Item 32 2024-00479 Third-Party Appeal of Contemporary Commons (Z22-079) (Noticed 05/17/2024) — Sacramento City Council, June 18, 2024 (part 1 of 4)

City of Sacramento
City Council - 2PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
Third-Party Appeal of Contemporary Commons (Z22-079) (Noticed 05/17/2024) File ID: 2024-00479
Location: APNs 295-0402-015-0000, 707 Commons Drive, District 6, Represented by Councilmember Guerra
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion pass a Resolution to approve: 1) environmental exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (Class 32 - In-Fill Development); and 2) tentative map to subdivide a 1.09-acre parcel for condominium purposes resulting in 24 airspace dwelling units within six fourplex buildings within the Office Business Low- Rise Mixed-Use (OB-PUD) zone and the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD), thereby denying the third-party appeal.

Contact: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner, (916) 808-5584, [email protected]; Karlo Felix, Senior Planner, (916) 808-7183, [email protected]; Community Development Department Presenter: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner, (916) 808-5584, [email protected], Community Development Department
Applicant: Katherine Bardis-Miry, Bardis & Miry Development, 10630 Mather Blvd, Mather, CA 95655
Appellant: Carr Kunze (et al), 835 Commons Drive, Sacramento, CA 95825 Property Owner: Katherine Bardis-Miry (Managing Member), RBM Commons LLC, 10630 Mather Blvd, Mather, CA 95655
Attachments:
01-Description/Analysis
02-Background
03-Resolution - Entitlements
04-Exhibit A: Tentative Map
05-Third-Party Appeal of the Planning and Design Commission Decision 06-Public Comments

Page 1 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: This item is an appeal of the Planning and Design Commission’s decision to approve the Tentative Map associated with the Contemporary Commons project, an entitlement originally considered by the Zoning Administrator. The proposed Contemporary Commons project includes the demolition of an existing office building, removal of all on-site trees, and the construction of six, three- story, residential fourplexes resulting in a total of 24 dwelling units and associated site improvements on a 1.09-acre site located at 707 Commons Drive, north of the intersection of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road, within the Office Business Low-Rise Mixed-Use (OB-PUD) zone and Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD). A subdivision for condominium purposes is proposed to allow for individual ownership of each dwelling unit. The proposed project required Zoning Administrator approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide the project site for condominium purposes; and Design Director approval of Site Plan and Design Review of the tentative map layout, demolition of an existing building, construction of new buildings, and site improvements with a deviation for rear-yard setbacks, and a Tree Permit for the removal of 10 private protected trees. The project was heard and approved by the Zoning Administrator and Design Director at a special Director Hearing on November 6, 2023. Third-party appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s decision and Design Director’s decision were filed on November 16, 2023. On January 11, 2024, the Planning and Design Commission considered the appeal and approved the Class 32 (Infill Development) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Categorical Exemption, Tentative Map, Site Plan and Design Review, and Tree Permit, thereby denying the third-party appellant’s appeal.

The third-party appellant has now appealed the Planning and Design Commission’s approval of the project to the City Council. Pursuant to Sacramento City Code (SCC) section 17.812.060.A.2, “a commission-level decision made on an appeal of a director-level decision may not be appealed, except that an appeal of a tentative map or denial of an extension of a tentative map may be appealed to the City Council.” As the Planning and Design Commission’s decision on Site Plan and Design Review and Tree Permit are final and not subject to appeal, the City Council’s review is limited to the Tentative Map and CEQA exemption. City Council’s consideration of the Tentative Map appeal is de novo, meaning Council will consider the claim anew. Council is not required to defer to the Zoning Administrator’s, Design Director’s, and/or Planning and Design Commission’s prior decisions.

In general, if the Council decides to deny the Tentative Map (thereby granting the third-party appeal), the proposed development would be allowed to move forward as a “for rent” product type given the project design and layout was approved under the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement. If the Council decides to approve the Tentative Map (thereby denying the third-party appeal), the proposed development would be allowed to move forward as a “for sale” product type due to the Tentative Map allowing for the individual ownership of each unit approved under the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement.

Appeal Detail

Page 2 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
A single party, represented by Carr Kunze, filed the third-party appeal of the Planning and Design Commission’s decision(Attachment 5). The basis for the appeal is centered on similar issues raised in the previous appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s and Design Director’s decisions and in the letters of opposition staff received during the processing of the discretionary application. Staff’s recommendation to approve the project has not changed based on the issues raised by the appellant. Based on staff’s analysis of the appeal, staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal thereby approving the project.

