drive building is not wide enough to accommodate the additional traffic.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the developers reach out to other state, city and county agencies to see if there is an interest in using this building because of its architectural significance for off- site meetings, or for live/work house, or as a student campus housing office, or even for small classes, or maybe for internet startups.
Some suggestions are that 707 Commons Drive be turned into a community or cultural resource center or to add a large room for meetings that could be reserved. Apparently nearly half of the offices have their own bathrooms. Perhaps the building could be converted into condominiums with studios or 1 bedrooms.
I am asking the City of Sacramento to turn down the proposed development project Z22-079 and ask the developers to come up with a different plan for fewer units, lower building height, and include more integration with the existing trees and keep the landscaping which means keeping the ‘berm’, keep the existing setback of 25 ft for multi-dwelling residential and keep the existing trees.
24 Any new planned housing needs to follow the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD) guidelines which for R-1-PUD are 6 to 8 units per acre, not 22 units per acre as proposed. Ideally the current 707 Commons Drive building and property need to be preserved to save this one of a kind Callister designed building and unique ‘landscaping’ which in the photo below looks like it could be in Berkeley or Palo Alto, California.
Otherwise, the proposed high density multi-dwelling development conflicts with current Sacramento building codes that have been developed over many decades. In addition, the Z22-079 development demolishes the Callister designed 707 Commons Drive building, and removes both the existing 66 ft setback along with all trees and plants, and also removes the raised ridge/berm that makes up the unique Callister designed landscaping where the houses rest higher than street level.
I suggest that the proposed Z22-079 development, which is a high density housing project comprised of SEVEN 3-story high buildings, would be better suited to 350 University Avenue which consists of a parcel that is more than double the size (2.53 acre) of the 707 Commons Drive parcel (1.09 acre).
The Developer for 707 Commons Drive said that this project would be similar to their Albright Village housing in Sacramento located at U and 13th Street. However, the Albright Village development is a much lower density 11 units per acre as it has 14 townhouses, each detached, in roughly a ½ block area or around 1.25 acre, so that is
25 based upon a city square block equivalent to 2.5 acres and dividing 14 units by 1.25 (1/2 of 2.5 acres) equals 11. See this photo:
6 Albright Village housing in Sacramento located at U and 13th Street
6 https://www.bardismiry.com/albright-village (last accessed 05/05/2023)
26 SUPPLEMENT TO COMMENTS REGARDING CARR KUNZE RESPONSE TO HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION BY SWCA ENVIRONMENT CONSULTANTS FOR 707
COMMONS DRIVE
After doing further research, I have confirmed that there is no recorded easement and no recorded joint use agreement for the Campus Commons Village 1 (CCV1) privately owned access road for 707 Commons Drive after reviewing a copy of the deed issued for 707 Commons Drive in June 2022 to RBM Commons LLC.
I have learned that Architect Charles Warren Callister achieved nationwide prominence7 in 1966 when he “won an Honor Award from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (in the category of Middle Income Housing—FHA Insured) for his first master-planned community: Rossmoor, a new complex for seniors then under way in the East Bay suburb of Walnut Creek.” He had begun his design work for community housing starting with the highly successful Rossmoor retirement community based in Walnut Creek, CA and then two more awards on the east coast for “Heritage Village, in Southbury, Connecticut, halfway between Hartford and Westchester County in New York.”
8 He also earned more recognition in 1982 and 1983 after he became a recipient of the Award of Excellence, Urban Land Institute, 1982 and the prestigious Award of Honor, San Francisco Art Commission, 1983.9
His designs for the Campus Commons housing in Sacramento, CA evolved from his design work for Rossmoor in Walnut Creek, CA, and some similarities can be seen in this historical photo of Rossmoor on the next page. As I have spent most of my life living in hilly areas in the SF East Bay like Piedmont and San Francisco’s Pacific Heights, I assumed the raised houses of Campus Commons were the norm and am used to this wonderful integration of land and housing and trees which I have taken for granted in the SF Bay Area.
7 Matthew Gordon Lasner; Retirement Planning: Charles Warren Callister, the Neighborhood Unit, and the Architecture of Community at Rossmoor and Heritage Village. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 1 December 2021; 80 (4): 436–459, page 436 doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/jsah.2021.80.4.436
8 Matthew Gordon Lasner; Retirement Planning: Charles Warren Callister, the Neighborhood Unit, and the Architecture of Community at Rossmoor and Heritage Village. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 1 December 2021; 80 (4): 436–459, page 436 doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/jsah.2021.80.4.436
9 Wikipedia contributors, "Charles Warren Callister," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Warren_Callister&oldid=1144666105 (accessed May 3, 2023). 27 Here is the historical photo10 taken of Rossmoor which shows the characteristic one story Callister designed housing with a raised roof entry at the front entrance. 11 12
10 Matthew Gordon Lasner, "Rossmoor", [Walnut Creek, California], SAH Archipedia, eds. Gabrielle Esperdy and Karen Kingsley, Charlottesville: UVaP, 2012—, http://sah-archipedia.org/buildings/CA-01-013-0001. Last accessed: May 2, 2023.
28 I know of only two office buildings that Callister designed in Sacramento: firstly, 707 Commons Drive built in 1967 and secondly, the Callister inspired or designed 350 University Avenue office building constructed in 1973, which is adjacent to 707 Commons Drive. Callister did design work for the California State Exposition and Fair in (1965-68, 1972)13 and may have done a one off design in 1972 for the 350 University Avenue office building to complement his existing 707 Commons Drive office building for the Campus Commons area. Currently, 350 University Ave is owned by BMSE University LLC and Sutter Estates. RBM Commons owns 707 Commons Drive. Two partners of BMSE University LLC are also partners of RBM Commons LLC.
The 350 University Ave office building (see photo above) nicely complements 707 Commons Drive because the 350 University Ave building is built at nearly the same height as the 707 Commons Drive and style of architecture is very similar, see photo below where 350 University Ave building is located on the right hand side and 707
11 Matthew Gordon Lasner, "Rossmoor", [Walnut Creek, California], SAH Archipedia, eds. Gabrielle Esperdy and Karen Kingsley, Charlottesville: UVaP, 2012—, http://sah-archipedia.org/buildings/CA-01-013-0001. Last accessed: May 2, 2023. 12 Matthew Gordon Lasner, "Rossmoor", [Walnut Creek, California], SAH Archipedia, eds. Gabrielle Esperdy and Karen Kingsley, Charlottesville: UVaP, 2012—, http://sah-archipedia.org/buildings/CA- 01-013-0001. Last accessed: May 2, 2023.
13 Wikipedia contributors, "Charles Warren Callister," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Warren_Callister&oldid=1144666105 (accessed May 3, 2023).
29 Commons Drive building is at the back of the parking lot where the stairs are. It looks almost like the two buildings are conjoined as their roofs appear below the canopy of the trees to be at similar levels.
And 707 Commons Drive has a deeded easement for access and parking with the 350 University Avenue building. See photo on next page showing the parking lot with stairs leading from the 350 University Ave parking lot to the backside of 707 Commons Drive:
30 Since 707 Commons Drive was the first office building that Architect Charles Warren Callister designed as part of the Campus Commons project, this building illustrates “a harmony of land planning and architecture that is unprecedented” per House and Home magazine, 196414, that characterized Callister’s housing design in Rossmoor. 707 Commons Drive was originally known as 350 University Avenue in 1966 and served as the Campus Commons Headquarters for many years and also as a Wells Fargo branch on the first floor for a few years. See link to article and photo below. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-sacramento-bee-707-commons-dr-was- or/124138112/
Demolishing this building that has great architectural and historical significance and also removing all 25 trees, 11 of them protected, and then leveling the ‘berm’ and building seven (3-story) modern buildings on a 1.09 acre parcel are in nonconformity
14 Matthew Gordon Lasner, "Rossmoor", [Walnut Creek, California], SAH Archipedia, eds. Gabrielle Esperdy and Karen Kingsley, Charlottesville: UVaP, 2012—, http://sah-archipedia.org/buildings/CA- 01-013-0001.
Last accessed: May 2, 2023.
31 and would disrupt this harmony and be a huge loss for the Campus Commons community and for the City of Sacramento.
The proposed seven buildings are in nonconformity with the existing Campus Commons housing designed in the Callister Bay Tradition because:
1) no treescaping can take place when all 25 trees, including 11 protected trees are sadly removed and a 9.5 ft setback already encroaches on public property as discussed earlier (sidewalk plus grass strip is 9 ft 11 inches in front of 707 Commons). Having trees around is very important for one’s peace of mind and improves one’s mental health.
Look at these lovely trees in front of 707 Commons below:
Removing them and replacing them with 24 units of housing that are 42 ft high will be stressful for local residents and a great blow to the harmony and integration of trees and plants with the Callister designed buildings.
“Trees have been proven to enhance physical and mental health and even advance our cognition. In fact, the term "forest-bathing" was coined to refer to how the simple act of being in the presence of nature has many benefits.
32 Physical Health
While forest bathing is traditionally done in remote, wooded areas, it can also include simple activities like eating outdoors or looking at trees through your window. According to several studies, these can help reduce our blood pressure which lowers the risk of a stroke or heart attack.
In addition, forests can be linked to a stronger immunity. Trees release phytoncides which are chemicals that help protect themselves from insects. When we inhale them, our ‘nature killer cells’, a type of white blood cell, are increased which helps the body prepare to fight disease or harmful substances that may enter the body. The tree canopy can also breathe in toxic chemicals like nitrous oxides which
decreases the likelihood of asthma attacks. Lastly, engaging with urban forests can improve the quality of sleep due to the numerous health benefits and the effect they have on the temperature and humidity.” See https://arboretum.ucdavis.edu/trees/benefits/health- wellbeing (last accessed 05/07/2023)
2) A proposed 9.5 ft setback instead of 22 to 40 ft setbacks for Campus Common housing.
3) Removal of the original landscaping that included the Architect Callister designed ‘berm’ to provide varying heights on which buildings are constructed since the entire
1.09 acre parcel will be leveled to street level.
4) Tall 3 story buildings with 42 ft height built at street level will contrast with mostly one and two story buildings built on raised ground level. 5) The proposal essentially calls for white, straight walls immediately adjacent to the sidewalk which contrasts with the entire look and feel of the urban forest area which is prevalent in Campus Commons and Nepenthe.
6) A higher density inner urban city look and feel with concrete sidewalks, as shown in this photo on the next page of new modern residential apartment/condos in San Francisco (this is 4 stories, not 3 stories, and is a light grey similar to the colors proposed in the 707 Commons Z22-079 development. This gives the look and feel of what is to come and how very different these proposed rowhouses will look like):
33 This photo above provides the ‘look and feel’ of what the proposed (seven) 707 Commons Drive buildings may look like. The proposed development will sharply contrast with the Bay Area Tradition that provides a one of a kind integration of Callister designed housing on ground level that is higher than street level along with 1) removing all landscaping by levelling the parcel, 2) removing 25 trees, 11 of them protected, (including the squirrels, and birds resident in those trees), decorative shrubs and plants, and 3) demolition of a historical and architecturally one of a kind building. The proposed development will also remove the protective berm that helps buffer the traffic, noise and dust from the nearby Fair Oaks Blvd corridor, and may possibly undermine the existing foundation of the adjacent 350 University Avenue building.
Kind regards,
MK Hickox, [email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Jenny Sheridan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 2:50 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: 707 Commons Drive development - Campus Commons residents feedback Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hello Zach and Eric,
I was told by my HOA that you are the right people to contact about my views on the 707 Commons Drive development.
I hope that the developer can be persuaded to a) reduce the density of homes on the plot, b) significantly reduce the number of trees that are removed, and c) crea te access off University ave rather than access with the adjacent Campus Commons units.
I love the 'park like' setting of Campus Commons. It would be very sad to lose that at least on 707 Commons Drive.
Thank you!
Jennifer Sheridan
809 Commons Drive
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Inga Holmquist <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 12:23 AM
To: Eric Guerra; Zachary Dahla
Subject: Opposition to Project #Z22-079 (707 Commons Drive) Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Councilmember Guerra and Mr. Dahla,
As a homeowner in the Nepenthe HOA, part of greater Campus Commons, I write to you again to express my continued opposition to the proposed development project at 707 Commons Drive. I have reviewed the revised proposal and it does not appear to meaningfully address serious concerns regarding the project’s inappropriateness for this location and the negative impacts it would have on the long-established Campus Commons neighborhood that it would invade.
Trees, Landscape Design, and Architecture. The revised plan still removes every mature tree and completely levels the slope and protective berm that provide important shelter from the traffic and noise of busy thoroughfares. The existing landscaping blends with and complements the lovely and functional contouring of the land used throughout Campus Commons. In fact, up and down University Avenue, business parks were developed to include similar features, in deference to their proximity to a quiet, forested, residential oasis. The mature trees that currently grace the 707 parcel enhance the value of every neighboring home, as well as making the Sacramento summer more livable and lowering energy costs and by providing glorious, cooling shade. As it stands, the parcel is a best-practices model for how to appropriately transition between business and residential areas. The historically important architecture of the existing building is to scale and harmonizes with adjacent residences and the surrounding community. Appropriate setbacks and greenspace further reflect and enhance the style of the Campus Commons. By contrast, the proposed project would stick out like a sore thumb – with its sardine-can density, lack of setbacks, utterly flattened grade, and slab-fronted multistory in-your-face architecture.
Adherence to the City’s Own Guidelines. This project needs to be re-thought and redesigned in good faith to adhere to the City’s own requirements for enhancing and complementing the character of the adjacent, established neighborhood. Or it needs to be rejected. The developer pays lip service to these requirements, but the actual proposal defies their claims. To begin with, there is no valid reason for permitting the felling of all the protected trees – for the reasons noted above, trees are not just a luxury, they are a necessity in this City. Their presence significantly enhances property values, and as our climate warms, the need for them increases with each passing year. In sum, if the developer is unwilling or unable to revise their project to conform to the City’s own requirements, it must not be approved.
Infill and Affordable Housing. This proposal fails as a valid infill project because it will not enhance the neighborhood nor provide affordable housing, or even housing commensurately priced with the surrounding neighborhood. While averaging a little larger, the proposed units will sport prices approximately double those of Campus Commons units. At first blush, this might seem a boon for our property values – until you realize that it is our lovely, established neighborhood that will lend value to their properties, not the other way around. “Infill” is not an excuse to approve out-of-place projects, and the goal of infill-development must not be allowed to outweigh and undermine every other guideline, rule, and requirement carefully drafted so as not to harm thriving, existing neighborhoods.
2 Degraded Landscaping, Lower Property Values. For over 50 years, residents of the Campus Commons neighborhoods have paid substantial dues to maintain our lovely and functional greenspaces and amenities. Drive into Campus Commons and you are immediately aware that you have entered a little sanctuary of lush greenery – a true urban forest – with walking paths, park benches, and play areas. An influx of residents from high-density development would significantly increase usage of our common spaces. It is absolutely foreseeable that residents in the proposed 707 project would avail themselves of our amenities, because there are still no such amenities incorporated into the revised development proposal. Landscape maintenance is already the single largest expense in our annual HOA budgets. Increased usage inevitably means: 1) degradation of our common areas, or 2) higher HOA dues to mitigate the extra wear and tear from 707 project residents who would be paying not one dime for such access and usage. Either option reduces the desirability of Campus Commons homes, and thus of our property values. The only other option would result in a drastic alteration of our character community’s character – to fence and gate our common areas. We should not be forced to make, or pay for, such a draconian choice.
Parking and Traffic. Our property values will take another hit from the lack of adequate parking in the 707 proposal. Neighborhoods where street parking is overburdened are esthetically diminished and take on a much more urban character than we enjoy. Even in Campus Commons, where every unit has off-street parking spaces, or a two-car garage, increased usage of street parking is an issue.
To combat it and maintain reasonably open roadways
where overflow parking is available for guests, deliveries, and service providers, we fine residents and tow vehicles improperly parked on the street. The 707 proposal would rely entirely on street parking for all overflow needs, and we will be helpless to mitigate against this degradation of our neighborhood. Adding to the problem is the single- file garage layout proposed for half of the project’s units. These are extremely inconvenient and result in increased use of street parking to avoid the hassle of jockeying vehicles in and out. Finally, there are only three roads in or out of Campus Commons, and the 707 intersection may be the busiest we have. Now imagine it with reduced sightlines caused by the lack of setbacks and overcrowded street parking. Now throw in significantly increased traffic issues, not just from more vehicles, but because they will be negotiating turns across traffic to get in and out of the development – right at that intersection. This is a recipe for danger in a neighborhood designed for pedestrians and light traffic.
No Justification. We have done nothing to change or diminish the gracious character of our neighborhood, and, in fact, have paid significant dues for many decades to preserve and enhance its unique charm. Thus, there is no justification for setting aside the City’s own protections, designed specifically to safeguard an existing neighborhood’s established character, value, and infrastructure, against degradation from inappropriate adjacent development. Where even neighboring business parks have been required to respect their proximity to our residential neighborhood by maintaining congruent landscaping and generous setbacks, there is simply no supportable argument for approving this 707 proposal, which is so clearly out of character with everything that defines in our neighborhood and community. Even if no special variance may be required for certain elements of the proposal, the City is still required to weigh the negative impact that the project would have on our established, thriving neighborhood, and we insist that you do so.
Enough. The revised version of this project remains unacceptable. As demonstrated above, the developer has not made a good faith effort to respond to the serious issues and negative impacts that the proposed 707 development would have on our established, important, neighborhood. Campus Commons is recognized as a gem that enhances the character and livability of our entire City. Their concept may be fine for downtown, where City parks provide amenities, or along sections of Folsom Boulevard where the architecture would be at home. But it is completely inappropriate to force this square peg of a project into a neighborhood where it clearly doesn’t belong, and where it will do much more harm than good.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these serious issues.
Respectfully,
Inga Holmquist
3 Inga Holmquist
[email protected]
(253) 312-5314
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Daniel Pskowski <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 11:24 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good Morning Zach,
I recently retired after 29.5 years as a Sacramento city arborist. During my career and in retirement I volunteer my time inspecting residents' trees, giving them advice on care and maintenance. I also volunteer my time with Trees for Sacramento, a non-profit, whose goal is to protect, preserve, and enhance Sacramento's urban forest.
Janet Buhler had contacted Trees for Sacramento seeking advice on the 707 Commons Drive project. I understand this project was submitted last October to the Planning Dept. and the Bardis & Miry Development plans indicated the removal of all twenty-five on-site trees. Their arborist report indicates twelve are classified as private protected trees. Janet has been in contact with Kevin Hocker from Urban Forestry about which trees the city will require be preserved. But Urban Forestry hasn't weighed in due to an incomplete permit application. I'm puzzled because the developer has submitted a permit application to remove all the trees.
From 1990 to 2005 I was the sole city arborist and worked on 95% of the development projects.
When a project application indicated there were trees on-site Planning would forward it to me. Then I would inspect the site and make a determination which trees would have to be preserved trees. Tree preservation was one of the first things to be completed in the plan review process. This way if the project required any redesign due to comments from utilities, fire, transportation etc. they were aware of which on-site trees would be preserved. I had a good working relationship with the development community. I would meet with developers before they purchased a property so they would know which trees the city would required be preserved. Out of the hundreds of projects that I worked on there was only one project that never was developed due to a city tree that the developer could not remove.
Why doesn't Planning address the tree issues at the very beginning of the process? The longer you wait the less likely that any of the trees will be preserved. Janet informed me that Bardis & Miry Development has already submitted a redesign in response to neighborhood concerns but still no decision on the trees. I am concerned because one of the largest coast redwood in Sacramento (est. 90-inches in diameter) is on this site.
Sincerely,
Daniel Pskowski
916-451-1033
1 Zachary Dahla
From: David Lane <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 11:17 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: application Z22-079 - 707 Commons Dr.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hello Zach,
This is in addition to the three prior emails regarding this application which I have sent to you.
When we met and I spoke with you about this application I pointed out that there were many untrue statements made in the application and invited you to walk with me so that I could point out at least a few of them. You told
me that you do walk the area when applications are made and that was not necessary. My offer still remains and I would be pleased to do so. I believe that many comments have pointed out several of these incorrect clai ms. I believe that everyone who is part of the decision making process needs to compare what actually exists to what is represented to exist as there are substantial differences.
Initially, I was concerned about the zoning of the property and was told by the developer that this was zo ned office/residential and the city had approved the development being possible in the current zoning. This was reinforced when you participated in the meeting at the Campus Commons clubhouse and I foolishly had not personally checked into this.
However, I noted that the application sets forth that the current zoning is OB so I looked into this. It is in the Sacramento City Code, Ti
tle 17, Chapter 216 “Commercial, Office, and Mixed Use”. This is not the claimed “office/residential” represented by the developer. My reading of the requirements for the actual zone status shows that this proposed development is not a perm itted use and, in fact, is a prohibited use.
§17.216.100 provides:
“The purpose of the OB zone is to provide for a low‐rise mixed‐use employment zone that is intended to permit business, office, institutional, or professional buildings; the sale of goods and services; and lodging an d dwellings.”
This would suggest that some dwellings are permitted. However, §17.216.110 provides that a multi‐unit dwelling is permitted subject to the restrictions contained in §17.228.117. Note that residential dwellings (as opposed to temporary residential uses such as hotels or residential care facility) other than multi‐unit dwellings are not per mitted as
the only other reference to residential uses is the conditional use for a residential hotel. Sections 17.216.100 and
17.216.110 read in the whole clearly express that the uses are to be “low rise” commercial/institutional with some affiliated rental residential property use.
Please note that §17.228.117 defines multi‐unit dw
elling. This section appears to limit this to a rental type of property and, in particular, requires that the “manager” shall reside on the property if there are 15 or more units. The requirements for the “owner or operator” show that the multi‐unit dwellings are owned by the same entity as the requirements incl
ude all exterior components of the buildings and premises.
2 The proposed project contains more than 15 units. Therefore, there must be a resident “manager” and the proposed project calls for the sale of all of the dwelling units which would mean that there is no resident “manager”.
There appears to be no question that this does not fit the definition of “multi‐unit dwellings” permi tted §17.216.110. However, if there is a contention that this does meet the definition, then the proposal violates §17.216.140 as it does not have the required recycling and trash container as set forth in §17.616.040. Further, it appears that it may violate §17.600.135 regarding the open space requirements.
§17.216.110(d) provides that all uses other than specifically listed are prohibited.
Even if it did fit within the OB zone, it violates the 35 foot height limit set forth in §17.216.120.
I suggest that this proposed application must be denied as it is in violation of the zoning re quirements. Please
advice if there is an application for this property to be rezoned to something which permits residential developments or if there is anything else scheduled for this application or for the property.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of assistance.
David R. Lane
1258 Commons Dr.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: CARR KUNZE <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 12:16 AM
To: Eric Guerra
Cc: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive
Attachments: Historic Resource Evaln Response-r3.docx
Dear Council Member Guerra,
Thank you for participating in the January general meeting with the Campus Commons community. At its conclusion, I had briefly introduced myself to you.
As a homeowner in Campus Commons, a member of a working group of residents focused on the issues raised by the redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive, and as a person with a fairly extensive related professional background relevant to the community planning, architectural, and historical preservation issues that this development poses, I am forwarding to you herewith my critique and proposed re-evaluation of the Historic Resource Evaluation for 707 Commons Drive that had been submitted to the City by SCWA Environmental Consultants.
As noted in the critique, there were errors in the initial evaluation that in part led to an inappropriate summary and conclusion in particular regards to Criterion 3. As well, a number of other considerations, including the significance of Charles Warren Callister at that point in the Bay Area/Nor-Cal Tradition, as well as this office building's design, its role in the PUD/Planned Community, and the fact that there remain surprisingly, and alarmingly, so very few significant Nor- Cal Tradition office buildings today, in Sacramento, or Northern California.
The attached re-evaluation has two additions to that submitted to Zach Dahla of the planning staff last week: the date submitted on the first page and the addition of one bibliographic reference that I had previously omitted. Indeed, as our research continues, other authors are being uncovered that further highlight the prominence in community planning and the Northern California Tradition of architecture held by Charles Warren Callister, the architect of 707 Commons Drive.
In conclusion, I would urge that the City amend its zoning ordinance to enable the technique of Transferable Development Rights. Such a provision would greatly facilitate a resolution of the type of concerns presented by the 707 Commons Drive redevelopment proposal--specifically when such proposals threaten the destruction of significant historic structures. Other communities in the State have incorporated such zoning provisions--for instance, Palo Alto.
Thanks so very much for your continued consideration of this matter,
Carr Kunze
835 Commons Drive - Sacramento, CA 95825
Critique and Proposed Re-evaluation Re: Historic Resource Evaluation: 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento, California 1 by Carr Kunze
April 25, 2023
Aspects of the inventory and evaluation by SWCA Environmental Consultants, while helpful, nevertheless give short shrift to the place that the 707 Commons Drive office building occupies in the design and connectivity of the commercial PUD to the residential PUD, as well as to its role in the evolution of Callister’s architecture and more particularly, the evolution of office building architecture in the Northern California and Bay Area traditions of mid century modernism.
The 707 Commons Drive office building is a critical linking element between the residential and commercial PUDs. The building’s placement, projecting from the commercial PUD into the residential areas, provided Callister with a means via earth mounding and open space elements to both differentiate the two functional areas while providing an architecture to tie them together. The square service structure appended to the front of the building with a pyramidal roof is picked up in the pergola stretching across the rear side of the office building that terminates with a pyramidal gazebo. These pyramidal forms tie to the pyramidal roof of the ‘Harvard’ models of homes adjacent and across the street in villages 1 and 2. At the same time, the building expresses the horizontality of the double pitched roofs of the adjacent townhouses together with similar fenestration and window proportioning.
1 SWCA Environmental Consultants, Historic Resource Evaluation for 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento, California, Sacramento, CA, January 25, 2023 The Evaluation Summary tracks on the California Register of Historic Places (CRHP) criteria which are similar to the criteria under the Sacramento Register Criteria of Significance.
2 707 Commons Drive frontage
‘Harvard’ models with pyramidal roofs, Commons Dr., Campus Commons, C. W. Callister, Callister & Payne, Architects, 1966
Pergola on University Dr. side of 707 Commons terminates with pyramidal roofed gazebo echoing the service element appended at front as well as the Harvard models of the adjacent residential sections.
3 Pergola extends the length of University Dr. side of building and beyond.
Adjacent townhomes with vertically proportioned windows, horizontality of double pitched roof and trellised yards.
The trellising and pergola, it should be noted, reflect Callister’s admiration of Bernard Maybeck’s work and others of the first generation of Bay Area regionalist architecture. Trellising is repeated throughout Campus Commons, particularly in villages one and two. The exquisitely detailed concrete columns at 707 Commons would be a most unfortunate loss; suburban office structures, not to mention the proposed housing, are unable to replicate such workmanship today.
Callister is noted for tying together richly detailed redwood and concrete throughout the evolution of his work. With the office building, the concrete work uses a heavy grained formwork, which however is finished with chamfered corners. The expressed concrete formwork pulls from earlier examples from Le Corbusier (the Unité d'Habitation of Marseille, France, 1953) and Paul Rudolph’s Yale school of Arts and Architecture (1963). However, Callister’s is a more refined expression of the ‘Beton Brute’ idiom, placing it into his own unique interpretation of 2nd generation Bay Area style. (Compare and contrast with Maybeck’s classically imbedded concrete piers for his famous Berkeley Christian Science Church.)
4 First Church of Christ Scientist, by Bernard Maybeck,, Berkeley, CA 1910.
Note columns with recessed striae in concrete
An Expanded Understanding of Planned Communities
In its section Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and Cluster Development, the evaluators provide a fair if overly concise description of these important Callister’s richly detailed concrete columns with heavily grained formwork, capitals, and chamfered corners.
5 contributions to mid century planning. However, along with Radburn, NJ, the 1930’s U.S. Greenbelt towns (not-referenced), and Reston, VA, all had likely influence on Callister. Unmentioned as well, is Frank Lloyd Wright’s well publicized and debated but unrealized plans for Broadacre City. Callister’s acknowledged admiration of Wright’s work and ideas no doubt also influenced his thinking for Campus Commons. Albeit, CC was not to be a version of Wright’s urbanized agrarian enclave.
Callister was more practical in these regards and equally had a degree of respect for the hold that the automobile demanded in planning a community. But most particularly, along with the British Garden Cities, Radburn, and the Greenbelt new towns appear to have most influenced Callister’s thinking in terms of clustering, open space development, linking residents to employment, and pedestrian-vehicular separation—the latter promoted, but less rigidly in Campus Commons. In these regards, Campus Commons draws more upon Reston and Columbia, MD which were under development and prominent in the professional literature at the time.
Accordingly, while Campus Commons may be Sacramento’s second PUD, it is arguably more significant in the extent to which it is promulgating a wider synthesis of community planning ideals and in its level of architectural quality.
Thus, even more critically, what Callister was providing for an entire community (and would later be followed by Dreyfuss and Blackford’s 3rd Bay Tradition rendition for the Nepenthe section) was a consistency, a coherence, in the architecture. This consistency is carried through in a modernist, specifically, the Bay Area or Northern California Tradition of architecture, in its informal spatial relationships, indoor-outdoor continuities, and adaptation to climate and locale.
The degree to which this is carried forward, is found first in a warm-green-grey- beige color scheme, overlaying a variety of wood textures though out the community, but also in the quality of the architecture itself. This is a level of quality that Reston and the Greenbelt communities aspired to but achieved only to a lesser extent. It is a quality that the contemporaneous and larger Foster City, CA and Irvine Ranch both seriously failed to come up to. And, it is a quality that would be seriously undermined by the subject developers’ proposal.
Report Errors, Mischaracterizations, or Needed Expansions The 2nd paragraph of the Existing Conditions description (pg. 2) misleads as to the nature of the appended structure: The building also features a hyphenated addition that is square in plan, features a pyramidal hipped roof, and is located at the primary (east) façade. Further reference to this structure repeats the notion that it is an ‘addition’. Rather, it was designed as part of the original plan. It was designed as the ‘service element’ to the primary structure, but also serves to tie the office building to the adjacent residential 6 villages by introducing the pyramidal roof, repeated at the office building gazebo that terminates the pergola on the north-westerly side of the office building.
The 3rd paragraph of the Existing Conditions description (pg. 3) begins with a misstatement: The primary (east) façade is generally clad with a scored concrete veneer, which appears as vertical wood siding.
This is incorrect. Both the east and west facades are clad with real, tongue and groove (T&G), wood siding.
In the Architecture and Architect section of the Evaluation (pg. 13) discussing Bay Area and Northern California Modernism, the analysts correctly noted the relevance of Charles Warren Callister, stating:
The San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935- 1970 Historic Context Statement (SF Modern Context), identifies Callister among leading residential architects in the Bay Area during the mid-twentieth century. In particular, SF Modern Context notes Callister worked in the Second Bay Tradition, a regionally prominent application of Modernism with a typically woodsy aesthetic, and among the best- known Northern California residential architects of the time, particularly with regard to large- scale housing developments and apartment design.18 Callister’s career also coincided with the emergence of the Third Bay Tradition, an evolvement of Bay Area regional modernism that began in the mid-1960s during the same period as Campus Commons’ early development, and continued into the 1970s. Overall, Callister’s design for the subject building and residences in Campus Commons, brought elements of Bay Area regional Modernism to Sacramento.
More particularly however, Callister’s work was also a search for, and [a] form of transition between the 2nd generation and 3rd generation of the Bay Area Style.
Others have noted his work as almost Baroque2, eschewing the more spare modernism of both the International Style as well as the earlier and later mid century modernists of the 2nd and 3rd generations of the Bay Area Tradition. As previously noted, this can be found in Callister’s rich wood and concrete detailing of 707 Commons Drive. But more, for Sacramento and Campus Commons, Callister appears to be searching for more responsive forms to the locale. The pyramidal forms at the clubhouse, the office building and the Harvard models of
2 Dave Weinstein, “Appreciation: Architect Warren Callister.” San Francisco Chronicle (May 31, 2008), Accessed at http://articles.sfgate.com/2008‐05‐31/home‐and‐ garden/17156178_1_architects‐firm‐single‐family‐homes
7 villages 1, 2, and parts of 4 appear to have evolved from his earlier sketches of hop kiln roof structures as found on the property’s earlier Horst Hop Ranch.
However, the designs were later refined, likely as much for costs of construction reasons and to allow ease of replication, into the pyramidal structures.
As well, Callister’s work for Campus Commons endeavors to accommodate the Central Valley climate, reducing the amount of large window areas found more often in the Bay Area Style structures of the more temperate San Francisco Bay Region. This may be found in the narrow vertical windows of 707 Commons as well as the adjacent townhomes. These recall as well the vertical windows and tall doorways in Old Town Sacramento structures.
The Evaluation’s discussion of the Third Bay Area Tradition errs to a degree at page 14 by stating:
The Third Bay Tradition is primarily applied to condominiums, with occasional single-family examples, and has been applied to commercial buildings, particularly those that adjoin or were built as a part of a condominium or larger development.
C. W. Callister early sketches for hop-kiln like design for residences, Campus Commons,; Source: U.C. Berkeley CED Archives, Horst Ranch 8 Rather, while more condominiums and townhomes were being developed during this period, (1965 – 1970s) and the Third Bay Tradition readily accommodated this building type, the Tradition continued to be pursued by several architects substantially for single family homes throughout Northern California, ranging from the Monterey Bay Area, through-out the SF Bay Area, Marin, and north. (ref. for example The Guide to Architecture in San Francisco And Northern California , revised edition by David Gebhard, et. al., 1985.)
The SWCA Evaluation Summary, re: Criterion 3, (pg. 27) reads:
707 Commons Drive does not appear to be individually significant under Criterion 3. The subject building was designed by architect Charles Warren Callister as part of Campus Commons, a community composed of residential, commercial, and other community serving uses, and common areas, constructed beginning in 1966. The building features a design that appears to blend elements of Contemporary commercial architecture and regional Modernism during a period when the trend known as the Second Bay Tradition was transitioning to the Third Bay Tradition. Callister is identified in existing scholarship as an architect who frequently employed the Second Bay Tradition to his designs for both single-family residences, multi-family properties, and even properties on the East Coast that blended the woodsy aesthetic of the Second Bay Tradition with barn-like building massing. His commercial designs are less well-known, and principally, component buildings within the larger master planned communities Callister planned and designed, where all buildings featured a shared aesthetic.
Although this building features a moderately pitched roof and cast concrete meant to evoke expressive wood joinery, it does not appear to display the woodsy texture and appearance that is individually distinctive or exceptional in its representation of Second or Third Bay Traditions, despite being relatively rare in Sacramento. [reviewer’s highlights] This contradicts what is actually occurring. The 707 Commons building is ‘woodsy’ in both the trellising and expansive pergola as well as the primary structure’s overall wood sheathing and detailing. This misrepresentation is due to the evaluation’s above noted error in the Existing Conditons section at page 3, that inferred the exterior facades were “generally clad with a scored concrete veneer, which is in fact, T&G wood. Moreover, the building represents Callister’s unique, ‘Baroque’, approach bridging the 2nd and 3rd generations of Bay 9 Traditions.
SWCA’s Evaluation re: Criterion 3 continues:
The subject building does not appear to have been considered an innovative or influential example of Modernism or a particular construction method. Similarly, the building does not appear to rise to a level of individual significance within Callister’s known body of work.
Therefore, the building does not appear to be individually significant under this criterion.
Rather, the building is among the very few remaining examples of the Bay Area or Nor-Cal Tradition of architecture applied to the suburban form of office buildings. Callister designed only two or three such structures, but in doing so he delivered a higher form of architectural expression than was commonly pursued by suburban office developers at the time, thereby raising the level of design that would be pursued in portions of the latter phases of the Campus Commons office PUD and by others elsewhere.
CRHR Criterion 3 provides that a property should be determined eligible for listing that: “Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values;”
Proposed Re-evaluation - Thus, properly restated, Criteria 3 should read:
707 Commons Drive is individually significant under Criterion 3. It is the work of a master. Dave Weinstein, author of the book, “Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area”, noted upon Charles Warren Callister’s passing that, “During the 1960s House & Home Magazine considered him ‘perhaps the best known of Northern Californiaʹs residential architects’ of the time.” 3 Callister’s work is discussed at length in at least five books reviewing the era in architectural history of Northern California as well as in several guidebooks and articles.
The subject building was designed by Charles Warren Callister as part of Campus Commons, a community composed of residential, commercial, and other community serving uses, and common areas, constructed beginning in
3 Dave Weinstein, ibid.
10 1966. The building is one of very few surviving examples of the Second Bay Tradition as incorporated into commercial office architecture. Most office architecture of this period was rendered in the International Style or extrapolations thereof. The comparatively few suburban low rise, architecturally significant, examples of the Bay Area Tradition in office architecture were largely located in what is now the Silicon Valley and have been destroyed in that valley’s rapid growth and reconfiguration.4 The building features a design that brings Callister’s interpretation of regional Modernism during a period when the trend known as the Second Bay Tradition was transitioning to the Third Bay Tradition.
This interpretation utilized a double-pitched roof, common in the Second Bay Tradition, here including a light monitor, but was also off-set by the pyramid roofs of the appended service structure and at the gazebo terminus of the pergola on the University Ave. side of the building. This latter element was part of Callister’s method of tying the office building to the adjacent residential areas, selected homes of which also featured a pyramidal roof. Callister is identified in existing scholarship as an architect who frequently employed the Second Bay Tradition to his designs for both single-family residences, multi-family properties, and even properties on the East Coast that blended the woodsy aesthetic of the Second Bay Tradition with barn-like building massing. His commercial designs are less well-known, and principally, component buildings within the larger master planned communities Callister planned and designed, where all buildings featured a shared aesthetic. There appears to be only one other Callister designed office building in California located in a two and three story residential and office complex constructed in 1965 in Walnut Creek, CA.
The significance of 707 Commons is thus not only the uniqueness of its place as a bridge between 2nd and 3rd Bay Traditions in Northern California architecture, as well as its visual and land use bridging function in the Planned Community / PUD context as executed by an important leading architect of the period and that Tradition, but also the rarity of surviving examples of low rise, suburban, office
4 This statement is supported by a comprehensive review of “The Guide to Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California”, David H. Gebhard, et al, 1973 and 1985 editions and cross checked against the UC Berkeley CED Archives indices of works for C. W. Callister: Gardner Dailey; and Wurster, Bernardi, & Emmons., as leading representative architectural firms of the era; the latter two of which were most likely to have designed commercial structures along with their vast residential work. A few other single story examples, such as small shopping centers, education and research facilities, civic and community buildings, and libraries survive. However, these also represent a relatively small and dwindling body of non-residential examples of 2nd generation Bay Area Style. 11 buildings of any such significance in Sacramento or Northern California.
Sacramento’s only other multifamily Planned Development executed in the Second Bay Tradition by a leading architectural team of the era has been recently substantially destroyed and its remaining low-rise residential components are slated for destruction5.
We concur with SWCA Environmental Consultants’ conclusion under Criterion 3,
707 Commons Drive does appear to be a cohesively designed and contributory component building within Campus Commons. Given Callister’s known association with master planned community design, and Campus Commons’ identification as a notable development in Sacramento during the mid-twentieth century, 707 Common Drive merits evaluation as a potential district contributor under Criterion 3.
And,
Campus Commons appears to represent an area of the city with a collective historic value of buildings and structures forming a potential historic district, rather than being an area containing potential individual historic resources. A broader study including reconnaissance survey, contextual development, and assessment of integrity would be required to provide a finding of potential significance as a historic district.
These findings appear to fit under Criterion 4 as well, discussed further below.
This would be consistent with “Mid-Century Modern in the City of Sacramento:
Historic Context Statement and Survey Results”, findings and the City should endeavor to work with the Campus Commons and Nepenthe communities to promptly undertake necessary studies in furtherance of what it had found under “Mid Century Modern in the City of Sacramento”.
Other California Register of Historic Places (CRHP) Criteria
Criterion 1: N.A.
Criterion 2: N.A.
5 Reference is made to the ensuing destruction, ca: 2018, of Capitol Towers Apartments, (1960) located at 1500 7th Street, Sacramento, a former urban renewal development designed by Wurster, Bernardi, & Emmons, pre-eminent architects of the 2nd generation of the Bay Area Style, in collaboration with Edward Larabee Barnes, DeMars & Reay and landscape architect Lawrence Halprin & Associates. 12 Criterion 4: Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
The 707 Campus Drive Office building should be considered significant under Criterion 4. The synthesis of the office building with its Residential PUD neighbors as a part of an overall Planned Community is significant to the history of the evolution of PUDs and Planned Communities in Sacramento, the State of California, and potentially even nationally, to the extent that it represents the execution of such a comprehensive and high quality of architecture uniquely expressed within the Bay Area or Nor-Cal Tradition across land uses. It would only be with the later development of Sea Ranch, executed in the 3rd Generation of the Bay Area Tradition, as referenced in the SWCA report, that such a level of architecture and planning be carried out in a similarly cohesive manner. Albeit, Sea Ranch is for a largely resort community at a considerably lower density, and without the cross section of planned land uses. Again, with such few 2nd Generation Nor-Cal Tradition office buildings remaining and especially within the PUD context, 707 Commons Drive offers important historical information to the architectural and planning processes.
13 Bibliography
“Callister, Warren, Horst Ranch” file, CED Archives, U.C. Berkeley
“Charles Warren Callister”, Wikipedia
Gebhard, David; Roger Montgomery, Robert Winter, John Woodbridge, Sally Woodbridge, A Guide to Architecture in San Francisco & Northern California, Peregrine Smith, Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, 1973.
GEI Consultants, Inc., and Mead & Hunt, Inc., “Mid-Century Modern in the City of Sacramento: Historic Context Statement and Survey Results”, prepared for City of Sacramento, September 2017, cf. Chapter 2, section 2.1.9 Sacramento’s Mid Century Neighborhoods, re: Campus Commons, pg. 2-27 – 2-28.
Serraino, Pierluigi. NorCalMod: Icons of Northern California Modernism. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 2006
Schweitzer, Mitchell, San Francisco: Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area:
A History & Guide, William Stout Publishers, San Francisco, 2007.
SWCA Environmental Consultants, Historic Resource Evaluation for 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento, California, Sacramento, CA, January 25, 2023 Weingarten, David, Bay Area Style, Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., New York, NY, 2004,
Weinstein, Dave, Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area, Gibbs Smith, pub., Layton, UT, 2006, “Listening for Architecture” on Warren Callister, pp. 114-123.
Weinstein, Dave, “Appreciation: Architect Warren Callister” The San Francisco Chronicle, May 31, 2008 http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Appreciation- Architect-Warren-Callister-3212823.php
Weintraub, Alan, and Alan Hess, Forgotten Modern, California Houses 1940- 1970 , Gibbs Smith, Publisher, 2007, pp. 240-255
Woodbridge, Sally, ed., Bay Area Houses, Oxford University Press, New York, 1976, (1st ed.) pp. 215-222
14 A-1
Examples of International Style Suburban Office Buildings
SMUD Headquarters, Sacramento, CA, by Dreyfuss & Blackford, 1961
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company Headquarters, 1957, Bloomfield, Connecticut, Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill, architects
15 B-1
Carr Kunze has a wide background in housing planning, finance, development, international consulting and teaching. Over his career he has collaborated with several of the region’s and country’s leading architects, and maintained his interest in architecture, working to preserve significant works of mid-century modernism in Sacramento.
Mr. Kunze served in a senior policy and multifamily underwriting role for California Housing Finance Agency, as an USAID sponsored resident advisor on housing privatization to the mayor of Kharkiv, Ukraine, as executive director for the Aspen, CO Housing Authority, and director of housing development for Fairfax County, VA Department of Housing and Community Development. He was a project manager for a non-profit developer and has provided consulting services in housing finance, market research and housing development.
He was also a university instructor and guest lecturer in housing and housing finance, a speaker for professional seminars, and authored articles and reports on housing finance, development, cooperative and mutual housing, and co- authored a NAHB funded study on housing quality determinants.
He received his Master of Science in Urban and Regional Planning from Columbia University, including housing and planned urban ‘growth poles’ research in Venezuela and Mexico, and holds a Bachelor of Architecture from the University of California, Berkeley. In the course of his undergraduate studies, he undertook coursework and lectures from several of the leaders of Mid-Century Modernism and the Bay Area Tradition including W.W. Wurster, Donald Olsen, Donald P. Reay, Charles Moore, Lois Langhorst, Richard C. Peters, and Jack Hilmer Of particular relevance to the current project, Don Reay was chief architect for the British New Towns of Stevenage and East Kilbride and Carr had the pleasure of continuing to work for Don subsequent to graduation. Over the years, he maintained continued contact with Don Olsen (an International stylist) and collaborated with Dick Peters (a leader in the 3rd Generation of the Bay Area Style, and co-author of a book on W.W. Wurster) regarding mutual concerns for preserving Sacramento’s Capitol Towers.