The following is summary of the issues raised in the appeal documentation followed by staff’s response/analysis of the issues raised.

1. The appellant asserts the Tentative Map needs to be reconfigured to increase setbacks, preserve private protected trees, and widen the on-site alleys to allow for on-site refuse collection and asks the City Council revoke the approval of the currently submitted Tentative Map.

Staff Response
: Staff is recommending the City Council deny the third-party appeal of the project thereby upholding the Planning and Design Commission’s decision to approve the project subject to findings of fact and conditions and approval. The requested Tentative Map entitlement is to subdivide the parcel for condominium purposes to allow for the individual ownership of each of the dwelling units approved under the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement. The existing parcel boundaries and lot configuration will not change as part of the requested tentative map. The existing parcel and its proposed subdivision will maintain adequate access to the public street and available utility infrastructure and is sized to accommodate the requested development density and is free from constraints that would prohibit development of the parcel. Denial of the Tentative Map would not impact the design or layout of the development as the design and layout is reviewed as part of the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement. Because the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement has already been heard and approved by the Design Director and the Planning and Design Commission, its approval is final, and the City Council may not consider the appellant’s claims related to Site Plan and Design Review.

2. Appellant argues that the Tentative Map requirement calls for topography and the proposal to level the site is a design issue. Additionally, the appellant argues the Tentative Map misrepresented facts and was not processed consistent with City requirements.

Staff Response:

Staff disagrees. Tentative map applications are required to provide sufficient detail to determine site topography and that information was provided and considered. There are no requirements that require a site to provide additional topography. Additionally, the

Page 3 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
Tentative Map was processed consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and SCC chapter

17.828 (Tentative Maps). Development proposals can change through the City’s review processes and the information submitted on the initial entitlement application form can change based on comments received during that review. Staff does not require a new entitlement application form to be submitted with each resubmittal.

3. Appellant states the project is not consistent with the City of Sacramento General Plan and fails to comply with General Plan Policies LU 2.1.2 (Protect Established Communities) and LU 2.4.2 (Responsiveness to Context).

Staff Response: The project is consistent with the General Plan and relevant policies as outlined in the staff report. As established by the General Plan, the City, in its sole discretion, shall determine a proposed project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan. Consistency is achieved if a project will further the overall objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment, recognizing that a proposed project may be consistent with the overall objectives of the General Plan, but not with each and every policy thereof. Staff has reviewed the project for consistency with the General Plan and determined the project adequately meets the intent and therefore recommend approval to the Zoning Administrator and Design Director. Both approved the project subject to findings of fact and conditions of approval. Please refer to page 1-2 of the Introduction Chapter of the General Plan:
<https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/General-Plan/Part-

4. The appellant argues the project is inconsistent with Title 17 of Sacramento City Code (SCC) and the Campus Commons PUD Guidelines and Schematic Plan.

Staff Response: The City Council’s review is limited to the appellant’s claims related to the Tentative Map and may not consider the appellant’s claims related to Site Plan and Design Review and Tree Permit, as the Planning and Design Commission’s decision on those items is final. Thus, staff’s review of this appeal issue is limited to whether the Tentative Map is or is not consistent with Title 17 and the Campus Commons PUD. It is noted that no specific development standards have been adopted for the Campus Commons PUD that apply to the Tentative Map. In the absence of specific development standards for a PUD, the development standards of the underlying OB zone remain in effect. Staff reviewed the proposed Tentative Map against the OB zone and applicable design guidelines (Citywide Multi-Unit Design Guidelines) and finds the requested Tentative Map is consistent with applicable development standards. As such, staff finds the Tentative Map consistent with Title 17 and the Campus Commons PUD and recommend the City Council approve the Tentative Map.

5. The appellant asserts the density exceeds what is allowed in the Campus Commons PUD.

Staff Response:

Staff understand that the community has expressed concerns that the

Page 4 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
project’s density of 22 du/ac may exceed the density allowed for the site, since the neighboring residential areas in Campus Commons PUD were developed at a much lower density. While it is true that the adjacent residential areas in Campus Commons were developed at a lower density than the proposed project, it is important to understand that these other residential properties are within a different General Plan land use designation and zone, which results in different density requirements. Specifically, these other areas are designated as Suburban Neighborhood Low Density, which allows three to eight du/ac, and zoned Single-Unit Dwelling (R-1-PUD), which allows one single-unit dwelling per lot.