Prior to his graduate studies, Mr. Kunze worked for architectural firms in the San Francisco Bay Area, practitioners to varying degrees and forms of the Bay Area Tradition. In addition to his master’s thesis on the economics of new towns, he has visited and investigated some seventeen of the more significant international and domestic new towns and major planned communities, including Radburn, NJ; Greenbelt, MD; Letchworth and Welwyn Garden Cities, U.K.; Tapiola, Finland; Vallingby and Stockholm’s eco-district, Hammarby Sjostad, Sweden. For over fifteen years he resided and raised a family in Reston, VA. 1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barry Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2023 9:31 AM
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 wo uld 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: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 2:16 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
There is also a wide gap between the revised plans and what Campus Commons and Nepenthe neighbors have called for.
Added security measures will be needed to limit non-resident access to HOA amenities, including ponds, playgrounds, exercise facilities, clubhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, and grounds. The costs of additional security measures will be borne by CC-Nepenthe residents. The parklike environs of CC and Nepenthe have been paid for with HOA dues and special assessments for over 50 years.
Residents at 707 Commons Drive will not only pay no current dues to enjoy the surroundings, but they will have invested nothing to build and maintain them over time.
Campus Commons and Nepenthe residents will be subjected to years of construction noise, disruption, and debris, from demolition of the present building, excavation and grading the lot, and new construction. Vehicle entrance to the proposed development can be from 350 University Ave, which is also owned by the developers of 707 Commons Dr. This will reduce conflict over use of a single driveway on Commons Drive that is shared by Campus Commons Villages 1 and 2.
Campus Commons will lose the beautiful, PUD-conforming office building that is built on a berm and shaded by mature trees, all in harmony with the PUD landscape. In exchange Campus Commons will face tightly packed high-rise housing that is placed on a flat, largely paved lot.
With removal of the berm and trees from 707 Commons Drive, Campus Commons residents will lose an intentional buffer from the traffic noise and pollution on Fair Oaks Blvd. The important sight line at the busy intersection of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Way is largely lost, creating a safety hazard for walkers, bikers, and drivers, many of whom are senior citizens. There are other properties in Sacramento, empty or underutilized, that are better suited to the redevelopment proposal for 707 Commons Drive.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2023 5:21 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
TO: Zaoh Dahla, Assooiate Planner
zdah la@citpfsacramento. org
RE: Comments on Planning Application222‐079,707 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 togethe r with the offices al7O7 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‐2Oth century modernism. The 'Bay Area Style'was largely rendered in redwood, and featured strong indoor‐outdoor relationships.
1 Oallister's worlts are discussed and reforenced in several books and publications. ln "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 ll as something that was warmer, woodsier and more romantic than comparable work in Southern California or back Easf. Callister's work
was noted for its dramatic, almost
baroque use of wooden piers and beams and wooden trim.
Proposed Demolition and Redevelopment ol 707 Commons Drive ‐ an Analysis & Gritique
2 Planning lssues
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 Ca
mpus 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 neighbothoods 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 fotm 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 st
ructure 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 structure s, 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.
2 There is an equity issue as well. The new households in the prop osed
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 home owners 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. ln the process, the developer might consider the market for additional senior housing 3 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 residentialto the north parcel which is also held by the applicant pending future development.
Architectural lssues
The caliber of architecture proposed for redevelopm
ent 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 Sactamento's climate, and consideration of cultural and historic context of Sacramento's neighborhoods and cen
ters.
I
The proposal's architectural character is similar to that of the apartment buildings recently constructed in the vicinity of 65th Street and Folsom Ave., southwest of the University. The design is ridden with toda y's so‐called post‐modernist clich6s‐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.
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.
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 oltice building.
There are also concerning losses of heritage tree issues being cited by others that should be addre
ssed 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 ma nner so as to not only 4 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 Traditi
on 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
quatity 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.l.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 lssues
Sacramento
has already lost some of its most exemplary mid‐century modern architecture and urban environmental design.l
4 ln the introduction to his book, Preserving the World's Great Cities (2001), Anthony M. Tung, (fmr. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commissioner) wrote:
"l set out to learn how different people in different places conserued their urban heritage, but I discovered instead a tragedy of histor
y: 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 outlined in the Planning lssues 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 rehabilitaionf rcmodels for compatibility with the surtounding historic context. The City shall pay speciai attention to 5 the scale, massing, and relationship of proposed new deveiopment to sutrounding historic resoruces. (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.
lndeed, 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 ot the Element states:
Contextual Features O. The City shall promote the preservation, rehabilitation, testoration, andf ot reconstructiofl, as appropriate, of contextual features (e.g., sttuctures, landscapes, street lamps, signs) related to historic resources. EDP') The 707 otfice building as designed by Callister and Payne work s 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 developm ent scene nationally in the 1960s.
5 Along with oeveral details and fealures 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.
lt 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). lt is highly unlikely that any developer would incur the expense to include such elements in today's buildings.
HCR 2.1.13 of the Plan states:
Historic Surveys and Context Statements. \ffhere histotic resource sufveys may no lo nger
be vaiid, or for ateas 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 Iisting in National, California or Sacramento registers shall be evaiuated. fRDR) ln September, 2017, the City of Sacramento
released a study, "Mid‐Gentury
Modern in the City of Sacramento: Historic Context Statement and Survey Results". Campus Commons is referenced in three places: an overview of Campus Commons togeth
er with an early concept plan (pgs. 2‐27 ‐ Z‐ZB),
Section 3.4.6 , Sacramento's Developers of Modernism. 1940‐1970, re: Moss & Moss (pg. g‐eZ), 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 6 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 impa
cts 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.
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 Preservatio
n review the subject proposal for an appropriate
determination and efforts to secure its preservation, including but not limited to, referring the proposalto Preservation Commission level of review of site plan and design review, per section 17.808.170 of the code.
San Francisco, Marin County, Peninsula cities, and the East Bay, including Oakland and Berkeley, have substantially more significant MCM structures than Sacrament
o. 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
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. 1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2023 5:19 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Sacramento 2035 General Plan
Citvwide Land Use and Urban Desiqn
Policies
LU2.1.1 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)
LU2.1.2 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. (RDR) LU2.1.3 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 transi t use; foster community pride; enhance neighborhood identity; ensure public safety; are family‐friendly and address the needs of all ages and abilities. (RDR) LU2.1.8 Neighborhood Enhancement. The City shall promote infill development, reuse, rehabilitation, and reuse efforts that contribute positively (e.9., architectural design) to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas. (RDR)
LU2.4.2 Responsiveness to Context. The City shall require building design that resp ects 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. (RDR)
Citvwide Historic and,Cultural Preservation
Policies
HCR 2.1.11 Compatibility with Historic Context. Th e 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)
HCR 2.1 .12 Contextual Features. The City shall promote the preser vation, rehabilitation, restoration, and/or reconstruction, as appropriate, of contextual features (e.9., structures, landscapes, street lamps, signs) related to historic resources. (RDR)
HCR2.1.13 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 contex
t surveys. ln these surveys, the potential eligibility of all properties 45 years and older for listing in National, California or Sacramento registers shall be evaluated. (RDR)
1 HCR 2.1 .15 Demolition. The City shall consider demolition of historic resources as a last resort, to be 2 permitted only if rehabilitation of the resource is not feasible, demolition is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, or the public benefits outweigh the loss of the historic resource. (RDR)
HCR 2.1.16 Archaeological & Cultural Resources. The City shall develop or ensure compliance with protocols that protect or mitiga te impacts to archaeological and cultural resources inoluding prehistoric resources. (RDR)
HCR 2.1.17 Preservation Project Review . The City shall review and evaluate proposed development projects to minimize impacts on identified historic and cultural resources, including projects on Landmark parcels and parcels within Historic Districts, based on applicable adopted criteria and standards. (RDR)
ENVI RO
NMENTAL 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. (RDR/MPSP/SO)
ER 3.1.6 Urban Heat Island Effects. Th e 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. (RDRyPl) Non General Plan Concerns
Campus Commons Liability
Vehicle entry at Village 2 driveway
Vehicle sight lines
Access to par
king from University site
Mature urban forest tree removallcanopy; Trees, trees, trees Building set backs
Parking on streets by visitors and residents
Garbage cans on streets
Grading
Architect ‐ Charles Wanen Callister leader of "Northern California Traditional" style of architecture 3‐story vs. 2‐story
Phase 2 releva
ncy ‐ Transferable Development Right (meaning of TDR?)
Offices on lsUground floor
Not affordable ‐ Missing Mixed Middle Housing (MMH); Mixed Middle Housing Study Long term change in neighborhood
Tipping point for change in overall area
Design
Precedent setting for area
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2023 4:44 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
It appears clear that the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive violates the Sacramento 2035
General Plan as follows:
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.
Ø The distinctiveness and identity of our Campus Commons neighborhood will be ruined by a development more suited to downtown or midtown. Livability … [edit] 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.
Ø The existing building, on an elevated berm with mature landscape, provides a sensitive transition
2 from residential Campus Commons to commercial University Ave… [edit] 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.
Ø Physical layout in the proposal adversely impacts safe, family friendly walking, biking, and driving…..
neighborhood identity… [edit]
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.
Ø Neighborhood identity, safety, livability, and other priorities stated in the General Plan would be far
better served by reuse and rehabilitation of the existing office building… [edit] 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.
Ø The proposed design is entirely different from that of Campus Commons where neighborhood land
and landscaping are noticed first; land and landscaping in the proposal has vanished.
Replacing
trees and greenery with concrete and asphalt intensifies local heat... [edit] Environmental Resources Policies
3 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.
Letter 3 to Eric Guerra and Zach Dahla 4-5-23
Ø Healthy trees on the 707 Commons site should be retained, with tree health independently
assessed. New canopy trees are needed on site to replace those lost to development… [edit]
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. 1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2023 4:50 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
It would be a great disservice to the more than two thousand Campus Commons residents who drive,walk, or bike past 707 Commons Drive, on a daily or weekly basis, to see the current building, trees, rising berm, and landscaping removed and replaced by what Bardis & Miry are proposing for the site.
A current resident of Campus Com
mons 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 neighb orhood. The loss of 707 Commons will destroy that. It would be a loss for Sacramento, as well.
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 in the Campus Commons neighb
orhood, whereas the design of the current office building is complementary. ‐ 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 at street level. ‐ Setbacks from Commons Dr to the proposed units are only 5’ to 9.5’, compared to the approxi mately 40’
setbacks from Commons Dr to the adjacent 2‐story Campus Commons homes at 739 to 747 Commons Dr.
Even the one‐story homes across Commons Dr have approximately 27’ setbacks. The three‐story homes across
Campus Commons Rd have 25’ to 39’ setbacks.
‐ The sight line from Campus Commons Rd to Commons Dr will be lost, creating a safety hazard for bikers and walkers (many older than 60). Given the curve along Commons Dr between Campus Commons Rd and American River Dr, this sight line is very important.
‐ The tree
s, especially the private protected trees, should not be removed. They provide health benefits to the community.
‐ With 24 units on the 1.09 acre 707 Commons lot, the average density will 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 in the proposal, as there is for all other nearby homes along Commons Dr and Campus Commons Rd.
2 ‐ The residents of the proposed 24 units will not contribute dues to maintain the landscape and amenities in Campus Commons and Nepenthe neighborhoods. These HOAs have paid to build and maintain their landscape and amenities for over 50 years and should not need to build a wall. ‐ With entrance to 707 Commons Dri ve from 350 University Ave (owned by developers of 707 Commons Dr), the potential for inequity and conflict would be reduced because it would be much clearer that the new development is separate.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2023 4:42 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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 2 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. 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 any 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). 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 in continuity with the 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
Letter 1 to Eric Guerra and Zach Dahla 4-5-23
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—rarely in single family or tow nhouses. 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 in 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.
3 Newly introduced design elements attempt to provide some ‘horizontality’ in response 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). But the new design 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 midsection.
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.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 10:36 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CONCERNS! Added security measures will
be needed to limit non-resident access to HOA
amenities, including ponds, playgrounds,
exercise facilities, clubhouses, swimming
pools, tennis courts, and grounds. The costs
of additional security measures will be borne
by CC-Nepenthe residents.
The parklike environs of CC and Nepenthe
have been paid for with HOA dues and special
assessments for over 50 years. Residents at
707 Commons Drive will not only pay no
current dues to enjoy the surroundings, but
they will have invested nothing to build and
maintain them over time.
Campus Commons and Nepenthe residents
will be subjected to years of construction
noise, disruption, and debris, from demolition
of the present building, excavation and
grading the lot, and new construction.
2 Vehicle entrance to the proposed
development can be from 350 University Ave,
which is also owned by the developers of 707
Commons Dr. This will reduce conflict over
use of a single driveway on Commons Drive
that is shared by Campus Commons Villages 1
and 2.
Campus Commons will lose the beautiful,
PUD-conforming office building that is built on
a berm and shaded by mature trees, all in
harmony with the PUD landscape. In exchange
Campus Commons will face tightly packed
high-rise housing that is placed on a flat,
largely paved lot.
With removal of the berm and trees from 707
Commons Drive, Campus Commons residents
will lose an intentional buffer from the traffic
noise and pollution on Fair Oaks Blvd.
The important sight line at the busy
intersection of Commons Drive and Campus
Commons Way is largely lost, creating a safety
hazard for walkers, bikers, and drivers, many
of whom are senior citizens.
There are other properties in Sacramento,
empty or underutilized, that are better suited to
3 the redevelopment proposal for 707 Commons
Drive.
TO: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner
[email protected]
RE: Comments on Developer's 2nd Revised Plans for 707 Commons Dr, #Z22-079
Dear Mr. Dahla:
I write to express my continued concerns about the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive. I live approximately one block away at 601 Commons Drive. I’m not knowledgeable on the planning process so am a bit baffled that there’s now a revised proposal that still seeks to change dramatically the Campus Commons neighborhood, demolish a historical building, remove numerous trees, and does not address any of the concerns about traffic, visitor parking, or access to neighborhood common spaces which have been repeatedly expressed.
I’ve also recently read the “Historical Resource Evaluation” prepared by the developer’s expert and was struck by their conclusion: “707 Commons Drive does appear to be a cohesively designed and contributory component building within Campus Commons.” This seems to imply that demolishing this building and making all the other changes they are proposing would be at odds with the aim of projects to preserve, protect, and enhance existing neighborhoods.
Additionally, as you may be aware, our Homeowner’s Association recently concluded the developer’s proposed Joint Use Agreement was totally one-sided and provided no benefit to our community- a synecdoche for their entire proposal. This same one-sided dynamic is surely true of many aspects of what they propose like public/visitor parking, greenspace, trees, parks, playground, etc. We pay for all of this in our neighborhood, and the developer wants to reap the benefits while contributing nothing. They’ve even acknowledged that they intend to market these features to their prospective buyers as well as aspects of the neighborhood such as the green space, setbacks from the street, and mature trees that their own project would remove.
Ultimately, the most recent proposal still possesses all the same flaws as the original, which (among other things) included in its Project Narrative numerous inaccuracies about the neighborhood and historical character of the building that are now contradicted by the developer’s own expert. I’d ask that you require them to present a plan that preserves, protects, and enhances our neighborhood (i.e., retains the historical building, trees, setbacks and maintains the characteristics of the neighborhood) as well as makes provision for things like traffic, visitor parking, use of common spaces, etc.
Sincerely,
Andrew Keating
601 Commons Drive
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Becky Watts <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 3:09 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: RE: Project #Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Regarding the development at 707 Commons Drive please be advised that I am vehemently opposed to accessing this project from Commons Drive. This office building currently has parking available with access from 350 University Avenue which the developers also own. The address of 707 Commons Drive on the office building is clearly visible from University Avenue.
Ther
e should be no access point from either Commons Drive or Campus Commons Road. These roads are already burdened with traffic trying to circumnavigate Howe Avenue. The stop sign at Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road is merely a suggestion as most people barely slow down at that intersection. Adding stop signs will not eliminate this problem.
We will just have 3 stop signs that are merely suggestions.
Directing access to the development from University Avenue will encourage the use of that parking lot for overflow residential parking as well as visitor parking. Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road should not be used for
access to or parking for this development. Our community should not be impacted by the addition of more cars parking on our streets when there is a parking lot in close proximity to the development.
Very truly yours,
Becky Watts
627 Commons Drive
916‐204‐4733
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Dyan Pease <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 4:46 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Campus Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I am sending a comment of concern about this development.
I am especially concerned about the lack of parking. It is just not fair to the residents on that side of campus commons.
Further, I am really disgusted by the waste of it all. There is an existing building that is quite beautiful. Why on earth would
anyone want to just destroy it, thus producing an immense amount of waste for landfill. Not to mention the unnecessary loss of life with the trees.
Best,
Dyan Pease
Campus Common Resident
916.479.5024
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Julie Kraus <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 12:06 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project #Z22-079 707 Commons Dr
Good aŌernoon, the proposed development does not comply aestheƟcally with exisƟng homes of Campus Commons.
The residents of Campus Commons enjoy their homes on somewhat elevated hills, mature trees, NOT three‐story buildings, sufficient parking for each home. The proposed project’s locaƟon is very close to Campus Commons and for this project to not comply with Campus Commons’ CC&Rs is an uƩer shame. Due to the lack of sufficient and/or convenient parking for this project the residents and their guests will be forced to park on Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. This will bring increased noise, traffic, and congesƟon. Thank you for your Ɵme.
Julie Kraus
804 Commons Drive
Sent from my iPad
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Fuller, Diana K. (she/her/hers) <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 2:14 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: FW: project Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
From: Fuller, Diana K. (she/her/hers)
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 1:59 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: project Z22‐079
Dear Mr. Dahla and Guerra,
I live in Campus Commons, Village 1, near the proposed redevelopment of 7087 Commons Drive. It is both infuriating and heartbreaking that the developers seem to be solely focused on getting as much money out of the pr operty as possible without regard to the historical, architectural, environmental and historical value of the location. I do not think that any mature trees should be destroyed, that the setback from Commons Road that is proposed is sufficient, or that the developers have given adequate thought to parkin g and traffic impacts of their proposal. I believe that the number of new units should be limited to a number and height that is similar to the surrounding condominiums and not twice as densely packed and with an additional floor.
Please keep the concerns of the Campus Commons residents in consideration.
Thank you
Sincere
ly,
Kim Fuller
445 Hartnell Place
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Peter Clive Mundy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 8:24 AM
To: [email protected]; Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Comments on Developers 2nd Revised Plan for 707 Commons Drive Attachments: Z22-079_REV1_PLANS.pdf; Z22-079_Re-Revised+Plans+_286.5.23_29.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Zach Dahla and Eric Guerra,
My wife Dr. Kim Fuller and I have reviewed the developer’s 2nd Revised Plans for 707 Commons Drive, which we downloaded from the Agency Counter web page https://sacramento.agencycounter.com/search/record/b16d36c5‐ 3d33‐460b‐abb4‐247963eab837?tab=map .
The developer does not appear to have made any significant changes in their 2 nd Revised Plan that address our
concerns, or those of the Campus Commons Community. In the 2nd revision, the density of housing is the same as in the 1st revised plan and, again, is completely out of alignment with the Campus Commons community and any other residential community south of Fair Oaks in our immediate area, other than rental apartments on University Ave across from the Sac State. The later though are separated from Campus Commons by a divided avenue with trees on the median.
Related to th
e last observation, the second the landscape plan is the same as in the 1st revision. It still does not align with the community which screens all buildings from street views (residential or business) with significant setbacks and significant large tree street planting. I’ve attached copies of the 1st revised plans and the second revised plan. Please let us know if we are mistaken in this perception of the plans. Based on our review we would have to say that the developers, to this point, have been completely unresponsive community input.
With Best Regards,
Peter Mundy, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Education and
Lisa Capps Professor of Psychiatry at th
e MIND Institute
University of California, Davis
Senior Associate Editor, Autism Research
https://profiles.ucdavis.edu/peter.mundy
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 11:56 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Fwd: 707 Commons Drive Project Updates as of 6-1-23 Attachments: Historic Resource Evaluation Response C Kunze 4-25-23.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Mary Ann <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 8:28 PM
Subject: 707 Commons Drive Project Updates as of 6‐1‐23 To:
Campus Commons and Nepenthe neighbors,
This update has two aims.
First, if you are a Campus Commons resident, you can sign up to receive Association News emails which contain information relevant to the Villages including updates about the 707 Commons Drive Project. To sign up, go to Association Information and follow the prompts. You are not automatically signed up! Do sign up and encourage your Campus Commons neighbors to do the same. Nepenthe residents, please check with Nepenthe management about HOA notification processes.
Second, Campus Commons' Association News carried the update below on May 30, reprinted here for those who do not receive the News. You also received this content from me in the email headed, "707 Commons Drive Project Updates as of 4-28-23."
The developer's report, Historic Resource Evaluation: 707 Commons Drive, referenced below, is available on the City's Agency Counter website. Let me know if you'd like instructions on how to access that trove of developer plans and permits.
Thanks, everyone!
Mary Ann
REBUTTAL TO DEVELOPER'S 707 COMMONS DRIVE REPORT
On May 21, Association News carried resident Carr Kunze’s re‐evaluation to the developer’s report: Historic Resource Evaluation: 707 Commons Drive. However, since Mr. Kunze’s illustrated re‐evaluation was thorough but lengthy, some o f
the key findings are summarized here. Please refer to Kunze’s full report for a more thorough assessment of the 707 Commons building and its significance (see link below).
Background: The 707 Commons Drive developers, Bardis & Miry, filed their Historic Resource Evaluation report with the City on Jan. 25, 2023. That report can be found on Agency Counter. The developers commissioned this report in response to requests from Campus Commons residents.
2 Mr. Kunze made the following key points in his rebuttal to the developer's report.
Uniqueness of the building ‐ The rebuttal includes significant information about the architectural forms, materials, earth mounding, open space, and workmanship that renowned architect Charles Warren Callister incorporated into his design that distinguishes the 707‐office building from the surrounding ho mes and at the same time, unifies the two functional areas. Kunze also identifies and corrects several inaccuracies in the Historic Resource Evaluation report.
Building harmonizes with the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ‐ Kunze writes: "The synthesis of the office building with its Residential PUD neighbors as a part of an overall Planned Community is signifi cant to the history of the evolution
of PUDs and Planned Communities in Sacramento, the State of California, and potentially even nationally, to the extent that it represents the execution of such a comprehensive and high quality of architecture uniquely expressed within the Bay Area or Nor‐Cal Tradi
tion."
Building is a rare example of the NorCal Tradition of Architecture ‐ Kunze notes that Callister's design is one of "few surviving examples of the Second Bay Area Tradition as incorporated into commercial office architecture," and he more carefully defines Callister's significance in the history of the Northern California Tradition of arc hitecture and planning.
Please read Kunze's analysis [link below] and send your further comments on Project #Z22 to Associate City Planner Zach Dahla and to City Councilmember Eric Guerra.
If you know someone in the architecture, historical preservation, landscape architecture, planning or related professional communities who might find this report of interest, please forward this message and attachment. 1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 10:07 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: revised 707
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
_______
Architecture and design
The developer’s claim that the design is compatible with the existing neighborhood is completely at odds with the actual plan, which continues to reveal scale, density, placement, landscaping, materials, and more in stark contrast to nearly every quality of the surrounding Planned Unit Development (PUD), beyond the earth‐tone color scheme. Carr Kunze, an ex perienced planning and development professional, cites, “cheap imitations of wood…ersatz stone facades…trite awnings…wholly lacking of respect for the neighboring architecture.” At 3 stories, the proposed units exceed the height of all other buildings in the neighborhood. HVAC units face the street, an eyesore unseen on other neighborhood streets.
Potential for live/work arrangements?
The total number of fully‐functioning units remains 24 across 6 buildings. Twelve units appear to contain a room with a half bath and kitchenette. A purchaser could conceivably increase the half bath to a full bath and rent it out as a studio or work/live space, if City code permits such additional units at that time. (This type of conversion may be no more likely than potential similar conversions elsewhere in
the PUD.)
The same 12 units also have a “4th bedroom option” with a full bathroom and no kitchenette. If permitted by City code at that time, a homeowner could add a kitchenette and rent it out as a studio or work/live space. Either way, the design of the downstairs options potentially invites illegal conversions and creates additional de
nsity, traffic, and unplanned parking issues.
Landscaping and trees
All mature trees on the site are still slated for destruction. There is no space for anything other than ornamental trees. Tree canopy is lost ‐ to the development, the neighborhood, and the region ‐ and will not be effectively replaced. The artist’s rendition of the development includes trees that appear to partially obscure the buildings. Given the minimal available green space and the close proximity of buildings, it is likely that few trees of the depicted size would flourish.
Green space in general is insignificant and incompatible with every other area in Campus Commons and Nepenthe, defeating the underlying planning and environmental design concepts embraced by the Campus Commons community and the City.
Driveway access and parking
The developers have been denied shared use of the existing driveway to the east of the property. Instead a new driveway appears in the revised plans, with entry and exit still onto Commons Drive. 2 Residents of 12 units must park their cars single‐file in their 2‐car garages, greatly increasing the likelihood that one car will be parked on the street.
Single‐file garages and potential work/live conversions could add 12 to 24 parked vehicles to Commons Drive, Campus Commons Road, and nearby streets, in addition to those of current residents and visitors. The likelihood that some garage space would be used for storage would push even more parking onto the street.
One analysis of the street parking situation states the length of a parallel parking space as 18‐20 feet. About 150 feet of street parking is available directly in front of 707 Commons Drive and about 150 feet adjacent to the development on Campus Commons Road (space for a new driveway and emergency ex it are subtracted). That yields about 16 parking spaces, too few to accommodate overflow from the development. The permanent availability of parking for 707 Commons Dr. in the 350 University Ave. parking lot remains murky. The revised plans show both a 6’ fence walling 707 Commons Dr. off from 350 University Ave, and a notation of potential “future pedestrian access to additional potential parking.” Traffic and parking could spike if converted rooms are used as commercial spaces for any number of small businesses.
The need for adequate onsite parking persists even without the inclusion of studio or commercial space.
Refuse containers
There is clearly no space ‐ or plan ‐ for both trash and parking on Commons Drive or Campus Commons Road. Campus Commons was developed with adequate space for refuse pickup in the alleys. In contrast, and with disrespect for neighbors, the developers plan to crowd all 48 weekly and 72 bi‐weekly containers onto Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road rather than design alleys wide enough for refuse trucks. (Containers are often left on streets for more than one day, fallen cont
ainers create traffic hazards.)
The city requires that refuse containers be placed 3’ apart. Bins are 19" to 24" wide. Even without any spacing, 72 containers require between 114 and 144 feet of curb space; factoring in the required 3', 330 to 360 feet of curb space is needed.
Refuse containers will require all of the curb space adjacent to the development on Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. That same space will very likely already be occupied by vehicles from the development, so refuse containers will be spread out in front of existing homes in the community.
Joint planning for 2 properties
The 350 University Ave. and 707 Commons Dr. properties must be planned and developed as one project in order to find any coherent solution to parking and other issues, consistent with the planning that went into the original PUD designation and the practices underlying these properties. Both properties were acquired under one PUD designation and should continue to be subject to the requirements of the PUD.
It appears that Bardis and Miry are still the lead developers on 707 Commons Dr. and are therefore in a position to unify planning for the 2 properties.
Planning should include consideration of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to move the bulk of development to the University Ave. side of the property.
Historic preservation and alternate uses
Active neighbors continue to press for historic preservation of the office building at 707 Commons Drive. The existing structure is an important and consciously designed linkage between the residential and office/commercial PUD sections of Campus Commons. It was designed by the community's original architect, a leader in Mid Century Northern California's architectural tradition, and was intended to tie the two areas together. It also is one of very few remaining examples of this style of architecture in low rise suburban office buildings, enhanced by its trellis and pergola systems. 3 There is discussion of seeking historic designation for the Campus Commons PUD. Are you interested in supporting this effort, either in the role of professional fund‐raiser (in order to hire historic preservation services) or through direct financial support? Do you know someone who is? Please reply. Bardis and Miry could take this approach in conjunction with a TDR/density reallocation incentive. Neighbors are also interested in repurposing the structure, including finding an entity to buy and preserve it, for university offices, faculty live/work, senior care or housing, and more.
The problem with the proposal for the 707 Commons Development, is that it looks at the replacement of a singular building without consideration of where this building sits. 707 is surrounded on 3 sides by Campus Commons homes. The architecture of the current building, the roofing lines, color, shape and dimensions, fit seamlessly into the surrounding Master Planned Community. It’s ample trees, lush landscaping & wide open spaces, are consistent with all that surround it.
The proposed development shows no sensitivity to its surroundings. As such, It is also not in compliance with Sacramento’s 2035 General Plan.
Campus Commons, with its visionary design of high density housing and lush greenbelts, features approximately 6.7 homes per acre, vs the proposed 24 units an acre.
Taking trees down when other Sacramento organizations and Government entities are advocating more trees to protect us from record-breaking heat waves, is inconsistent with the way the world is turning.
The scale, design, building materials, tree canopy, and architecture of the proposed units must be consistent with those units in the surrounding
Master Planned Community and the Sacramento 2035 General Plan.
Back-to-Back 2-car garages are notorious for housing storage, not cars. This, along with the lack of visitor parking, will lead to excessive homeowner/renter street parking which will increase the carbon emissions in this area by 20-40%. (Depending on # of residents per unit.) The age, innovative design, and spectacular aesthetics of Campus Commons, merit a listing in the California and Sacramento Landmark Registries. The Developer’s report rejected this claim based on a history of tenants and other irrelevant criteria.
Lastly, the driveway into the property should be routed through the owner’s adjacent property, 350 University Avenue on the perimeter of Campus Commons, rather than through the heart of Campus Commons.
If our City and County and Country are to survive, we must be interconnected and make decisions for the greater good of all concerned. This proposed office building, benefits the 2 owners of the proposed property over the 1200+ homeowners in Campus Commons and Nepenthe.
Consider the Alternatives:
An Assisted Living or Adult Day Care Center would be a much better fit for this building and neighborhood which is already packed with luxury housing. This Center could be highly profitable if properly managed. Whatever the usage, the building must feature ample visitor/service parking, preservation of trees with substantial street set backs, onsite amenities, and driveway access through 350 University Ave.
32 opponents to the 707 Commons Proposed development, listed below, support and/or contributed to the above letter of opposition:
• Theodora Wilner <[email protected]>,
• Lyle Gramling <[email protected]>,
• Mary Tamraz <[email protected]>,
• Erin Laine <[email protected]>
• Linda Easterwood <[email protected]>,
• Mindy Rothbard <[email protected]>,
• Bruce Heard <[email protected]>,
• Nancy Novotny <[email protected]>,
• Michael Caplan <[email protected]>,
• Marilyn Gardner <[email protected]>,
• Nancy Fisher <[email protected]>,
• Irina Lane <[email protected]>,
• Birinder Aujla <[email protected]>,
• Virginia Loeffler <[email protected]>,
• Max Clark <[email protected]>,
• Gayle Crenshaw <[email protected]>,
• Susan Peterson <[email protected]>,
• Anita Fante <[email protected]>,
• Peggy Pettit <[email protected]>,
• Joan Barrett <[email protected]>,
• Barbara Arnstine <[email protected]>
• Holly Wallin <[email protected]>,
• Cheryl Nelson <[email protected]>,
• Patt McCormick <[email protected]>,
• Kathie Vaughn <[email protected]>,
• Nanette Lamoure <[email protected]>
• Tonae Hasik <[email protected]>
• Freda Ravizza <[email protected]>
• Anita Scharf <[email protected]>
• Billie D. Hardy <[email protected]>
• Robert W. Hardy <[email protected]>
• Beverly Paget <[email protected]>
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:16 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: 707 Commons Drive Proposal Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla:
I am writing to submit my comments regarding the revised plans offered by the owner / developer of 707 Commons Drive. In essence, none of my previously noted concerns have been addressed in their revised plans.
This property is part of my community; the existing building and landscaping are consistent with the architecture and design of Campus Commons. The proposed structures are not in keeping with what Campus Commons is. I invite you to spend 5-10 minutes walking in any part of Campus Commons - and you will experience a park with mature trees, manicured lawns and vegetation, open spaces, ponds with water features, generous setbacks, low density housing, and flowers. Very few cars are parked on the street as almost every home has a 2 car garage that is utilized for parking.
The revised plans do not address the building density on this one acre parcel, nor the lack of vegetation and tree canopy, the lack of amenities, the lack of appropriate setbacks, and the lack of visitor parking. The new floor plans for the unit's garages will only worsen the resident parking situation. Campus Commons has a club house, swimming pools, tennis courts, and many walking trails. Campus Commons also has a playground for children and 2 large ponds with fountains and a waterfall. I pay for the maintenance and repairs on all of these items through monthly dues. These amenities are located on private property; they are not to be used or visited by non-residents. I also pay for nightly security services. There is no indication for how this new development will restrict the new homeowners from invading and trespassing on my property.
The proposed design for the new buildings on 707 Commons Drive is not a good fit in so many ways. I request that you vote to not allow this project.
Sincerely,
David L Norene
437 Hartnell Place
Sacramento
Village One Campus Commons resident since 1980
GARY R. SLAVIT, PMP
959 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 705-5494
[email protected]
___________________________________________________________ Mr. Zach Dahla
City of Sacramento Planning Division
300 Richards Blvd. 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
July 12, 2023 (Sent via email)
Re: Planning Application Z22-079; 707 Commons Drive
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I am writing to comment on the modifications made to the plans to raze the current structure at 707 Commons Drive and replace it with high-density housing. You have received numerous comments and concerns from Campus Commons and Nepenthe homeowners and residents. Agreeing with those concerns, I will not reiterate them other than to emphasize the severity of just a few topics including those regarding:
• Removal of trees
o Problematic trees within Campus Commons remain due to City regulatory restrictions.
Allowing the trees growing on the 707 Commons Drive to be removed would be highly inequitable.
• Setbacks inconsistent with the surrounding Campus Commons neighborhood. • Non-existent guest parking and garage designs that will likely monopolize all current guest parking for current Campus Commons residents.
• Significant traffic increase on Commons Drive
o Only a single driveway on Commons Drive to access the property. • Three-story structures that are inconsistent with the existing Campus Commons housing structures.
• Overall building designs that are in stark contrast to the neighboring mid-century modern design.
• Housing density that is as much as five times the density of the surrounding neighborhood. • Lack of amenities that will likely encourage residents to use the private Campus Commons grounds causing wear and tear, liability, and other negative impacts.
This is only a partial list of the concerns that Campus Commons and Nepenthe residents have communicated to you and by now you are well aware of these issues. The bottom line is that this development as originally designed will be an eyesore, does not conform to City design guidelines, and will eliminate the magnificent trees which are fundamental to the environment, beauty of the area and are the very essence of Sacramento’s identity as the City of Trees.
Again, my purpose is not to reiterate the many serious issues, but to simply state that the revisions to the development plans are insignificant and do not address the issues that have been stated. I strongly oppose the project and respectfully request that the City of Sacramento deny the approvals for the project to proceed.
Sincerely,
Gary Slavit, PMP
Dear Mr. Dahla:
I live in Campus Commons, Village Two, and share the concerns of many of my neighbors about the 707 Commons Drive project (No. Z22-079) and revised plans that will add 12 units to the original proposal for 24 units. I have several questions.
Will the decision of the Planning Department to approve or deny the above Application for Redevelopment be based on reviews by other departments like Transportation and Waste Management? I understand that SMUD will have to sign off as well.
David Lane’s letter dated June 15, 2023, expressed concerns about garbage containers required for the 707 Commons Drive project. I measured the widths of my Organic Waste (19.5”), Garbage (19”), and Mixed Recycling (26.5”) Carts and calculated the minimum number of linear feet needed in accordance with curbside collection guidelines. The attached illustration shows the total width of the three types of Carts and spaces per unit as 137 inches, or 11.4 feet. According to the diagram below, 24 units will require 72 Carts and 73 spaces.
C = Cart
- = 3-foot space
-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C -C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-
The average width of each Cart = (19.5” +19” + 26.5”) divided by 3, or 1.81 ft
72 Carts x 1.81' = 130.3 ft.
73 spaces x 3' = + 219.0 ft.
219.0’ + 130.3’ = 349.3 ft total.
A standard football field, including the end zones, is 360 ft.
Again, the above calculation is conservative. I live alone and need only small- and medium- size Carts. The proposed 24 multi-family units will likely require 64- and 96- gallon Carts. If the Developers are assuming that the 24 units will place their Carts on Commons Drive or Campus Commons Road, other factors will come into play. Carts must be placed a minimum of 6 feet from cars and other stationary objects. Cars will always be parked along both of the two-way streets bordering 707 Commons Drive.
Adding in the length of the parked cars and 6-foot spacing, the total needed space could exceed 500 linear feet. Although my calculations are based on 3 Carts per residence, additional Carts may be ordered, which is highly likely for units that will include studio subunits. Will Waste Management provide estimates of the size and total number of Carts required?
David Lane's comment letter also mentioned that parallel parking on Commons Drive is limited to nine parking spaces, and parallel parking on Campus Commons Road is limited to eight spaces plus visitor parking. The new units will add significantly to on-
street parking. Does Transportation or another department have figures on the number and feasibility of visitor spaces needed for 24 or 36 units taking into account extra cars driven by children with CDLs, occupants of the proposed studio subunits, and the fact that some of the two-car garages may be used for extra storage or other purposes?
I have talked to residents of Village 1 and 2, and even the few who support a redevelopment oppose adding another driveway on Commons Drive that is a short distance from the existing two driveways for Village One (700-744 and 735-749) and the main entry to the Campus Commons Club House at the intersection of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road.
My last question is who will benefit from the proposed redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive? There is no question that Sacramento and other cities need more affordable housing and that converting offices into housing is a realistic option since California is offering millions of dollars in grants for these conversions. Since the increasing population of seniors is facing severe shortages of housing, the office building could be renovated and converted into apartments for seniors without adversely affecting the existing architecture and landscaping.
The Developers have compared this proposed project to their Albright Village housing located at U and 13th Streets in downtown Sacramento that consists of only 14 units.
Asking prices for the different Albright plans appear to be $850,000 to $950,000. If the prices for the 24 units at 707 Commons are in the same range, they will likely be affordable only to buyers with annual incomes of $175,000 or more who have enough cash for a 20% down payment. These buyers already have plenty of choices, even in the current market: viz.
https://www.homesforsacramento.com/sacramento-single-family-homes-for- sale/800000-900000/
In sum, I believe that the proposed density of the 707 Commons redevelopment will result in conflicts between residents as well as complaints from Village One and other Villages regarding traffic, parking, waste containers, and other issues like trespassing on Campus Commons grounds. The increase of cars parked on the streets will partially obscure views of cars driving down Commons Drive. In addition, the proximity of the driveways serving 707 Commons, Village One, and the Club House will also pose a risk of accidents and injuries to drivers of cars, children on bicycles, pedestrians, and pets.
Regards,
Jonathan M. Corbett
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 11:52 AM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Cc: Janet Buehler
Subject: Project #Z22-079 - TRASH PICK LOCATIONS - 24 UNITS - neighborhood safety Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Zach,
Upon review of the 707 Commons revised plan dated June 2, 2023, I conƟnue to have a number of issues with the scale, setback, grade, and removal of private protected trees that I will address in a second leƩer. In this leƩer, I am specifically addressing the trash pi ckup locaƟons.
I request that the developers provide trash pickup locaƟons in the alleyways of the development, rather than on the streets as proposed on page C1.1, “Trash Pick LocaƟons – 24 Units”.
The proposed plan shows the trash pickup locaƟon for 72 containers along both Commons Drive and Campus Common s Drive. Each of the 24 townhomes will have up to 3 containers out for pickup. This is very concerning regarding neighborhood safety and appearance. Nearly all of the Campus Commons neighborhoods place the trash containers in their alleyway. The few single story homes that place cont ainers on the street are far apart, and are not as dense as 707 Commons development will be.
Please require that the developers widen the development alleyways to allow for the containers and the refuse vehicles to pick up waste in the alleyways. Campus Commons homes have waste pickup in the alleyways, with the exce
pƟon of very few single story homes. The new development should be in keeping with the surrounding community.
Please take the following informaƟon under consideraƟon. 1) The Plan shows the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) driveway blocked by 15 to 18 containers. It is illegal to block the EVA driveway.
a. Per City Street Design Standards: Private streets shall maintain and/or provide adequate access for emergency vehicles.
2) The curbs will likely be blocked by parked cars. Commons Drive and Campus Commons Drive allow for parking in the proposed trash pickup locations.
a. It seems unlik ely there will be space for up to 72 containers on these streets Thursday evenings and all day on Fridays.
b. The new plan has additional tandem garages for 12 units. For convenience, these residents will likely park cars on these streets.
c. Each unit only has a 2‐car garage. It is possible the residents may have more than 2 cars per unit, resulting in additional cars parked on the streets.
d. There is no on‐site visitor parking, so all visitors will park on the street. 3) For residents who work outside the home, the containers may remain on the str eet all day Friday until they return home after work.
4) Containers often tip over when there are high winds or during the truck pickup process. a. Fallen containers create a hazard to cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. b. Fallen containers result in debris on the sidewalks and streets. 5) The City recommends 3 feet be
tween containers. There is not room for adequate spacing of the containers in front of the development for street pickup.
2 a. If the containers are too close together the City refuse workers may have to manually assist to have the containers picked up by the collection vehicles. This may cause refuse pickup in the area to be a tedious process for the City refuse workers, and may cause traffic issues on the streets while the collection vehicles stop to manage the con
tainers.
b. Because of the lack of room on the streets in front of the development, the development residents may spread their containers out in front of the existing Campus Commons homes, which will be unacceptable to Campus Commons residents.
Eric Guerra is copied
on this email.
Thank you for considering this request.
Marilyn Buehler
Concerned Campus Commons resident
Campus Commons Village Four
Mr. Zack Dahla
City of Sacramento Planning Division
300 Richards Blvd. 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811 July 10, 2023
Re: Planning Application Z22-079; 707 Commons Drive
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I am writing again on behalf of the Campus Commons Village Four Board of Directors representing 53 homeowner units.
The developer has submitted a third set of proposed plans for development of this property. Village Four homeowners still have substantial concerns about this proposal. The purpose of this letter is to summarize those main concerns.
To recap: the overall concern is whether this proposed development conforms to the City’s General Plan requirements and expectations. Specifically, this proposed development is within a neighborhood where “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.” LU 2.1.1.
Further, “[t[he City shall preserve, protect and enhance established neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between those neighborhoods and adjoining areas, and by requiring new development, both private and public, to respect and respond to having those existing physical characteristics buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban form that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood.” LU 2.1.2.
Also, “[t]he 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.” LU 2.1.3.
The developer’s claim that the design is compatible with the existing neighborhood is still completely at odds with the actual plan. The colors have changed but the scale, density, placement, landscaping and materials are still in stark contrast to nearly every quality of the surrounding Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Briefly:
• At three stories, the proposed units exceed the height of all other buildings in the neighborhood.
• All mature trees on the site are still slated for destruction. • There is no space for anything other than ornamental trees. Tree canopy is lost to the development, the neighborhood, and the region - and will not be effectively replaced.
• The artist’s rendition of the development includes trees that appear to partially obscure the buildings. Given the minimal available green space and the close proximity of buildings, it is likely that few trees of the depicted size would flourish.
• Green space in general is insignificant and incompatible with Campus Commons and Nepenthe, defeating the underlying planning and environmental design concepts embraced by the Campus Commons community and the City.
• The HVAC units face the street, an eyesore inconsistent with the Campus Commons aesthetics designed specifically so that the unsightly HVAC units would not be visible to the public.
• The total number of units remains at 24 contained within six buildings. The design of 12 of the units potentially invites conversions (converting half baths to full, adding kitchenettes) increasing additional density, traffic and unplanned parking issues.
• Residents of 12 units must park their cars single file in their 2-car garages, which is cumbersome and inconvenient, greatly increasing the likelihood that one car will be parked on the street, potentially adding 12- 24 parked vehicles to Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. • One analysis of the street parking situation states the length of a parallel parking space is 18-20 feet. Approximately 150 feet of street parking is available directly in front of 707 Commons Drive and approximately 150 feet adjacent to the development on Campus Commons Road (space for a new driveway and emergency exit are subtracted). That yields approximately 16 parking spaces, too few to accommodate overflow from the development and eliminates guest parking for current Campus Commons residents.