The project site is designated ECMR in the City’s General Plan and located within the OB- PUD zone. The ECMR designation allows for 18 to 60 du/ac and the OB-PUD zone allows a maximum of 36 du/ac. The project site is also located in the Campus Commons PUD.

However, no specific density standards were adopted as part of the PUD that would impact the allowed density range established by the General Plan and zoning. At 22 du/ac, the project is consistent with the allowed density range in the ECMR and OB-PUD zone. It is noted that the proposed density of 22 du/ac was considered as part of the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement, which approved the proposal for the development of six residential fourplexes on- site. As such, the requested Tentative Map would not impact or modify the density that was approved by the Planning and Design Commission and would only allow for the individual ownership of each of the dwelling units approved under the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement.

6. The appellant argues that the change in land use from office to multi-unit dwelling requires a legislative change request.

Staff Response:

7. The appellant asserts that the City lost or misplaced the Campus Commons PUD schematic plans and/or development plan identified in Resolution No. 79 dated November 25, 1969, which could contain development standards applicable to the development.

Staff Response:

Staff has provided the appellant with all Campus Commons PUD documentation that exists in City records that establish applicable regulations and standards.

Page 5 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
None of the existing documentation contains objective development standards relevant to the project.

8. Appellant argues that the proposed development does not look like the existing community and in absence of any specific PUD standards the project should be required to reflect the existing community. Additionally, the Appellant argues that the project design is completely at odds with the existing community and the project represents a breach of the intent of the Campus Commons PUD’s original design concepts (e.g., design, foliage coverage, setbacks, etc.).

Staff Response:

9. The appellant asserts that staff improperly reviewed the project against the Citywide Design Guidelines.

10.The appellant asserts the tree permit for the removal of 10 private-protected trees should be denied.

Staff Response:

Page 6 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
final. This appeal issue raised by the appellant identifies concerns with the removal of the private-protected trees on-site to accommodate the proposed project. Because the Tree Permit entitlement reviewed and approved the removal of the private-protected trees on-site, this appeal issue is not relevant to the Tentative Map and cannot be considered as part of the Council’s review.

11.Appellant claims the City did not provide an opportunity to appeal the Preservation Director’s decision that the existing structure is not eligible for listing on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (Sacramento register).

Staff Response:

The City Council’s review is limited to the appellant’s claims related to the Tentative Map and may not consider the appellant’s claims related to Site Plan and Design Review and Tree Permit, as the Planning and Design Commission’s decision on those items is final. This appeal issue raised by the appellant identifies concerns with the Preservation Director’s determination that the existing office building on-site is not eligible for listing on the Sacramento Register. Per SCC section 17.604.600, the proposed demolition of the office building was referred to the Preservation Director to make the determination of whether the office building is eligible for consideration for listing on the Sacramento Register as part of the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement. The Preservation Director determined the building does not represent a historical resource for the purposes of SCC section 17.604.600 (demolition of buildings or structures 50 years old or older) or CEQA and did not oppose demolition of the structure on historical or environmental grounds. SCC section 17.604.600.B states that the Preservation Director’s decision that a building or structure is not eligible for listing on the Sacramento register is final and is not subject to appeal. Because the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement included the review of the existing office building’s eligibility for listing on the Sacramento Register, this appeal issue is not relevant to the Tentative Map.

12.The appellant asserts that City staff did not send public hearing notices to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site.

Staff Response:

Staff disagree. All property owners and residents within 500 feet of the subject site, as well as the neighborhood association, were mailed a public hearing notification and a public hearing notice was posted at the project site consistent with the noticing requirements in SCC section 17.812.030.

Public/Neighborhood Outreach and Comments: As part of the application review process, the proposal was routed to Preservation Sacramento, Civic Thread, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, Sacramento Housing Alliance, Region Builders, House Sacramento, Campus Commons Homeowners Association, and Nepenthe Homeowners Association. Additionally, the site was posted with project information at the time of application submittal. Staff received a response to the project routing from Campus Commons Homeowners Association voicing concerns about the proposed development. In addition to routing the project to the above community groups for review, staff also

Page 7 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
attended a community meeting at the Campus Commons Clubhouse on January 30, 2023, to listen and receive feedback from the community.

It is noted that the project was previously scheduled for the May 28, 2024, City Council meeting resulting in staff mailing public hearing notices on May 17, 2024 to all property owners, current residents/tenants, interested parties, and neighborhood associations within 500 feet of the subject site and a public hearing notice was posted at the project site. At the May 28, 2024, City Council meeting, the project was continued to a date certain of June 18, 2024. During the review process, staff received over 250 letters of opposition and 13 letters of support for the proposed project.