• The permanent availability of parking for 707 Commons Drive in the 350 University Avenue parking lot remains murky. The revised plans show both a 6’ fence walling 707 Commons Drive off from 350 University Avenue, and a notation of potential “future pedestrian access to additional potential parking.”
• There is clearly no space - or plan - for both refuse pick-up and parking on Commons Drive or Campus Commons Road.
o Campus commons was developed with adequate space for refuse pickup in the alleys. In contrast, and with disrespect for neighbors, the developers plan to crowd all 48 weekly and 72 bi-weekly containers onto Commons Drive and Campus commons Road
rather than design alleys wide enough for refuse trucks. o The city requires that refuse containers be placed 3’ apart. Bins are 19" to 24" wide. Even without any spacing, 72 containers require between 114 and 144 feet of curb space; factoring in the required 3', 330 to 360 feet of curb space is needed.
o Refuse containers will therefore require all of the curb space adjacent to the development on Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road, leaving no space for overflow parking from the development.
• Both the 350 University Avenue and 707 Commons Drive properties were acquired under one PUD designation and should continue to be subject to the requirements of the PUD. They must be planned and developed as one project in order to find any coherent solution to parking and other issues, consistent with the planning that went into the original PUD designation and the practices underlying these properties.
This is a summary of some of the major concerns raised by Campus Commons residents including those in Village Four. We request that all of these matters be addressed.
Please continue to notify us of all hearings regarding this proposal as we have many residents who desire to attend to express their positions.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to our concerns regarding this proposed development.
Sincerely,
Nancy Comstock
President
Campus Commons Village Four
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 12:49 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Project Z22-079; 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I’m writing as a resident of Nepenthe with my concerns about the development plans for 707 Commons Drive that Bardis and Miry have filed with the City, most recently on July 25, 2023 (project no. Z22-079). My concerns, shared by neighbors, include the design and materials of the project, potential increases in occupancy, and landscaping and trees. These concerns all add up to permanent losses for the historic, intentionally designed, and architecturally cohesive, planned unit development that is Campus Commons-Nepenthe.
I am very disappointed that the plans still call for removal of 26 mature trees, including 11 private protected trees. Over the past several years City officials have proclaimed the importance of the extensive canopy in our City of Trees. With this development plan we face permanent loss of this element of the Campus Commons urban forest, a loss that impacts the neighborhood, the region, and the climate. The lost canopy cannot be effectively replaced. The artist’s rendition of replacement trees across the front of the buildings is a mirage. Given the minimal space between buildings and pavement, it is very unlikely that canopy trees could flourish.
Limited green space in the new plans is incompatible with every other area in Campus Commons and Nepenthe, defeating the planning and environmental design concepts fundamental to the PUD, embraced by this community, and codified in the City General Plan.
Along with removal of the trees, the developers want to level the elevated berm on which the 707 Commons office building was constructed. Rolling landscape is a central and intentional feature throughout Campus Commons. Soil was scraped from roadbeds and used to create a rolling, naturalistic, park-like landscape. The loss of the berm further erases any design continuity with the neighborhood.
The proposed buildings will sit on a flattened lot, within just a few feet of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. These minimal setbacks clash with the generous setbacks from the streets throughout the PUD. The development plans also show building overhangs that appear to nearly reach the sidewalks and HVAC units on street-facing sides of residences.
Density of the proposed buildings continues to be an issue. The revised plans show 24 units across 6 buildings, with features that make 36 livable units a possibility. Twelve units contain a room with a half bath and a kitchenette. If City code allows at a future time, a buyer could convert to a full bath and create a rental studio or live/work space. The same 12 units also have a “4th bedroom option” with a full bathroom. By adding a kitchenette, a homeowner could also create a rental. Either of these conversions would increase density, traffic, and parking issues.
2 Most consequentially, the plans still call for demolishing an architecturally significant building, with its signature trellises and pergola, that is integral to the Campus Commons planned unit development concept. Despite the developer’s claims that their plans harmonize with the PUD, the 3-story housing is completely incompatible with the existing neighborhood in design, scale, density, placement, landscaping, materials, and more - “wholly lacking of respect for the neighboring architecture” according to a neighborhood planning professional.
All of the issues in this letter - loss of trees, the elevated berm, density, the destruction of a historic building - can be resolved through joint planning for 2 adjacent properties and pursuit of historic preservation and alternate uses for the existing building.
Joint planning for the adjoining 350 University Ave. and 707 Commons Dr. properties could resolve some of the thorniest issues for the neighboring PUD. Both properties were purchased under one PUD designation and both should continue to be subject to the requirements of the PUD. Planning for both properties as one project would also be more consistent with the planning that went into the original PUD designation. As the lead developers on 707 Commons Drive, Bardis and Miry are in a position to unify planning for the 2 properties.
Neighbors continue to press for historic preservation of the office building at 707 Commons Drive. The existing structure is an important and consciously designed linkage between the two residential and office/commercial PUD sections of Campus Commons. The office building was designed by the community's original architect, a leader in Mid Century Northern California's architecture, and was intended to tie the two PUD sections together. It also is one of very few remaining examples of this style of architecture in low rise suburban office buildings. Neighbors are also interested in repurposing the existing structure, including finding an entity to buy and preserve it, for university offices, faculty live/work, senior care, and more.
Planning for the redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive should include the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to move the bulk of development to the University Ave. side of the property. The developers can be compensated for their redirected development rights. I urge you to assist the developers in taking this path out of conflict with the neighborhood and toward a more harmonious resolution.
Thank you for considering these concerns and solutions.
Sincerely,
Carol Duke
205 Dunbarton Cir
Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: christine howard <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2023 2:07 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project#Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Mr. Dahla:
Once again, I plead with you to do whatever it takes to scratch plans for the nightmare that is the 707 Commons Drive development. The only reason for this dreadful project can only be to stuff the pockets of the developer . It has no other purpose, no other worthwhile co ntribuƟon to our beauƟful Sacramento or its lovely, verdant Campus Commons area.
By now, you are likely well aware of all the negaƟve features and drawbacks of #707. I trust you agree that it contributes nothing to the desirable and appealing features of our city and nothing fo r City Planning to be proud of. To destroy old trees that offer Nature’s beauty and shade, parƟcularly in these Ɵmes of Climate Change, can only be regarded as careless and cruel—some might even say “sinful.”
Please, Mr . Dahla, take our opposiƟon to heart and exercise your capacity to do g ood for the city that is likely also your
home. Let’s assure that those cherished, aged trees will sƟll be here long aŌer we’ve all gone.
And as for those big, ugly structures and their inadequate parking spaces, what can one say….
Respecƞully,
Ter
r y & ChrisƟne Howard
Sent from my iPad
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Dave Stanley <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:03 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Dr.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Mr. Dahla,
My wife and I have been residents of Campus Commons for five years. We are quite concerned about the development at 707 Commons Dr . We worry about added traffic on Commons Drive. About Commons Drive used as overflow parking, and trash cans be placed weekly on the st reet.
We also have a huge problem with losing so many trees, why would the City allow this? The loss of the berm, setbacks, and buildings not blending into the surrounding neighborhoods is something the City should not allow. I don’t believe this project follows the City’s General Plan requirements.
Thank yo
u,
David Stanley
531 Hartnell Place
Sent from my iPad
Date: August 10, 2023
To: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner, City of Sacramento (via email [email protected]) CC: Vice Mayor Eric Guerra
From: Inderjit Rye, Campus Commons Resident ([email protected]) Re: Z22-079 (707 Commons Dr)
I have read Title 17 (all text pertinent to the proposed development at 707 Commons Dr) and believe the latest plans still fall short of what is allowed.
First, I should state: the parcel that the 707 Commons Dr proposed development sits on (295-0402-015- 0000) is zoned OB-PUD (see Sacramento County’s online Assessor Parcel Viewer), and, from an exhibit related to a 1987 resolution regarding signs in the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (hereafter CCPUD) area, the parcel is well within the area designated as the CCPUD. Now:
I see that according to 17.104.020: Land use regulations specify land uses permitted or conditionally permitted in each zoning district, and may include special requirements for specific uses. One of the five types of land use regulations is Planned Unit Developments (PUD).
And I see that according to 17.104.030: A project must receive site plan and design review approval and be consistent with the land use designations of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and with the zoning district in which it is located. If the use proposed for the development requires special consideration to be compatible with surrounding uses, a conditional use permit is required. If the development request does not fully comply with the regulations of this title, approval of a deviation from design guidelines or development standards, or a variance, is required.
And I see that 17.104.100-D states: When conflicts occur between the requirements of this title and development guidelines adopted for a PUD, the requirements of the PUD development guidelines apply.
Per 17.104.110: the zoning administrator is responsible for and has the authority to interpret the provisions of this title.
Per 17.104.120: An interpretation of this title by the zoning administrator is subject to appeal to the planning and design commission under section 17.812.060. The zoning administrator may refer any interpretation of this title to the planning and design commission for a determination.
In 17.600.100: For purposes of site plan and design review, and whenever design review is otherwise required under this title, the design guidelines applicable to a development project are as follows…:
D. Planned unit developments. The guidelines and schematic plan adopted for a planned unit development apply to development in that planned unit development.
Moreover, per 17.452.020: A building permit shall not be issued for any building or structure within the boundaries of a planned unit development until the plans submitted for the building permit have been reviewed by the planning director to determine if the plans conform to the schematic plan and development guidelines adopted for the planned unit development and the site plan and design review approved for the project.
17.452.030: The planned unit development (“PUD”) designation appearing on the official zoning map means the property is subject to the requirements of this chapter and the schematic plan and development guidelines adopted for the planned unit development, in addition to the indicated land use zone (underlying zone).
17.452.040-B: Contents of the schematic plan and development guidelines.
1. The schematic plan and development guidelines shall contain the development standards applicable to development within the planned unit development and shall include specific details, elements, conditions and restrictions as the council may deem warranted to carry out the purpose of this chapter, including conditions and restrictions related to size, timing, and sequence of development.
2. In approving a schematic plan and development guidelines for a planned unit development, the city council may modify zoning regulations relating to height, setback and area requirements, and other provisions of this title otherwise applicable to the property; provided that the following standards shall be applied:
a. Design standards. The schematic plan and development guidelines provide overall standards of open space, circulation, off-street parking and other conditions in such a way as to form a harmonious, integrated project of such quality to justify exceptions to the normal regulations of this title. c. Density standards. The density standards of the zone in which the property is located shall apply to residential uses, except that the schematic plan and development guidelines may authorize a greater density if the proposed design will result in a development project that provides greater open spaces and other desirable features not a regular requirement of the zone. d. Uses. Property within a planned unit development may be used only for the uses that are permitted in the underlying zone in which it is located and that are authorized by the schematic plan and development guidelines adopted for the property.
Application of Title 17:
Current City staff have provided Resolution No. 79, dated November 25, 1969 (hereafter 11-25-69 Resolution) and the accompanying CCPUD Revised Schematic Development Plan document, dated November 10, 1969 (hereafter 11-10-69 Document) as documents they are looking to for guidance, since the 707 Commons Dr proposed project is included within the area designated in the 11-10-69 document.
The 11-10-69 Document states that in 1965 “the Commission approved the schematic concepts of (the) overall plan as a guide for future consideration of specific development projects as more detailed plans were developed and submitted for each project”.
Prior to November 1969, the following were built: Village One, Village Two, and the office building at 707 Commons Dr.
It appears that the home lots in Village Four and a portion of Village Three (all of the patio homes and the townhomes at 244 to 292 Hartnell and at 504 to 536 Hartnell) were planned by November 1969 but built after.
After November 1969 the following were positioned and built from 1971 to 1979 (listed in order of build years): the rest of Village Three, Nepenthe’s American River Dr, Commons Dr, Adelphi Ct, Colby Ct, Vanderbilt Way, Swarthmore Dr, Dunbarton Cir, Elmhurst Cir. Village 10, on Hartnell Cir, was built in 1975 and Village 5, off Commons Dr, in 1977 to 1979.
We have not seen written schematic concepts. The City appears to have misplaced or lost portions of the November 1969 approved supporting CCPUD documents. In the absence of such written concepts, it is proper to look at the final product: the Campus Commons neighborhood itself, all of the aforementioned villages and streets. We invite the City staff to walk this area with us. The staff would see exceptional environmental characteristics of:
- Generous street to building setbacks to allow for park-like landscaping: berms and sculptured rolling land, flowering plants, bushes, canopy trees, and shared green areas, - As a result of that: a semi-rural or park-like appearance, not at all an urban appearance, - Entrances from Howe Ave and Fair Oaks Blvd, where when one enters and reaches the main throughfare street of Commons Dr, the intersections have setbacks to allow for an inviting, and safe, entry into the residential neighborhood,
- Separate but linked villages, linked by walking trails maintained by the homeowners (I live in Village Two and walk on walk ways in other villages but that is okay because I contribute monetarily to the maintenance of Village Two walk ways that other villages’ residents walk on), - Housing that is tucked away, in the park-like setting. (Please note:
- The setback along Commons Dr to the east of the subject property is 39 feet, - The setback across Campus Commons Rd from the subject property is 25 feet, - Canopy trees are planted along the entire residential portion of Commons Dr, and the lack of them in front of 707 Commons Dr is currently offset by the many trees in the front half portion of the subject parcel,
- Common Dr was designed to curve (quite a bit) east of the subject property, and the absence of any building in the front half portion of the subject parcel greatly provides safe travel for bikers and drivers, because of (current) adequate visibility, from and to Campus Commons Rd, and along Commons Dr,
- All development, from before 1969 through 1979, provided adequate space off the street for garbage bins and green waste bins and recycle bins.)
The Schematic Concept section of the 11-10-69 Document states:
1. The original Campus Commons design concept integrated site features to produce a community with exceptional environmental characteristics. The Commission approved this Planned Unit Development concept to promote the development of different types of environments through a more flexible application of standard zoning regulations.
2. The revised schematic plan indicates a more conventional development pattern, with development occurring parcel by parcel. The key to the success of this method of development is attention to design and details. The developers have exercised this attention in the design of existing projects, and it is strongly recommended that this approach continues.
3. It is suggested that the developers consider a thematic approach to development of various areas within this project if development is to occur on a parcel by parcel basis.
The 11-25-69 Resolution, further, states:
This design concept is intended to promote the development of this area as a community with exceptional environmental characteristics.
And: It is recognized that the development of a large area over a period of time may require modifications based on changing circumstances. Any proposed change, however, should reflect the original schematic concepts, and should enhance the overall environmental character of this area. In its consideration of any proposed changes, the Commission shall carefully consider all basic elements of community development: land use, traffic circulation, recreation, and public facilities.
And: The schematic development plan indicates the proposed parcelization of multiple-family residential and commercial areas into smaller development segments. The key to the successful development of areas consisting of many separate parcels is careful attention to design and details. The developer is therefore encouraged to exercise this attention in order to ensure that these areas are developed as integrated areas, rather than groups of unrelated projects.
The developer may contend that the schematic plan and development guidelines do not preclude the proposed development. I disagree.
First, the 707 Commons Dr proposed development looks like a completely unrelated project.
The schematic plan and development guidelines in the City’s files, provided to CC residents, do not state street to building setbacks and do not specify the landscape details, but there are no buildings as close to the street as the developers want and there are no buildings on Campus Commons Rd and Commons Dr that have street level grading. Further, the minimal setbacks of the 707 Commons Dr proposal will not allow for any of the exceptional environmental characteristics described above.
The schematic plan and development guidelines in the City’s files, provided to CC residents, do not state that the 707 Commons Dr lot serves the purpose of a transition from the residential portion of the CCPUD to the University Ave commercial portion of the CCPUD, but it does.
There is real and probable danger that approval of the project would adversely affect the commercial portion of the CCPUD along Campus Commons Rd and University Ave. Anyone who crosses the H St bridge and takes the first right onto Campus Commons Rd (a great many do both) sees wide streets with buildings that are setback from the street to allow for the exceptional environmental characteristics described above. Moreover, many of the berms contain mature, healthy redwoods, in addition to other mature trees and plantings. All of these redwoods, and other trees and foliage, are in danger of being removed if the 1.09 acre parcel at the corner of Campus Commons Rd and Commons Dr becomes the new model for development in the CCPUD area.
Again, it is not impossible to conclude that the final build-out of CC is consistent with written (and possibly lost or misplaced) schematic plans. From the form of the final build-out it is clear that the setbacks and grading should be consistent and extend to the proposed 707 Commons Dr development. (And again, setbacks consistent with the rest of Commons Dr and Campus Commons Rd would provide ample space for landscape grading consistent with the neighborhood, both in the residential section and the commercial section. The consistent setback will also allow the planting of canopy trees that currently line the rest of Commons Dr.)
If any developer builds the latest style of housing at 707 Commons, but with setbacks and grading consistent with the current residential neighborhood, that corner would still be a transition to the University Ave of the future (the current owners of 707 Commons told us that they and family will be redeveloping along University Ave). I, as countless others in CC, will miss the 707 Commons Dr office building if it is demolished. I, as countless others in CC, believe the 707 Commons Dr office building is an architectural treasure, a building that makes residential Campus Commons a jewel because it is architecturally consistent with the nearby villages, and is therefore worthy of retaining and maintaining.
One Campus Commons resident, who until recently was a long-term tenant of 707 Commons Dr, does not believe the building is in poor condition, and believes the building and its surrounding landscaping is entirely appropriate for that 1.09 acre at a major entrance to residential Campus Commons. I agree.
Before anything is destroyed on the 707 Commons Dr lot, and since the 707 Commons Dr developers at a November 28, 2022 morning meeting, with Village Two residents, stated that they and their family will be redeveloping along University Ave, this is a very prudent time for the City to pause, pull together all stake holders:
- Current owners of residential property within the CCPUD, - Current owners of office buildings within the CCPUD who do not plan to demolish their building and plan to retain their current commercial use,
- New owners of office buildings within the CCPUD who plan to demolish and rebuild… to decide how new development will occur within the CCPUD, especially along University Ave and definitely near the very busy corner at University Ave and Campus Commons Rd.
In Conclusion:
It appears that this particular proposed development represents not just a breach of the intent of this PUD’s original design concepts, but also that of the PUD section of the Code more generally. Certainly, this is a somewhat unique situation with one parcel of a non-conforming use (but stylistically conforming) protruding into the residential area of a PUD. Nevertheless, it raises the prospect that any new development that seems to achieve an otherwise laudable housing goal can justify setting aside all of a PUD’s guidelines and understood intentions (design, foliage coverage, set-backs, density, etc.) This would set a terrible precedent. The City should engage in much further review and discussion before heading down this path and opening up all PUDs to indiscriminate reinterpretation. (Disclosure: This is the conclusion of a professional who reviewed my letter… I could not have said it better.) Because I agree with this individual’s conclusion, I request City staff to respond to this letter.
Project Z22-079 08/10/2023 – Buehler Comments Page 1 of 3 Date: August 10, 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 providing the information regarding the Cycle 4 plans recently submitted for the proposed 707 Commons Drive development. We continue to have concerns about this development and would like to see further plan revisions. With Cycle 4, we see that the Emergency Vehicle Access driveway has been removed, and a few trees have been added, but the revisions are still inadequate for the development to be in keeping with the established, surrounding neighborhood, as specified in the City Plan.
As we have mentioned in our previous letters to you, the 707 Commons Drive property is surrounded on 3 sides by Campus Commons homes, so this development’s design characteristics, scale, and lack of adequate building setbacks, green space, and trees will impact our existing neighborhood.
We feel the plan revisions fall short of what is necessary to meet the City Plan and City ordinances which we 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 future revised plans.
We have summarized our requests to the Cycle 4 plans:
1) We continue to be in support and agree with our community’s effort to save the existing office building, as we feel it has historic significance and is a gateway to our community. Carr Kunze and Inderjit Rye are coordinating the community’s work to preserve the building. Our understanding is that Preservation Sacramento is also in support of saving this building. We also support and agree with Inderjit Rye’s August 2023 letter regarding Title 17 and the Campus Commons’ PUD land use. 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 changes. There are no full 3-story townhomes in the Campus Commons community, and these new condos will appear much larger than the adjacent homes. The Campus Commons homes are elevated from street level on raised berms at are not at street level as is proposed by the new development. Even the nearby, new retail development being built at the Howe & Fair Oaks intersection is elevated and not at street level, which conforms with the other properties at the intersection.
3) The building setback continues to be 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 are nowhere near the setback distance of the adjacent homes. We request that the building setbacks be increased to conform with the existing neighborhood.
Project Z22-079 08/10/2023 – Buehler Comments Page 2 of 3 4) The green space continues to be inadequate to plant canopy-sized trees throughout the property in order to mitigate the loss of the 24 existing trees, 11 of which are private protected trees. More open space is necessary in the development to plant canopy-sized trees. 5) No private protected trees are retained, as requested. We would like to see all of the private, protected trees remain. We have been in communication with Trees for Sacramento, and they are in support of saving existing trees. 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) Currently the private, protected trees do not appear to be receiving sufficient water this summer.
The property’s lawn is now brown, and we are seeing trees with brown, dead limbs. We are concerned that some of these trees will not survive the summer without sufficient watering. We ask that the City require that the property maintain and water the trees until the issues with their proposed plans have been resolved.
7) The existing planting strip on Commons Drive is only partially retained in the cycle 4 plans due to the addition of the wide driveway that crosses where some of the existing planting strip is currently located.
At a minimum, we would like to see the planting strip extend to the corner of Campus Commons Road to mitigate for this partial loss of the existing planting strip due to the driveway. We would like to ask that the City additionally request that the planting strip extends across the Campus Commons Road street face to provide further building setbacks and trees on Campus Commons Road. Many of the trees shown in the artist’s rendering on the Campus Commons Road side of the property are not in the plan, so it is misleading to see these trees in the rendering. 8) We notice that Tulip Poplar trees are planned across the front of the development on Commons Drive. This is an improvement and appreciated. But, we would also like to see similar size trees planted across the Campus Commons Road street face. The same reason that we wanted trees across the front of the property along Commons Drive, apply also to Campus Commons Road. 9) There are a number of trees shown in the artist’s rendering that are not planned. We ask that the artist renderings reflect actual planned trees, rather than to provide misleading renderings. The renderings are also misleading regarding the surrounding property grade. The renderings make it appear that the properties both behind and next to the development are at street level. These properties are not at street level. We ask that the renderings also show the existing adjacent buildings.