Additionally, staff received over 40 letters of support and one letter of opposition to the previous third- party appeal of the project to the Planning and Design Commission. Staff has received 15 public comments in support of this third-party appeal of the Tentative Map to City Council.

Staff has included all public comments received on the project in Attachment 6 of this report. Staff’s response to these comments is available for review in the Planning and Design Commission report prepared for the previous third-party appeal of the project:
<https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=34&clip_id=5782&meta_id=761339> Policy Considerations: The following policy considerations include staff’s analysis of the full Contemporary Commons project.

General Plan
On November 2, 2023, the applicant team submitted a complete Senate Bill (SB) 330 preliminary application for the proposed housing development (see Record No. IR23-268). A housing development project that submits a complete SB 330 preliminary application receives early vesting resulting in the project being subject to only the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted. As such, staff must review the proposed project under the lens of the previous 2035 General Plan, as it was the General Plan document that was in effect on November 2, 2023.

The 2035 General Plan Update was adopted by City Council on March 3, 2015. The 2035 General Plan’s goals, policies, and implementation programs define a roadmap to achieving Sacramento’s vision to be the most livable city in America. The existing General Plan designation of the subject site is Employment Center Mid Rise (ECMR), which typically provides for large mixed-use office/employment centers that include office complexes, support retail and service uses (e.g., restaurants, dry-cleaners, gym/fitness centers, etc.), residential uses, and landscaped gathering places. The combination of high-density buildings and low site coverage in existing employment centers provides the opportunity new infill development with complementary uses that transforms the existing single-use areas into more self-sufficient mixed-use areas with reduced dependence on automobile transportation.

Page 8 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
The ECMR designation allows for 18 to 60 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac). As proposed, the project would result in 22 du/ac, consistent with the land use designation. The ECMR designation envisions a more compact development pattern with buildings placed at or near the lot lines along primary streets with building entrances oriented to the primary street frontages. Additionally, building types in this designation are generally ranging from three to 12 stories and contain structured parking to reduce areas of surface parking. The proposed project would result in attached, three-story townhome dwellings with front entrances that directly address the primary streets and two-car garages accessed in the rear, reducing the visibility of cars. Staff finds the proposed housing type is consistent with the allowed uses and key urban form characteristics of the ECMR designation.

Additionally, staff has identified several General Plan goals and policies below that support the proposed project and staff has provided a response identifying why these policies support the proposed project:

Goal LU 1.1: Growth and Change. Support sustainable growth and change through orderly and well-planned development that provides for the needs of existing and future residents and businesses, ensures the effective and equitable provision of public services, and makes efficient use of land and infrastructure.

Policy LU 1.1.1: Regional Leadership. The City shall be the regional leader in sustainable development and encourage compact, higher-density development that conserves land resources, protects habitat, supports transit, reduces vehicle trips, improves air quality, conserves energy and water, and diversifies Sacramento’s housing stock.

Policy LU 1.1.4: Leading Infill Growth. The City shall facilitate infill development through active leadership and the strategic provision of infrastructure and services and supporting land uses.

Policy LU 1.1.5: Infill Development. The City shall promote and provide incentives (e.g., focused infill planning, zoning/rezoning, revised regulations, provision of infrastructure) for infill development, reuse, and growth in existing urbanized areas to enhance community character, optimize City investments in infrastructure and community facilities, support increased transit use, promote pedestrian and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods, increase housing diversity, ensure integrity of historic districts, and enhance retail viability.

Staff Response
: The proposed project is consistent with the above goal and policies in that it promotes sustainable growth and change through urban infill development, and proposes a higher-density, compact housing type that diversifies the housing stock. The proposed project also makes efficient use of land near educational, recreational, and commercial services, reducing vehicle miles traveled and strengthening local retail viability. This style of housing provides for-sale opportunities for prospective homebuyers looking for smaller lots with less

Page 9 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
maintenance. Further, as outlined in this report, redevelopment of the project site will not impact the integrity of any historic districts or result in the loss of a landmark structure.

Goal LU 2.1: City of Neighborhoods. Maintain a city of diverse, distinct, and well-structured neighborhoods that meet the community’s needs for complete, sustainable, and high-quality living environments, from the historic downtown core to well-integrated new growth areas.