Right now, you cannot tell from the artist’s rendering what the new development will look like in relation to the adjacent homes.
10) We are still noticing some HVAC units that are still visible from street view. We would like to see the street view of the HVAC units obstructed.
11) We request that the development plans for the 350 University property are submitted for review at the same time as 707 Commons Drive plans. The developer owns both properties. The current primary driveway entry to the 707 Commons Drive office building is from 350 University Ave. We would like to see the primary access to 707 Commons Drive remain from University Avenue. If both properties were planned and developed together, more existing trees and green space could be retained at 707 Commons Drive. The Cycle 4 site map mentions "Future Pedestrian Access to Additional Potential Project Z22-079 08/10/2023 – Buehler Comments Page 3 of 3 Parking" which is a walkway to the 350 University property. This walkway further makes it appear that there are plans to develop and merge with the 350 University Avenue property. 12) There is still no onsite visitor parking as has been previously requested. The condos are at a density where the visitor and overflow resident street parking will spill over in front of the Campus Commons homes. It is not acceptable for the surrounding residents to have the overflow cars parking regularly in front of their homes. We request that the development include on-site visitor and overflow parking. 13) The smaller, interior condos have a tandem (single-car-width) garage for single-file parking. This garage configuration will result in increased street parking since most people wish to avoid the hassle of juggling single-file parked cars. Instead, they will most likely park their 2nd car on the street instead of in their garage. This garage configuration for 12 of the planned condos, may result in the addition of up to 12 more cars parked on the street by the residents. There needs to be adequate on-site visitor parking to mitigate the impact to street parking. Standard double car garages in all condos will also help mitigate this issue.
14) The plan for 72 refuse containers placed on the street is not in keeping with the existing community's refuse pickup and will be a traffic hazard and mess on the street. There is not adequate space to place the containers the city-required 3 feet apart, so the development containers will be spread out in front of the Campus Commons homes. We request that the City require the developer to widen the development’s alleyways to allow for alleyway refuse pickup. The majority of Campus Commons homes have alleyway refuse pickup. In Campus Commons, only some of the low density, single story homes have street side refuse pickup, and many of these homes are located in cul-de-sacs.
These 72 containers on the street will be a blight to the neighborhood, as they can sit out on the street for to 1 to 2 days. The containers will likely be tipped over and spill onto the street during refuse pickup due to the lack of adequate spacing between containers.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Jeff Gardner <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 6:50 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Cc: Mary Darlow; Bill McCarthy; David Lane; MIKE WILEY; Georgia McGreal Subject: 707 Commons Dr
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
My name is Jeff Gardner . I’ve been a part of this community since 1967. Before 95% of any of this PD was developed. I live one half block from the proposed development. I’ve spent 40 years working with and for local government.
Even if this is a permiƩed use, it’s a terrible spot fo r the proposed development and will add nothing but problems to the locaƟon. Eric, you came to my home and asked for my vote with your wife. We discussed things like this. You know this is not right for this community.
Zach, how could you possibly give this a posiƟve rec
ommendaƟon?
The traffic circulaƟon in this community is already woefully inadequate. Everyone knows that. Adding a high density project on the corner of what was originally designed as a residenƟal intersecƟon is bad planning, bad policy and a bad idea no maƩer how you couch it
.
The second iteraƟon of their proposal is worse than the first. You’re moving the entrance closer to the intersecƟon. If this were to move forward, which it shouldn’t, they need to have entry condiƟoned to University Avenue. Anyone with any understanding of traffic and plan
ning knows this.
I don’t care what they’ve done for the City or how much they contributed to Eric’s campaign. Stop the nonsense and fix this. It should have never goƩen this far with the planning department.
Jeff Gardner
611 Commons Drive
JG Mobile
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kim Fuller <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 7:38 AM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: 707 Commons Drive, project Z22-0079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mrs Dahla and Guerra,
As a resident of Campus Commons Village 1, I am very concerned about the newest revision of the plans for the development of 707 Commons Drive. While I was pleased to see that the last revision dated 7/25/23, no longer has a driveway for emergency access vehicles on Campus Commons Drive, the rest of the revision fails to addres s the concerns that the residents in the neighborhood have expressed previously.
I am very disappointed that the plans still call for removal of 26 mature trees, including 11 private protected trees. These trees cannot be replaced and the artist's rendition of replacement trees acr oss the front of the buildings is a mirage. Given the minimal space between buildings and pavement, it is very unlikely that canopy trees could flourish.
The proposed buildings will sit on a flattened lot, within just a few feet of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. Th ese minimal setbacks clash with the generous setbacks from the streets throughout the PUD. The development plans also show building overhangs that appear to nearly reach the sidewalks and HVAC units on street‐facing sides of residences.
Density of the proposed buildings continues to be a major issue. The PUD has one and two story homes, no three story buildings such as those proposed for the redevelopment of 707 Campus Commons Drive.
Joint planning for the adjoining 350 University Ave. and 707 Commons Dr. properties could resolve some of the thorniest issues for the neighboring PUD. Both properties were purchas
ed under one PUD designation and both should continue to be subject to the requirements of the PUD. Planning for both properties as one project would also be more consistent with the planning that went into the original PUD designation. As the lead developers on 707 Commons Drive, Bardis and Miry are in a position to unify planning for the 2 properti
es.
Thank you for considering these concerns and solutions.
Sincerely,
Kim Fuller
445 Hartnell Place, Campus Commons V‐1
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kim Fuller <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 7:44 AM
To: Eric Guerra; Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive, Project Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Guerra and Mr. Dahla,
As a long time resident of Campus Commons Village One, close to the 707 Commons Drive building, I remain deeply concerned about the plans for redevelopment of the building. The latest revision of the plans, dated 7/25/23, fail to address many of the issues that have been raised previously.
The proposal violates the City’s commitment to “preserve, protect and enhance established neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between those neighborhoods and adjoining areas, and by requiring new development, both private and public, to respect and respond to those existing physical characteristics, buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban forms that con tribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood.” LU 2.1.2. The design of the proposed 3‐story buildings ignores tand clashes with the design and intention of the mid‐century architecture that surrounds the property. The development intrudes into the established neighborhood without meaningful transition, cutting into an in tentional and architecturally significant and historic planned unit development.
The City’s General Plan promises to “promote the design of complete and well‐ structured neighborhoods whose physical layout and land use mix promote walking to services, biking, and transit use; foster community pride; enhance neighborhood identity, ensure public safety; are family‐friendly and address the needs of all ages and abilities.” LU 2.1.3. This development proposal clashes in nearly every respect with neighborhood identity, and absent relatively affordable units, housing needs are addressed only for the very few.
The General Plan continues, “The City shall promote infill development, reuse, rehabilitation, and reuse efforts that con tribute positively (e.g., architectural design) to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas.” LU 2.1.8. The development plans disregarded this principle. They contribute nothing to the architectural design of the existing neighborhood. On the contrary, the design contradicts much of the intention that underlies the original design of the planned un it development. Reuse and rehabilitation of the existing building would be far more appropriate than the destruction of the building, the elevated berm, and the trees.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns and please let us know if there are other steps we can take to prevent the destruction of our
neighborhood and surrounding community.
Sincerely,
Kim Fuller
445 Hartnell Place, Village One
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Karen Lowrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Fw: Project Z22-079; 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
August 15, 2023
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I’m writing as a 19 year resident of the Campus Commons-Nepenthe community with my concerns about the development plans for 707 Commons Drive that Bardis and Miry have filed with the City, most recently on July 25, 2023 (project no. Z22-079). My concerns, shared by neighbors, include the design and materials of the project, potential increases in occupancy, and landscaping and trees. These concerns all add up to permanent losses for the historic, intentionally designed, and architecturally cohesive, planned unit development that is Campus Commons-Nepenthe.
I am very disappointed that the plans still call for removal of 26 mature trees, including 11 private protected trees. Over the past several years City officials have proclaimed the importance of the extensive canopy in our City of Trees. With this development plan we face permanent loss of this element of the Campus Commons urban forest, a loss that impacts the neighborhood, the region, and the climate. The lost canopy cannot be effectively replaced. The artist’s rendition of replacement trees across the front of the buildings is misleading. Given the minimal space between buildings and pavement, it is very unlikely that canopy trees could flourish.
Limited green space in the new plans is incompatible with every other area in Campus Commons and Nepenthe, defeating the planning and environmental design concepts fundamental to the PUD, embraced by this community, and codified in the City General Plan.
Along with removal of the trees, the developers want to level the elevated berm on which the 707 Commons office building was constructed. Rolling landscape is a central and intentional feature throughout Campus Commons. Soil was scraped from roadbeds and used to create a rolling, naturalistic, park-like landscape. The loss of the berm further erases any design continuity with the neighborhood.
The proposed buildings will sit on a flattened lot, within just a few feet of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. These minimal setbacks clash with the generous setbacks from the streets throughout the PUD. The development plans also show building overhangs that appear to nearly reach the sidewalks and HVAC units on street-facing sides of residences.
Density of the proposed buildings continues to be an issue. The revised plans show 24 units across 6 buildings, with features that make 36 livable units a possibility. Twelve units contain a room with a half bath and a kitchenette. If City code allows at a future time, a buyer could convert to a full bath and create a rental studio or 2 live/work space. The same 12 units also have a “4th bedroom option” with a full bathroom. By adding a kitchenette, a homeowner could also create a rental. Either of these conversions would increase density, traffic, and parking
issues.
Most consequentially, the plans still call for demolishing an architecturally significant building, with its signature trellises and pergola, that is integral to the Campus Commons planned unit development concept. Despite the developer’s claims that their plans harmonize with the PUD, the 3-story housing is completely incompatible with the existing neighborhood in design, scale, density, placement, landscaping, materials, and more - “wholly lacking of respect for the neighboring architecture” according to a neighborhood planning professional.
All of the issues in this letter - loss of trees, the elevated berm, density, the destruction of a historic building - can be resolved through joint planning for 2 adjacent properties and pursuit of historic preservation and alternate uses for the existing building.
Joint planning for the adjoining 350 University Ave. and 707 Commons Dr. properties could resolve some of the thorniest issues for the neighboring PUD. Both properties were purchased under one PUD designation and both should continue to be subject to the requirements of the PUD. Planning for both properties as one project would also be more consistent with the planning that went into the original PUD designation. As the lead developers on 707 Commons Drive, Bardis and Miry are in a position to unify planning for the 2 properties.
Neighbors continue to press for historic preservation of the office building at 707 Commons Drive. The existing structure is an important and consciously designed linkage between the two residential and office/commercial PUD sections of Campus Commons. The office building was designed by the community's original architect, a leader in Mid Century Northern California's architecture, and was intended to tie the two PUD sections together. It also is one of very few remaining examples of this style of architecture in low rise suburban office buildings. Neighbors are also interested in repurposing the existing structure, including finding an entity to buy and preserve it, for university offices, faculty live/work, senior care, and more.
Planning for the redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive should include the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to move the bulk of development to the University Ave. side of the property. The developers can be compensated for their redirected development rights. I urge you to assist the developers in taking this path out of conflict with the neighborhood and toward a more harmonious resolution.
Thank you for considering these concerns and solutions.
Sincerely,
Karen Lowrey
106 Elmhurst Circle, Sacramento, CA
95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Karen Lowrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 9:13 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079: 707Commons Dr.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
August 18, 2023
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I live in the Campus Commons-Nepenthe Community. My neighbors and I share many concerns about the revised development plans for 707 Commons Drive that were filed with the City on July 25, 2023 (Project No. Z22-079). In this letter I will describe one concern: the difficulties created for all of us, including residents of the development, by garbage, recycling, and organic waste containers for the new units. The developers apparently plan to crowd 48 weekly and 72 bi-weekly containers onto Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road rather than design alleys wide enough for garbage trucks.
The July 25 plans show pickup locations for up to 72 containers along Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road (2 containers every week and 3 on alternate weeks for 24 units). City collection guidelines call for placing containers 3 feet apart* and 6 feet from cars.. When all 3 cans are used, at least 348 linear feet of curb space will be needed for 72 cans on Thursday evening and much of Friday. There is no more than 280 feet of curb space available in front of and alongside the development:
•
Each container is 19"-24" wide. The approx. combined width of 3 containers = ~5.5ft. • Add 9 ft to each set of 3 containers to meet the City’s spacing guidelines. • ~5.5 ft + 9 ft = ~14.5 ft. This is the curb space needed for each of the 24 units. • 24 units x ~14.5 ft = ~348 ft. A football field is 360 ft. including end zones. • Residents may order more and larger containers, requiring even more curb space.
On Thursday evenings much or all of the curb space needed for containers will probably already be occupied by parked cars because of tandem garages for 12 units, garages used for storage, cars belonging to optional studio units, and absence of visitor parking. 2 With curb space taken up by parked cars, Campus Commons neighbors can expect to find containers, some fallen over, for hundreds of feet along Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. If containers do find curb space on a Thursday, it will be the homebound cars that will spread out along neighborhood streets instead.
There is clearly no space - or plan - for both trash and parking on Commons Drive or Campus Commons Road. Developers must widen driveways and alleys to allow for containers and for refuse vehicles to safely maneuver in the interior of the complex. Campus Commons was developed with space for refuse pickup in the alleys. Alley pickup will also improve safety and appearance and help promote shared neighborhood identity (see the City General Plan LU 2.1.3).
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Sincerely,
Karen Lowrey
106 Elmhurst Circle, Sacramento, CA 95825
* The July 25 revised plans show groups of 3 refuse containers with no space between the individual cans, minimizing the true proportions of the problem.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mary Darlow <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 2, 2023 11:57 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Fwd: 707 Commons Dr.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Sent from my iPad (Misspellings, errors, and formaƫng issues are the fault of the iPad, not the author)
Begin forwarded message:
> I am wriƟng to you both a second Ɵme regarding the revised plans for the proposed development at 707 Commons Dr . In my opinion, there is very liƩ
le change in the new revision that addresses the major complaints by Campus Commons Homeowners. The homes do not adhere to the style of the surrounding homes and landscaping.Campus Commons is unique as the first planned unit development in Sacramento. It was designed with areas of trees and green space ar
ound the homes. It is an established residenƟal area of Sacramento much like Land Park or the ForƟes. What would this proposed development look like in the middle of one of these? > I have lived in Village 1 for going on 51 years and am totally opposed to the revised plan for 707 Commons Dr .
Mary Darlow
> 630. Commons Dr . >
> Sent from my iPad (Misspellings, errors, and formaƫng issues are the fault of the iPad, not the author)
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I am writing as a resident of the Campus Commons-Nepenthe community to express my serious concerns about the proposed townhouse development at 707 Commons Drive (Project No. Z22-079).
The developer’s latest updated proposal, filed with the City on July 25, 2023, fails to meaningfully address significant issues contained in the plans since the beginning. This letter summarizes the plan’s failures to follow the City’s General Plan requirements.
In recognition of Sacramento’s neighborhoods as “basic living environments that make up the city’s urban fabric,” the General Plan commits the City to “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.” LU 2.1.1.
Although the proposed development is enclosed within the Campus Commons neighborhood, in its scale, design, density, placement on the land, materials, landscaping, and nearly every other characteristic, the proposal damages and detracts rather than preserves and enhances the identity and livability of the existing neighborhood.
The proposal also violates the City’s commitment to “preserve, protect and enhance established neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between those neighborhoods and adjoining areas, and by requiring new development, both private and public, to respect and respond to those existing physical characteristics, buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban forms that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood.” LU 2.1.2. The design of the proposed 3-story buildings utterly ignores the design and intention of the mid-century architecture that surrounds the property. The development intrudes into the established neighborhood without meaningful transition, a blunt instrument cutting into an intentional and architecturally significant and historic planned unit development.
The City’s General Plan promises to “promote the design of complete and well- structured neighborhoods whose physical layout and land use mix promote walking to services, biking, and transit use; foster community pride; enhance neighborhood identity, ensure public safety; are family-friendly and address the needs of all ages and abilities.” LU 2.1.3. This development proposal clashes in nearly every respect with neighborhood identity, and absent relatively affordable units, housing needs are addressed only for the very few.
The General Plan continues, “The City shall promote infill development, reuse, rehabilitation, and reuse efforts that contribute positively (e.g., architectural design) to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas.” LU 2.1.8. The development plans completely disregarded this principle. They contribute nothing to the architectural design of the existing neighborhood. On the contrary, the design contradicts much of the intention that underlies the original design of the planned unit development. Reuse and rehabilitation of the existing building would be far more appropriate than the destruction of the building, the elevated berm, and the trees.
Further re: reuse and rehabilitation of the existing building, the General Plan Further re:
reuse and rehabilitation of the existing building, the General Plan states: ”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.” HCR 2.1.12. The 707 Commons building provides important transitional architecture and landscape/tree links between the commercial and the residential areas of the two PUDs. It is the work of master architect C. W. Callister, and is a rare example of suburban office design in the Bay Area/Nor-Cal tradition.
The General Plan requires building design that “respects and responds to the local context, including use of local materials where feasible, responsiveness to Sacramento’s climate, and consideration of cultural and historic context of Sacramento’s neighborhoods and centers.” LU 2.4.2. With its imitation wood panels, false stone facades, and an absence of variety and details, the plan violates the historic context of the adjacent neighborhood. Removing canopy trees and filling open space with concrete and asphalt worsens the heat island effect in a warming climate.
About trees the General Plan could not be more clear: “The City shall continue to plant new trees, ensure new developments have sufficient right-of-way width for tree plantings, manage and care for all publicly owned trees, and work to retain healthy trees.” ER 3.1.2 And: “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.” ER 3.1.6. Yet the developers continue to plan opposite actions, cutting healthy trees and planting small tree species that will cast little shade in spaces that are too small for healthy growth.
The developer falsely claims that the proposed design is compatible with the existing neighborhood. It most definitely is not. The plans stand in stark contrast to “those existing physical characteristics, buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban forms that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood.” Approval of a plan that violates the General Plan in so many instances would signal that the City does not respect its own planning process.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns
Sincerely,
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mindy Rothbard <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2023 11:37 AM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Re: Project #Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Zach and Eric,
I am a resident of Campus Commons and have not yet weighed in on the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive.
I feel strongly that the revised plans for this building are sƟll not in alignment with our neighborhood and would negaƟvely impact the residents here. Th e increased density of housing and design that is not matching exisƟng housing would likely worsen the standard of living here and decrease home values.
I would propose renovaƟng 707 and keeping the exterior of the building as is. Perhaps it would qualify as a historical landmark. If not then it cou
ld conƟnue to house office space.
Thank you very much for your consideraƟon.
Sincerely,
Mindy Rothbard, MD
Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: phil cabe-law.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2023 4:37 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Mary Ann
Subject: 707 Commons Dr
I occupied Suite 101 at 707 for 24 years, holding the tenancy of Suite 101, which has 3,500 sf, and which I believe to be the prime location in that building. I vacated just before the Covid Epidemic began, and moved my law practice to my residence in Campus Commons. That location was a wonderful location for my law practice, but it was time for me to pare down.
A few days ago, I visited a current tenant in my old suite. It remains a beautiful space, It has a long wood floor which is the wide hallway serving the rooms. It has a nice lobby as you enter, with a conference room on one side, and the hallway on the other side. All appears to be in good shape if it would continue to serve as an anchor suite. Upstairs is a large aesthetically beautiful space, which has large, beautiful skylight glass along the top.
I mention the current space because it seems to still have a premium look, and should be competitive in the office leasing market.
The proposal to remove the trees, tear down the building, and install Midtown type condos is totally out of character for that neighborhood. That building is set back on an impressive elevated berm, in a canopy of trees. What the developer wants to do will blight this entryway into the Campus Common villages. It will add a density of people and cars totally contra to our pleasant community. I join the many voices who oppose the proposed massive change in our neighborhood.
Phillip Cabe
Cabe Law
260 Hartnell Place
Sacramento CA 95825
916-214-3155
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: phil cabe-law.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 4:56 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project Z22-079; 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I’m writing as a resident of [Campus Commons Village 3 with my concerns about the development plans for 707 Commons Drive that Bardis and Miry have filed with the City, most recently on July 25, 2023 (project no. Z22-079). My concerns, shared by neighbors, include the design and materials of the project, potential increases in occupancy, and landscaping and trees. These concerns all add up to permanent losses for the historic, intentionally designed, and architecturally cohesive, planned unit development that is Campus Commons-Nepenthe.
I am very disappointed that the plans still call for removal of 26 mature trees, including 11 private protected trees. Over the past several years City officials have proclaimed the importance of the extensive canopy in our City of Trees. With this development plan we face permanent loss of this element of the Campus Commons urban forest, a loss that impacts the neighborhood, the region, and the climate. The lost canopy cannot be effectively replaced. The artist’s rendition of replacement trees across the front of the buildings is a mirage. Given the minimal space between buildings and pavement, it is very unlikely that canopy trees could flourish.
Limited green space in the new plans is incompatible with every other area in Campus Commons and Nepenthe, defeating the planning and environmental design concepts fundamental to the PUD, embraced by this community, and codified in the City General Plan.
Along with removal of the trees, the developers want to level the elevated berm on which the 707 Commons office building was constructed. Rolling landscape is a central and intentional feature throughout Campus Commons. Soil was scraped from roadbeds and used to create a rolling, naturalistic, park-like landscape. The loss of the berm further erases any design continuity with the neighborhood.
The proposed buildings will sit on a flattened lot, within just a few feet of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. These minimal setbacks clash with the generous setbacks from the streets throughout the PUD. The development plans also show building overhangs that appear to nearly reach the sidewalks and HVAC units on street-facing sides of residences.
Density of the proposed buildings continues to be an issue. The revised plans show 24 units across 6 buildings, with features that make 36 livable units a possibility. Twelve units contain a room with a half bath and a kitchenette. If City code allows at a future time, a buyer could convert to a full bath and create a rental studio or live/work space. The same 12 units also have a “4th bedroom option” with a full bathroom. By adding a kitchenette, a homeowner could also create a rental. Either of these conversions would increase density, traffic, and parking issues.
Most consequentially, the plans still call for demolishing an architecturally significant building, with its signature trellises and pergola, that is integral to the Campus Commons planned unit development concept. Despite the developer’s claims that their plans harmonize with the PUD, the 3-story housing is completely incompatible with the existing neighborhood in design, scale, density, placement, landscaping, materials, and more - “wholly lacking of respect for the neighboring architecture” according to a neighborhood planning professional.
2 All of the issues in this letter - loss of trees, the elevated berm, density, the destruction of a historic building - can be resolved through joint planning for 2 adjacent properties and pursuit of historic preservation and alternate uses for the existing building.
Joint planning for the adjoining 350 University Ave. and 707 Commons Dr. properties could resolve some of the thorniest issues for the neighboring PUD. Both properties were purchased under one PUD designation and both should continue to be subject to the requirements of the PUD. Planning for both properties as one project would also be more consistent with the planning that went into the original PUD designation. As the lead developers on 707 Commons Drive, Bardis and Miry are in a position to unify planning for the 2 properties.
Neighbors continue to press for historic preservation of the office building at 707 Commons Drive. The existing structure is an important and consciously designed linkage between the two residential and office/commercial PUD sections of Campus Commons. The office building was designed by the community's original architect, a leader in Mid Century Northern California's architecture, and was intended to tie the two PUD sections together. It also is one of very few remaining examples of this style of architecture in low rise suburban office buildings. Neighbors are also interested in repurposing the existing structure, including finding an entity to buy and preserve it, for university offices, faculty live/work, senior care, and more.
Planning for the redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive should include the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to move the bulk of development to the University Ave. side of the property. The developers can be compensated for their redirected development rights. I urge you to assist the developers in taking this path out of conflict with the neighborhood and toward a more harmonious resolution.
Thank you for considering these concerns and solutions, and my apologies that I have joined in a Template. My time is limited, but I share all these concerns. My office was there for the 24 years prior to our Epidemic.
Sincerely,
Phillip Cabe
260 Hartnell Place
Sacramento CA 95825
916-214-3155
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Susan Schepker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 11:08 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 commons drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Good Morning,
The new plans do not look that different to me. The trees are sƟll gone. The green space sƟll very small. Not enough parking. The buildings themselves sƟll do not fit with the design of campus commons. There animals are sƟll going to come on our gree n spaces. They need to upgrade the building that is there and turn in into housing for seniors. There could be independent living and memory care. They are only thinking about the money. I wish e had the money to buy the property and keep it like it is now.
Thank Yo
u for listening to me again.
Susan Schepker
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Sandi Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 10:27 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project Z22-079; 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I’m writing as a resident of Campus Commons Village 3 with my concerns about the development plans for 707 Commons Drive that Bardis and Miry have filed with the City, most recently on July 25, 2023 (project no. Z22-079). My concerns, shared by neighbors, include the design and materials of the project, potential increases in occupancy, and landscaping and trees. These concerns all add up to permanent losses for the historic, intentionally designed, and architecturally cohesive, planned unit development that is Campus Commons-Nepenthe.
I am very disappointed that the plans still call for removal of 26 mature trees, including 11 private protected trees. Over the past several years City officials have proclaimed the importance of the extensive canopy in our City of Trees. With this development plan we face permanent loss of this element of the Campus Commons urban forest, a loss that impacts the neighborhood, the region, and the climate. The lost canopy cannot be effectively replaced. The artist’s rendition of replacement trees across the front of the buildings is a mirage. Given the minimal space between buildings and pavement, it is very unlikely that canopy trees could flourish.
Limited green space in the new plans is incompatible with every other area in Campus Commons and Nepenthe, defeating the planning and environmental design concepts fundamental to the PUD, embraced by this community, and codified in the City General Plan.
Along with removal of the trees, the developers want to level the elevated berm on which the 707 Commons office building was constructed. Rolling landscape is a central and intentional feature throughout Campus Commons. Soil was scraped from roadbeds and used to create a rolling, naturalistic, park-like landscape. The loss of the berm further erases any design continuity with the neighborhood.
The proposed buildings will sit on a flattened lot, within just a few feet of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. These minimal setbacks clash with the generous setbacks from the streets throughout the PUD. The development plans also show building overhangs that appear to nearly reach the sidewalks and HVAC units on street-facing sides of residences.
Density of the proposed buildings continues to be an issue. The revised plans show 24 units across 6 buildings, with features that make 36 livable units a possibility. Twelve units contain a room with a half bath and a kitchenette. If City code allows at a future time, a buyer could convert to a full 2 bath and create a rental studio or live/work space. The same 12 units also have a “4th bedroom option” with a full bathroom. By adding a kitchenette, a homeowner could also create a rental.
Either of these conversions would increase density, traffic, and parking issues.
Most consequentially, the plans still call for demolishing an architecturally significant building, with its signature trellises and pergola, that is integral to the Campus Commons planned unit development concept. Despite the developer’s claims that their plans harmonize with the PUD, the 3-story housing is completely incompatible with the existing neighborhood in design, scale, density, placement, landscaping, materials, and more - “wholly lacking of respect for the neighboring architecture” according to a neighborhood planning professional.
All of the issues in this letter - loss of trees, the elevated berm, density, the destruction of a historic building - can be resolved through joint planning for 2 adjacent properties and pursuit of historic preservation and alternate uses for the existing building.
Joint planning for the adjoining 350 University Ave. and 707 Commons Dr. properties could resolve some of the thorniest issues for the neighboring PUD. Both properties were purchased under one PUD designation and both should continue to be subject to the requirements of the PUD.
Planning for both properties as one project would also be more consistent with the planning that went into the original PUD designation. As the lead developers on 707 Commons Drive, Bardis and Miry are in a position to unify planning for the 2 properties.
Neighbors continue to press for historic preservation of the office building at 707 Commons Drive. The existing structure is an important and consciously designed linkage between the two residential and office/commercial PUD sections of Campus Commons. The office building was designed by the community's original architect, a leader in Mid Century Northern California's architecture, and was intended to tie the two PUD sections together. It also is one of very few remaining examples of this style of architecture in low rise suburban office buildings. Neighbors are also interested in repurposing the existing structure, including finding an entity to buy and preserve it, for university offices, faculty live/work, senior care, and more.
Planning for the redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive should include the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to move the bulk of development to the University Ave. side of the property. The developers can be compensated for their redirected development rights. I urge you to assist the developers in taking this path out of conflict with the neighborhood and toward a more harmonious resolution.
I am particularly disappointed with the developer’s willful disregard for parking problems that the development will create for myself and my Campus Commons neighbors. The developers have been denied shared use of the existing driveway to the east of the property, and instead, have added a new driveway, with entry and exit still onto Commons Drive. The additional driveway increases the risk of accidents and injuries to other drivers and to children on bicycles, pedestrians, and pets on nearby sidewalks. The new driveway on Commons Drive should not even be necessary. The current parking for 707 Commons is in the shared 350 University parking lot. The revised plans even show a notation of potential “future pedestrian access to additional potential parking” at the border
between 707 Commons and 350 University. The developer owns both properties and has 3 referred to 707 Commons as phase one and 350 University as phase two of the development. The two properties have always been operated together and should be developed as one project.
There are design factors that are likely to create street parking headaches for Campus Commons residents, visitors, and residents of the development alike. Residents of 12 units must park their cars single-file in 2-car garages, greatly increasing the likelihood that they will park at least one car on the street. Realistically some occupants will use garage space for storage, pushing one or even two cars to the street. Twelve units contain two areas that could be converted to rentals, with street parking the only option for another 12-24 vehicles. Vehicles displaced from garages will be scattered throughout nearby streets.
The continued absence of visitor parking raises more questions about street parking. Will housecleaners, caretakers, servicepeople, friends and family, visitors, and others need to park a block away? What if converted rooms are used as commercial spaces for small businesses and their clients. Is there a City standard for onsite visitor parking? One analysis of street parking states that a parallel parking space is 18-20 feet in length. About 160 feet of street parking will be available directly in front of 707 Commons Drive and about 150 feet on Campus Commons Road. That yields a total of about 16 parking spaces on the two sides of the project, too few to accommodate the considerable overflow projected above.
The claim that the proposed development is compatible with the existing neighborhood is simply untrue. This development clashes with the design and intention of our historic neighborhood for many reasons in addition to parking. It may be possible to design housing which would comply with City standards and mesh with the neighborhood, but this plan does not yet come even close.
Thank you for considering these concerns and solutions.
Sincerely,
Sandi Turner
432 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 801-4788
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Deb Alter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 3:42 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Fw: 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 continued 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 permit 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 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 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.
With the development plan, we face permanent loss of this Campus Commons urban forest area - a loss that impacts the neighborhood and region. The lost canopy cannot be effectively replaced. Given the minimal space between buildings and pavement, it is very unlikely that canopy trees could flourish. Has anyone even studied the area in question to adequately visualize the concerns of the Campus Commons residents?
Not only does the developer's plan take away the trees, it also proposes to level the elevated berm on which the 707 Commons office building stands. Rolling landscape is a central and intentional feature throughout Campus Commons. The loss of the berm further erases any design continuity with the neighborhood.
The proposed buildings will sit on a flattened lot within just a few feet of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road.
This is a minimal setback and clashes with the generous setbacks from the streets throughout the Campus Commons area. The development plans also show building overhangs that appear to nearly reach the sidewalks and HVAC units on street-facing sides of residences.
PARKING
There are no proposed parking spaces for guests or service vehicles shown on the development plans. 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
With 24 units, potentially 48 plus additional cars, the residents of Campus Commons will see a significant increase in the amount of traffic. This adds to the concerns of Campus Commons residents, and the increase in traffic could be a 2 hazard for pedestrians and cyclists. We will also have to deal with visitors of this project as no parking has been designated to them.
DESIGN
The design of this development does not fit in with the 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. This proposal violates the City's commitment to "preserve, protect and enhance established neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between those neighborhoods and adjoining areas, and by requiring new development, both private and public, to respect and respond to those existing physical characteristics, buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban forms that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood." LU2.1.2 The design of the proposed 3-story buildings utterly ignores the design and intention of the mid- century architecture that surrounds the property. The development intrudes into the established neighborhood without meaningful transition, a blunt instrument cutting into an intentional and architecturally significant and historic planned unit development.
DENSITY
The number of units of this development continue to pose a problem. The revised plan shows 24 units across 6 buildings, with features that could make 36 livable units a possibility. Twelve units contain a room with a half bath and a kitchenette. If City code allows at a future time, a buyer could convert to a full bath and create a rental studio or live/work space. The same 12 units also have a '4th bedroom option" with a full bathroom. By adding a kitchenette, a homeowner could also create a rental. Either of these conversions would increase density, traffic, and parking issues.
AMENITIES
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. There is concern over the impact of this development on our private property and amenities.
SOME QUESTIONS
What about the refuse containers? Where will they be placed? Is there any way for the refuse trucks to enter the ally ways of this development? If not, what provisions have been made? What about an ambulance, fire truck, etc.? Will they gain access easily?
The development plan has limited green space which is incompatible with every other area in Campus Commons and Nepenthe and defeats the planning and environmental design concepts fundamental to the PUD, embraced by this community, and codified in the City General Plan. Will anyone address this?
The 707 Commons Drive building is an architecturally significant building designed by C.W. Callister. Hopefully, the City will protect the building by seeing its historical value. Reuse and rehabilitation of the existing building would be far more appropriate than the destruction of the building, the elevated berm and the trees.
Thank you,
Ann Alter
906 Vanderbilt Way
Sent from Mail for Windows
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barry Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 10:22 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project Z22-079; 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I’m writing as a resident of Campus Commons Village 3 with my concerns about the development plans for 707 Commons Drive that Bardis and Miry have filed with the City, most recently on July 25, 2023 (project no. Z22-079). My concerns, shared by neighbors, include the design and materials of the project, potential increases in occupancy, landscaping and trees, and traffic/parking. These concerns all add up to permanent losses for the historic, intentionally designed, and architecturally cohesive, planned unit development that is Campus Commons- Nepenthe.
I am very disappointed that the plans still call for removal of 26 mature trees, including 11 private protected trees. Over the past several years City officials have proclaimed the importance of the extensive canopy in our City of Trees. With this development plan we face permanent loss of this element of the Campus Commons urban forest, a loss that impacts the neighborhood, the region, and the climate. The lost canopy cannot be effectively replaced. The artist’s rendition of replacement trees across the front of the buildings is a mirage. Given the minimal space between buildings and pavement, it is very unlikely that canopy trees could flourish.
Limited green space in the new plans is incompatible with every other area in Campus Commons and Nepenthe, defeating the planning and environmental design concepts fundamental to the PUD, embraced by this community, and codified in the City General Plan.
Along with removal of the trees, the developers want to level the elevated berm on which the 707 Commons office building was constructed. Rolling landscape is a central and intentional feature throughout Campus Commons. Soil was scraped from roadbeds and used to create a rolling, naturalistic, park-like landscape. The loss of the berm further erases any design continuity with the neighborhood.
The proposed buildings will sit on a flattened lot, within just a few feet of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. These minimal setbacks clash with the generous setbacks from the streets throughout the PUD. The development plans also show building overhangs that appear to nearly reach the sidewalks and HVAC units on street-facing sides of residences.
Density of the proposed buildings continues to be an issue. The revised plans show 24 units across 6 buildings, with features that make 36 livable units a possibility. Twelve units contain a room with 2 a half bath and a kitchenette. If City code allows at a future time, a buyer could convert to a full bath and create a rental studio or live/work space. The same 12 units also have a “4th bedroom option” with a full bathroom. By adding a kitchenette, a homeowner could also create a rental.
Either of these conversions would increase density, traffic, and parking issues.
Most consequentially, the plans still call for demolishing an architecturally significant building, with its signature trellises and pergola, that is integral to the Campus Commons planned unit development concept. Despite the developer’s claims that their plans harmonize with the PUD, the 3-story housing is completely incompatible with the existing neighborhood in design, scale, density, placement, landscaping, materials, and more - “wholly lacking of respect for the neighboring architecture” according to a neighborhood planning professional.
All of the issues in this letter - loss of trees, the elevated berm, density, the destruction of a historic building - can be resolved through joint planning for 2 adjacent properties and pursuit of historic preservation and alternate uses for the existing building.
Joint planning for the adjoining 350 University Ave. and 707 Commons Dr. properties could resolve some of the thorniest issues for the neighboring PUD. Both properties were purchased under one PUD designation and both should continue to be subject to the requirements of the PUD.
Planning for both properties as one project would also be more consistent with the planning that went into the original PUD designation. As the lead developers on 707 Commons Drive, Bardis and Miry are in a position to unify planning for the 2 properties.
Neighbors continue to press for historic preservation of the office building at 707 Commons Drive. The existing structure is an important and consciously designed linkage between the two residential and office/commercial PUD sections of Campus Commons. The office building was designed by the community's original architect, a leader in Mid Century Northern California's architecture, and was intended to tie the two PUD sections together. It also is one of very few remaining examples of this style of architecture in low rise suburban office buildings. Neighbors are also interested in repurposing the existing structure, including finding an entity to buy and preserve it, for university offices, faculty live/work, senior care, and more.
Planning for the redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive should include the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to move the bulk of development to the University Ave. side of the property. The developers can be compensated for their redirected development rights. I urge you to assist the developers in taking this path out of conflict with the neighborhood and toward a more harmonious resolution.
I am particularly disappointed with the developer’s willful disregard for parking problems that the development will create for myself and my Campus Commons neighbors. The developers have been denied shared use of the existing driveway to the east of the property, and instead, have added a new driveway, with entry and exit still onto Commons Drive. The additional driveway increases the risk of accidents and injuries to other drivers and to children on bicycles, pedestrians, and pets on nearby sidewalks. The new driveway on Commons Drive should not even be necessary. The current parking for 707 Commons is in the shared 350 University parking lot. The revised plans even show a notation of potential “future pedestrian access to additional potential parking” at the 3 border between 707 Commons and 350 University. The developer owns both properties and has referred to 707 Commons as phase one and 350 University as phase two of the development. The two properties have always been operated together and should be developed as one project.
There are design factors that are likely to create street parking headaches for Campus Commons residents, visitors, and residents of the development alike. Residents of 12 units must park their cars single-file in 2-car garages, greatly increasing the likelihood that they will park at least one car on the street. Realistically some occupants will use garage space for storage, pushing one or even two cars to the street. Twelve units contain two areas that could be converted to rentals, with street parking the only option for another 12-24 vehicles. Vehicles displaced from garages will be scattered throughout nearby streets.
The continued absence of visitor parking raises more questions about street parking. Will housecleaners, caretakers, servicepeople, friends and family, visitors, and others need to park a block away? What if converted rooms are used as commercial spaces for small businesses and their clients. Is there a City standard for onsite visitor parking? One analysis of street parking states that a parallel parking space is 18-20 feet in length. About 160 feet of street parking will be available directly in front of 707 Commons Drive and about 150 feet on Campus Commons Road. That yields a total of about 16 parking spaces on the two sides of the project, too few to accommodate the considerable overflow projected above.
The claim that the proposed development is compatible with the existing neighborhood is simply untrue. This development clashes with the design and intention of our historic neighborhood for many reasons in addition to parking. It may be possible to design housing which would comply with City standards and mesh with the neighborhood, but this plan does not yet come even close.
Thank you for considering these concerns and solutions.
Sincerely,
Barry Turner
432 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 717-2047
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 3:40 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 707 Commons Drive development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla and Mr Guerra,
I am writing to you regarding the Cycle 4 (July 25, 2023) Updated Project Plans for the proposed 707 Commons Drive development. I continue to have concerns about this development and would like to see further plan revisions. In the July 25 revised plans, I see that the Emer gency Vehicle Access driveway has been removed and a few trees added, but the revisions are still inadequate to respect the character of the established, surrounding neighborhood, as required by the City General Plan and City ordinances.
The 707 Commons Drive property is surrounded on 3 sides by Campus Common s homes, so this development’s design characteristics, scale, lack of adequate building setbacks, and minimal green space and trees will impact our existing neighborhood.
Summary of requests to the Cycle 4 plans:
1) I continue to support our community’s effort to save the existing office building, as it has historic significance and is a gateway to our community. My understanding is that Preservation Sacramento is also in support of saving this building. 2) The revised plans do not address my concerns about the scale of the new bui ldings and the grading of the land, both of which are out of keeping the neighborhood. There are no 3‐story townhomes in Campus Commons, and as a result the new condos appear much larger than the adjacent homes. Campus Commons homes are elevated on berms above street level. Even the new retail development at Howe & Fair Oaks is elevated and conforms with other properties at that intersection. The new development lacks any elevation above street level. 3) Building setbacks are still mini mal and not at all in accordance with the surrounding, established neighborhood. The setback from the street to the nearest adjacent home at 739 Commons Drive is approximately 40 feet. The new condos have nowhere near this setback distance. I request that the building setbacks be increased to conform with the existing neighborhood.
4) Green space is still inade
quate for the survival of canopy‐sized trees. More open space is necessary to plant trees that will contribute to the established tree canopy of the adjacent neighborhood. 5) All of the 24 existing trees, 11 of which are private protected tree s, are still slated for removal. I would like to see all these trees retained, as would Trees for Sacramento. At a minimum, I believe it is reasonable to preserve the 90‐inch coast redwood #3417, the 28‐inch tulip tree #3425, and the 55‐inch coast redwood #3426. 6) The private, protected trees appear to be suffering from dr ought stress. The property’s lawn is brown, and we can see trees with brown, dead limbs. I’m concerned that some of these trees will not survive without sufficient watering. I ask the City to require to owners to resume watering the trees until the issues wi th their proposed plans have been resolved.
7) In the revised plans a section of the existing planting strip on Commons Drive is lost at the point where a new driveway bisects the sidewalk. To remedy this loss, I would like to see the planting strip extended to the corner of 2 Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road, and then go around that corner onto Campus Commons Road, creating wider building setbacks and more available space for trees. 8) I appreciate the addition of Tulip Poplar trees across the front of the property on Commons Drive. I would like to see similar sized trees planted along the side of th e development on Campus Commons Road because larger, canopy large trees are the norm throughout Campus Commons.
9) There are several trees shown in the artist’s rendering that are not in the plan. The artist’s rendering must reflect actual planned trees rather than misleading viewers about the deve loper’s true intentions. The rendering is also misleading regarding the property grade. It appears in the drawing that the properties behind and next to the development are at street level. They are not. If renderings do not show the true position of adjacent buildings, they misrepresent the position of the developmen t.
10) I still see HVAC units visible from the street and would like to see these moved out of view. 11) The developer of 707 Commons Dr is also an owner of 350 University and plans to develop both properties. There are strong reasons for both properties to be planned and reviewed at the same time: Th e current driveway for 707 Commons Drive is shared with 350 University Ave. I would like to see that access preserved. Joint planning would allow for retention of more trees and green space at 707 Commons Drive. The Cycle 4 site map states, "Future Pedestrian Access to Additional Potential Parking" at a walkway between 707 Commons Drive and 350 University, making it appear that there are plans to develop and merge with the 350 University Avenue property. 12) There is still no onsite visitor parking. The condos are at a density where visitor and overflow resident street parking will spill over in front of Campus Commons homes. It is not acceptable for the surrounding residents to have the overflow cars parking regularly in
front of their homes. I ask that the development include on‐site visitor and overflow parking.
13) Twelve smaller condos have tandem garages for single‐file parking. This configuration will result in increased street parking since most people wish to avoid juggling single‐file park ed cars. They will likely park a second car on the street instead of in their garages, putting some 12 more cars on the street. Adequate onsite parking will help mitigate the impact of street parking. Standard double car garages in all condos will also help resolve this issue. 14) The develop
ment will put up to 72 refuse containers on the street, a plan that disrespects existing neighborhood norms. There is not enough space to place containers the city‐required 3 feet apart, so the new containers will be spread out in front of Campus Commons homes. Fallen cans and windblown trash will bec ome a traffic and parking hazard and a neighborhood blight for 1‐2 days every week. Most Campus Commons homes have alley refuse pickup. I request that the City require wider alleys to allow for alley refuse pickup.
Thank you for reviewing and responding to these concerns.
Carol Duke
205 Dunbarton Cir
Sacramento, CA 95825
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: ELIZABETH GEORGIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2023 5:47 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Project 722-079 707 Commons Dr.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City of Sacramento,
It is obvious the proposal for 707 Commons Drive does not comply with the Campus Commons PUD in any way.
Raleys project is a fine example of meeting Campus Commons PUD criteria:
Total property area 7.35 acres
44,851 Sq ft
.33 FAR
Design to be engaging, providing outdoor patios and dining areas 7.1.3 building sited around common plazas, courtyards, walkways and open spaces, attractive streetscapes Trees, awning, pergola elements to allow green spacing HERITAGE TREES pad, building, patio and deck have been sited to minimize disturbance to Heritage tree. Drive through lane strategically located to avoid Heritage tree Brick design element consistant with commercial buildings on Howe Ave. Landscaped areas along Fair Oaks Blvd offset pavement devoted to Parking Screened off street parking reducing the visual prominence of public realm by requiring most of street parking to be located behind or within structures or otherwise fully partially screened from public view. 2.7.8 located parking to the interior of the site as required by CC PUD Guidelines. Enhanced landscaping is provided to allow additional screening
Trash enclosures at back of building.
707 Commons project shows no acknowledgment of the Campus Commons PUD, Design wise, Environmentally and Civilly.
Elizabeth Georgis
Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: ELIZABETH GEORGIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 1:04 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project Z22-079. 707 Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Zach,
I have the Right to breathe clean and healthy air.
It is Environmentally Unjust to remove Heritage Trees at 707 Commons Drive that mitigate the air particulate from the busiest intersection in the County to benefit commercial interests.
Elizabeth Georgis,
Homeowner
Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Emily White <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 9:17 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079; 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I’m writing as a resident of Campus Commons with my concerns about the development plans for 707 Commons Drive that Bardis and Miry have filed with the City, most recently on July 25, 2023 (project no. Z22‐079). My concerns, shared by neighbors, include the design and materials of the project, potential incr eases in occupancy, landscaping and trees, parking and traffic, and garbage containers. These concerns all add up to permanent losses for the historic, intentionally designed, and architecturally cohesive, planned unit development that is Campus Commons‐Nepenthe.
I am very disappointed that the plans still call for removal of 26 mature trees, including 11 private protected trees. Over the past several years City officials have proclaimed the importance of the extensive canopy in our City of Trees. With this development plan we face permanent loss of this element of the Campus Commons ur ban forest, a loss that
impacts the neighborhood, the region, and the climate. The lost canopy cannot be effectively replaced. The artist’s rendition of replacement trees across the front of the buildings is a mirage. Given the minimal space between buildings and pavement, it is very unlikely that canopy trees co uld flourish.
Limited green space in the new plans is incompatible with every other area in Campus Commons and Nepenthe, defeating the planning and environmental design concepts fundamental to the PUD, embraced by this community, and codified in the City General Plan.
Along with removal of the trees, the develop ers want to level the elevated berm on which the 707 Commons office building was constructed. Rolling landscape is a central and intentional feature throughout Campus Commons. Soil was scraped from roadbeds and used to create a rolling, naturalistic, park‐like landscape. The loss of the berm further erases any design continuity with the neighborhood.
The proposed buildings will sit on a flattened lot, within just a few feet of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road.
These minimal setbacks clash with the generous setbacks from the streets throughout the PUD. The development plans also show building overhangs that appear to nearly reach the si dewalks and HVAC units on street‐facing sides of
residences.
Density of the proposed buildings continues to be an issue. The revised plans show 24 units across 6 buildings, with features that make 36 livable units a possibility. Twelve units contain a room with a half bath and a kitche nette. If City
code allows at a future time, a buyer could convert to a full bath and create a rental studio or live/work space. The same 12 units also have a “4th bedroom option” with a full bathroom. By adding a kitchenette, a homeowner could also create a rental. Either of these conversi
ons would increase density, traffic, and parking issues.
Most consequentially, the plans still call for demolishing an architecturally significant building, with its signature trellises and pergola, that is integral to the Campus Commons planned unit development concept. Despite the developer’s claims that their plans harmonize with the PUD, the 3‐story housing is complet ely incompatible with the existing neighborhood in design, scale, density, placement, landscaping, materials, and more ‐ “wholly lacking of respect 2 for the neighboring architecture” according to a neighborhood planning professional. All of the issues in this letter ‐ loss of trees, the elevated berm, density, the destruction of a historic building ‐ can be resolved through joint planning for 2 adjacent properties and pursuit of historic preservation and alternate uses for the existing building.
Joint planni
ng for the adjoining 350 University Ave. and 707 Commons Dr. properties could resolve some of the thorniest issues for the neighboring PUD. Both properties were purchased under one PUD designation and both should continue to be subject to the requirements of the PUD. Planning for both properties as one project would also be more consistent with the planning that we
nt into the original PUD designation. As the lead developers on 707 Commons Drive, Bardis and Miry are in a position to unify planning for the 2 properties.
Neighbors continue to press for historic preservation of the office building at 707 Commons Drive. The exi sting structure is an important and consciously designed linkage between the two residential and office/commercial PUD sections of Campus Commons. The office building was designed by the community's original architect, a leader in Mid Century Northern California's architecture, and was intended to tie the two PUD sections togeth er. It also is one of very few remaining examples of this style of architecture in low rise suburban office buildings. Neighbors are also interested in repurposing the existing structure, including finding an entity to buy and preserve it, for university offices, faculty live/work, senior care, and more. Planning for the redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive sh ould include the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to move the bulk of development to the University Ave. side of the property.
The developers can be compensated for their redirected development rights.
Parking and Traffic Concerns
I am particularly disappointed with the developer’s willful disregard for parking problem s that the development will
create for myself and my Campus Commons neighbors.
The developers have been denied shared use of the existing driveway to the east of the property, and instead, have added a new driveway, with entry and exit still onto Commons Drive. Villages 1 and 2 re sidents oppose this additional driveway so near the two existing driveways for Village 1 and the CCPC Clubhouse. The additional driveway increases the risk of accidents and injuries to other drivers and to pedestrians and pets on nearby sidewalks, cyclists, and wildlife like squirrels and turkeys in the street.
The new driveway on Commons Drive sho
uld not even be necessary. The current parking for 707 Commons is in the shared 350 University parking lot. The revised plans even show a notation of potential “future pedestrian access to additional potential parking” at the border between 707 Commons and 350 University. Th e developer owns both properties and has referred to 707 Commons as phase one and 350 University as phase two of the development. The two properties have always been operated together and should be developed as one project.
There are design factors that are likely to create street parking headaches for Ca mpus Commons residents, visitors, and
residents of the development alike. Residents of 12 units must park their cars single‐file in 2‐car garages, greatly increasing the likelihood that they will park at least one car on the street. Realistically some occupants will use garage space for storage, pushing one or even two cars to the street. Twel ve units contain two areas that could be converted to rentals, with street parking the only option for another 12‐24 vehicles. Vehicles displaced from garages will be scattered throughout nearby streets. The continued absence of visitor parking raises more questions about street parking. Will friends and f
amily, visitors, service people and others need to park a block away? What if converted rooms are used as commercial spaces for small businesses and their clients? Is there a City standard for onsite visitor parking?
One analysis of street parking states that a parallel parking space is 18‐20 feet in length. About 160 feet of street parking will be available dire
ctly in front of 707 Commons Drive and about 150 feet on Campus Commons Road. That yields a total of about 16 parking spaces on the two sides of the project, too few to accommodate the considerabl e overflow projected above. The claim that the proposed development is compatible with the existing neighborhood is simply untrue. This development clashes with the design and intention of our historic neighborhood for many reasons in addition to parking.
Garbage, Recycling, Organic Waste Container Concerns
3 My neighbors and I share concerns about the difficulties created for all of us, including residents of the development, by garbage, recycling, and organic waste containers for the new units. The developers apparently plan to crowd 48 weekly and 72 bi‐weekly containers onto Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road rather than design alleys wide enough for garbage trucks.
The July 25
plans show pickup locations for up to 72 containers along Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road (2 containers every week and 3 on alternate weeks for 24 units). City collection guidelines call for placing containers 3 feet apart* and 6 feet from cars obstructions. When all 3 cans are used, at least 348 linear feet of curb space will be needed for 72 cans on Thursday evening and much of Friday. There is no more than 280 feet of curb space available in front of and alongside the development: • Each container is 19 "‐24" wide. The approx. combined width of 3 containers = ~5.5ft. • Add 9 ft to each set of 3 containers to meet the City’s spacing guidelines. • ~5.5 ft + 9 ft = ~14.5 ft. This is the curb space needed for each of the 24 units. • 24 units x ~14.5 ft = ~348 ft. A football field is 360 ft. including end zones. • Residents may order more and larger containers, requiring even more curb space. On Thursday evenings much or all of the curb space needed for containers will probably already be occupied by parked cars bec ause of tandem garages for 12 units, garages used for storage, cars belonging to optional studio units, and absence of visitor parking. With curb space taken up by parked cars, Campus Commons neighbors can expect to find containers, some fallen, and debris spread out for hundreds of feet along Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. If contai ners do find curb space on a Thursday, it will be the homebound cars that will spread out along neighborhood streets instead. There is clearly no space ‐ or plan ‐ for both trash and parking on Commons Drive or Campus Commons Road. Developers must widen driveways and alleys to allow for containers
and for refuse vehicles to safely maneuver in the interior of the complex.
Campus Commons was developed with space for refuse pickup in the alleys. Alley pickup will also improve safety and appearance and help promote shared neighborhood identity (see the City General Plan LU 2.1.3).
I urge you to assist the dev
elopers in taking this path out of conflict with the neighborhood and toward a more harmonious resolution. Thank you for considering these concerns and solutions.
Sincerely,
Emily White
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Inga Holmquist <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:25 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project #Z22 (707 Commons Drive)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Councilmember Guerra and Mr. Dahla,
As a homeowner in the Nepenthe HOA, part of greater Campus Commons, I write to you again to express my continued opposition to the proposed development project at 707 Commons Drive.
No meaningful redesign has occurred to mitigate the impact that this proposed development would have on our community. If it goes forward, parking issues alone would substantially degrade the character of a neighborhood we have so carefully nurtured and preserved for over 50 years. Not to mention the impact on the amenities that our HOA dues pay for. The character of the neighborhood would drastically change with the destruction of dozens of protected trees on the site, and the complete flattening of a landscape that had been carefully sculpted to shelter and buffer the residential areas.
I hear concerns that the developer spent a couple million to buy 707 Commons and therefore the City may feel obligated to facilitate a return on their investment. But wait - there are hundreds of Campus Commons families whose biggest investment is their home. Why would a developer’s exponential profit take priority over the collective value of ALL of OUR investments in our properties? A couple million would buy maybe 4-5 Campus Commons homes. There are roughly a thousand homes in Campus Commons. By no measure does their investment outweigh ours!
If this kind of high-density development is allowed to degrade our community, all of our property values will take a hit – so that they can maximize their profit?! In what universe is THAT fair? If you think this will increase your tax base, you're shooting yourselves in the foot, because a thousand other homes are going to dip in value.
The developer must either re-scale and redesign their project to finally, actually, harmonize with and enhance this long-established community, or their proposal must simply be denied. They have no right to come in and wreck our neighborhood for the sake of their comparatively modest investment. Do it right, or walk away.
The City must abide by its own rules and protect our existing neighborhood, which is distinct, unique, and valuable to this City. Campus Commons adds beauty and livability to our hometown. Our urban forest is an ecological treasure. It must not be wrecked to maximize for profits of developers who have no stake in our neighborhood, and clearly no understanding of it. The 707 building was intentionally designed as a transition between residential and commercial areas, and it succeeds beautifully. As proposed, this project would utterly destroy that important piece of our overall plan. It belongs on R Street or Folsom Blvd – and I would encourage that it be built there. In Campus Commons it would be a nuisance, an eyesore and a devastating breach of faith by the City. We who live here and invest in Campus Commons have always done so on the strength of the City’s decades-old promises that a PUD masterplan means something and is not to be overridden lightly. There are many good and viable alternatives that can be considered for the 707 site. As proposed, the project now on the table is not among them.
Sincerely,
2 Inga Holmquist
1268 Vanderbilt Way
[email protected]
(253) 312-5314
ATTN: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner, [email protected] Eric Guerra, City Councilmember, [email protected]
RE: Z22-079 Application for Redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive
DATE: September 5, 2023
I reviewed the July 18, 2023, revisions to the illustrations, photos, and plans for 707 Commons and want to add to the comments on Trash Carts, Traffic Safety, and Alternatives in my letter emailed to you on July 10, 2023.
The TRASH PICK LOCATIONS – 24 UNITS on Page 5 shows Carts placed on Commons Dr. and Campus Commons Rd. without stating the distance between Carts and without any parked cars.
The calculations in my earlier letter were based on the dimensions of the Carts in Village Two where I live. They are placed around the perimeter of the parking lot and not on Commons Dr. or Campus Commons Rd. Using the dimensions of my Carts, the average length of an Automobile, and the spacing illustrated in the Sac Green Team Curbside Collection Services Guide.
The calculations below assume 15 Automobiles parked on the street.
C = Cart 1.81 ft
A = Automobile 14.7 ft
- = 3-foot space
-- = 6-foot space
-C-C-C--A--C-C-C--A--C-C-C--A--C-C-C--A--C-C-C--A--C-C-C--A--C-C-C--A--C-C-C-C-
C-C-C-C-C--A--C-C-C-C-C-C--A--C-C-C-C-C-C--A--C-C-C-C-C-C--A--C-C-C-C-C-C-C-
C-C--A--C-C-C-C-C-C--A--C-C-C-C-C-C--A--C-C-C--A--
The average width of each Cart = (19.5” +19” + 26.5”) divided by 3, or 1.81 ft.
The average length of an Automobile = 14.7 ft.
72 Carts x 1.8 ft = 129.6 ft.
58 spaces x 3 ft = 174.0 ft
15 spaces x 26.7 ft = 400.5 ft
Total = 704.1 ft
As noted in my earlier letter, these calculations are conservative because they’re based on my small- and medium-size Carts. Larger Carts would be required for 3-plex and 4- plex townhouses.
The number of Automobiles parked on the streets depend on the time of day and day of the week. The photo below of Automobiles parked in front of 707 Commons was taken on Tuesday, August 1, 2023, at 11:31 am. There may be more or less than 15 Automobiles parked at any given time. The point is that the number of Automobiles parked on trash collection days is uncertain.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the garbage truck’s hydraulically powered arm used to pick up and empty Carts on the curb rarely return them to the same place. The photo below is of my Carts after the garbage trucks had circled the Village Two parking lot. 72 Carts parked between Automobiles on the streets could end up obstructing sidewalks and portions of Commons Dr. and Campus Commons Rd. Since residents leave for work or other daily activities before the garbage trucks arrive, Carts may be left on the streets all day or until the next day.
Traffic safety is major concern. Campus Commons residents oppose placement of the proposed driveway for 707 Commons a short distance from the existing two driveways for Village One (700-744 and 735-749) and the main entry to the Campus Commons Clubhouse at the intersection of Commons Drive. Below is a “Morning Rush” illustration showing blind spots (black) created by the tall 707 Commons buildings and Automobiles parked along Commons Dr. and Campus Commons Rd. A driver leaving 707 Commons will not have a view of Commons Dr. until reaching the sidewalk, and then only a partial view if Automobiles are parked on either side of the driveway.
Some Campus Commons residents have suggested placing the 707 Commons driveway on Campus Commons Rd. Note that one of the entrances to 400 University Avenue is located on Campus Commons Rd.
Another suggestion is to use the entrance to 350 University Avenue that leads into a large parking lot with spaces running along the rear entrance to 707 Commons. Page 4 of the July 18 revisions mention additional potential parking in the 350 University Avenue parking lot. An email dated 1/2/23 from Katherine Bardis-Miry to Dallas Pennington indicated that workers/vendors and equipment parking during grading and construction would be parked “in the back side of the parking lot close to the 707 building.” The photo on the next page is of the 350 University Avenue parking lot behind 707 Commons.
It makes sense for excavation to begin at the rear entrance of 707 Commons and for the driveways shown on the revised plans to lead from the parking lot to the townhouses instead of from a busy two-lane street like Commons Dr. lined with parked Automobiles.
After reading the many comment letters submitted by Campus Commons residents, I believe that the Planning Commission would be doing the Developers a favor by rejecting their application for redevelopment of 707 Commons. The revised plans do not include any amenities like a club house, a children’s play area, bicycle racks, hot tubs, guest parking, or adequate storage space for sports equipment, bicycles, camping gear, holiday decorations, and trash Carts, among other things.
In my view, the 707 Commons project has the makings of a fiasco. The surrounding Villages will have to endure months of construction noise and dust as the trees are cut down and hauled away, the ground is levelled, the existing building is demolished, and new buildings are constructed. 707 Commons may not attract high-income buyers willing to purchase townhouses located on a corner in East Sacramento that lack any amenities, that are not in conformity with the surrounding Charles Warren Callister designed buildings, and that are adjacent to HOA grounds that are off-limits to nonmembers.
The Developers have alternatives. They can redevelop 350 University Avenue. The large parking lot will allow for additional townhouses, a club house and other amenities,
on-site parking, and placement of trash carts around the perimeter of the parking lot instead of on the streets.
Campus Commons residents are not opposed to redeveloping 707 Commons if it provides housing for seniors and others unable to find affordable housing, especially if most or all of the 25 trees--including 11 protected trees--are preserved, and renovations and additions to the existing building are consistent with the original design.
Based on the Developer’s comparison of 707 Commons to their Albright Village housing located at U and 13th Streets in downtown Sacramento, asking prices for 707 Commons could range from $815,000 to $950,000. 707 Commons will not provide more affordable housing.
Regards,
Jonathan M. Corbett
Campus Commons, Village Two
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Karen Lowrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 5:35 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079, 707 Commons Dr.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
August 21, 2023
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I am a 19-year resident of the Campus Commons-Nepenthe community. I continue to see significant problems with the developer’s latest plans for redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive (Project No. Z22-079). I am particularly disappointed with the developer’s disregard for parking problems that the development will create for me and my Campus Commons neighbors.
The developers have been denied shared use of the existing driveway to the east of the property, and instead, have added a new driveway, with entry and exit still onto Commons Drive. Villages 1 and 2 residents oppose this additional driveway so near the two existing driveways for Village 1 and the CCPC Clubhouse. The additional driveway increases the risk of accidents and injuries to other drivers and to children on bicycles, pedestrians, and pets on nearby sidewalks.
The new driveway on Commons Drive should not even be necessary. The current parking for 707 Commons is in the shared 350 University parking lot. The revised plans even show a notation of potential “future pedestrian access to additional potential parking” at the border between 707 Commons and 350 University. The developer owns both properties and has referred to 707 Commons as phase one and 350 University as phase two of the development. The two properties have always been operated together and should be developed as one project.
There are design factors that are likely to create street parking headaches for Campus Commons residents, visitors, and residents of the development alike. Residents of 12 units must park their cars single-file in 2-car garages, greatly increasing the likelihood that they will park at least one car on the street. Realistically some occupants will use garage space for storage, pushing one or even two cars to the street. Twelve units contain two areas that could be converted to rentals, with street parking the only option for another 12-24 vehicles.
Vehicles displaced from garages will be scattered throughout nearby streets.
The continued absence of visitor parking raises more questions about street parking. Will housecleaners, caretakers, servicepeople, friends and family, visitors, and others need to park a block away? What if converted rooms are used as commercial spaces for small businesses and their clients. Is there a City standard for onsite visitor parking?
One analysis of street parking states that a parallel parking space is 18-20 feet in length. About 160 feet of street parking will be available directly in front of 707 Commons Drive and about 150 feet on Campus Commons Road. That yields a total of about 16 parking spaces on the two sides of the project, too few to accommodate the considerable overflow projected above.
2 The claim that the proposed development is compatible with the existing neighborhood is simply untrue. This development clashes with the design and intention of our historic neighborhood for many reasons in addition to parking. It may be possible to design housing which would comply with City standards and mesh with the neighborhood, but this plan does not yet come even close.
Thank you for considering these views.
Sincerely,
Karen Lowrey
106 Elmhurst Circle, Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kathy Styc <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:34 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Proposal Z22-079 Comments
Attachments: Att 1 re 707 Driveway09132023.jpg; Trash can calculations.xlsx; Proposed trees, recs, sizes and notes.xlsx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
SUBJECT – Project Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I am a resident of Campus Commons and appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on Project Z22-079 at 707 Commons Drive.
I have commented previously with concerns largely stemming from the fact that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the City General Plan, City ordinances, City Land Use and Urban Design Policies with respect to compatibility with the existing established neighborhood, and the Environmental Resource Policies. Briefly stated the previous and continuing concerns are:
The design is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. The density of the housing is about 4 times greater than the surrounding area. There is very little setback from the sidewalk in stark contrast to the surrounding area. The decrease in the greenspace and addition of masses of concrete will add to the overall heat produced at the property and air pollution.
The Conceptual Renderings misrepresent the finished project by showing over twice as many trees as are on the Landscape Plan and green space that doesn’t exist.
In addition to these continuing concerns, there are several new concerns based on the third revision of the Plans/Drawings, updated July 25, 2023.
There is no longer Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) on Campus Commons Road (CCR). The driveway on Commons Drive (CD) would pose a serious traffic hazard for cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Placing trash cans on Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive is unnecessary, and, if they were to be placed on the street, there is inadequate space, and they would also create a traffic hazard. There is an error in the Landscape Plan, and many of the trees are still not well-chosen or compatible with their placement.
Following is more detailed information on each of these new issues. 2 EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS – Potential safety concern
It is unclear, at least to me, why there was a change in the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) between the original and first 2 revisions of the plans, and the third revision. Specifically, page 4 of the second revision shows 7 removable bollards that would allow EV access as needed using Campus Commons Road. The Site Plan on page 4 of the third revision shows this access closed off and without the bollards.
This could have been done to provide more space for landscaping and trees, which is a good change, and to provide more curb space for trash cans, which is unnecessary and would create new problems that I comment on below. I don’t know if the removal of the EVA meets City codes, but it seems to me that the removal of the EVA is a potential safety concern.
The Fire Truck Route, as shown on pages 4 and 5 meets California requirements in terms of width of the entrance and main driveway. However, it doesn’t look like a fire truck, depending on the size, could turn into the 2 other driveways that go toward the 350 University side of the property. That is not shown, and I don’t think it is required if I am reading the California Code correctly. However, looking at the space shown for fire truck access, I am concerned how another emergency vehicle could quickly enter or exit depending on the location of the fire truck with the EVA eliminated. Moving the fire truck within the tight space available would take time. The EVA that had been on the plans before would have allowed much faster and easier entrance and exit in emergencies.
DRIVEWAY – Limited visibility, safety
The intersection of Commons Drive (CD) and Campus Commons Road (CCR) is busy especially on weekdays with people driving to and from the medical and office buildings on University Avenue, students going to CSUS, drive through traffic from Fair Oaks Blvd., bicyclists, pedestrians, and residents of Campus Commons.