Policy LU 2.1.3: Complete and Well-Structured Neighborhoods. The City shall promote the design of complete and well-structured neighborhoods whose physical layout and land use mix promote walking to services, biking, and transit use; foster community pride; enhance neighborhood identity; ensure public safety; are family-friendly and address the needs of all ages and abilities.

Policy LU 2.1.8: Neighborhood Enhancement. The City shall promote infill development, reuse, rehabilitation, and reuse efforts that contribute positively (e.g., architectural design) to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas.

Staff Response:

The proposed project is consistent with the above goal and policies in that the project: 1) promotes sustainable growth and change through urban infill development; 2) proposes internal walkways and paseos connecting to existing sidewalks along the project frontage, increasing pedestrian and bikeway connections; 3) increases public safety by upgrading pedestrian crosswalks, including ramps compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, at portions of the Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive intersection, and restriping/repairing existing sidewalks at the Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive intersection; and 4) contributes positively to the surrounding area by providing public safety surveillance with houses oriented toward Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive.

Goal LU 2.6: City Sustained and Renewed. Promote sustainable development and land use practices in both new development, reuse, and reinvestment that provide for the transformation of Sacramento into a sustainable urban city while preserving choices (e.g., where to live, work, and recreate) for future generations.

Policy LU 2.6.1: Sustainable Development Patterns. The City shall promote compact development patterns, mixed use, and higher-development intensities that use land efficiently; reduce pollution and automobile dependence and the expenditure of energy and other resources; and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use.

Policy LU 2.6.6: Efficiency Through Density. The City shall support an overall increase in average residential densities throughout the city consistent with the adopted General Plan Land Use & Urban Form Diagram, as new housing types shift from lower-density, large lot developments to higher-density, small lot and multifamily developments as a means to

Page 10 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
increase energy efficiency, conserve water, and reduce waste.

Staff Response: The proposed project is consistent with the above goal and policies in that it achieves a higher density to reflect current market demand for compact, for-sale residential developments through an efficient grid layout that maximizes land use efficiently by incorporating elements such alley access, pedestrian paseo, reduced curb cuts, while taking design cues from the adjacent Campus Commons community. The project promotes sustainable growth and change by proposing a higher-density, compact housing type that diversifies the housing stock while being consistent with the key urban form characteristics of the ECMR designation. Furthermore, the project increases public safety by restriping and upgrading pedestrian crosswalks, including installing ramps compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, at the Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive intersection.

Goal LU 2.7: City Form and Structure. Require excellence in the design of the city’s form and structure through development standards and clear design direction.

Policy LU 2.7.1: Development Regulations. The City shall promote design excellence by ensuring City development regulations clearly express intended rather than prohibited outcomes and reinforce rather than inhibit quality design.

Policy LU 2.7.4: Public Safety and Community Design. The City shall promote design of neighborhoods, centers, streets, and public spaces that enhances public safety and discourages crime by providing street-fronting uses (“eyes on the street”), adequate lighting and sight lines, and features that cultivate a sense of community ownership.

Policy LU 2.7.7: Buildings that Engage the Street. The City shall require buildings to be oriented to and actively engage and complete the public realm through such features as building orientation, build-to and setback lines, façade articulation, ground-floor transparency, and location of parking.

Policy LU 2.7.8: Screening of Off-street Parking. The City shall reduce the visual prominence of parking within the public realm by requiring most off-street parking to be located behind or within structures or otherwise fully or partially screened from public view.

Staff Response
: The proposed project is consistent with the above goal and policies in that the project promotes sustainable growth and change through a higher-density, compact infill development that maximizes land use efficiently by incorporating elements such alley access, pedestrian paseo, reduced curb cuts, while taking design cues from the adjacent Campus Commons community. This proposed layout allows for street-fronting houses that engage with and surveil public and common areas, discouraging crime while also allowing alley vehicle access to reduce pedestrian/automobile conflicts. Further, the project promotes design

Page 11 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
excellence by proposing design solutions that express the intended outcome of development standards by requesting rear-yard setback deviations that allow for increased development density without negative impacts to neighborly privacy or access to light and air.

Goal ER 3.1: Urban Forest. Manage the city’s urban forest as an environmental, economic, and aesthetic resource to improve Sacramento residents’ quality of life.

Policy ER 3.1.3. Trees of Significance. The City shall require the retention of City trees and Heritage Trees by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design of development projects provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible. Where tree removal cannot be avoided, the City shall require tree replacement or appropriate remediation.

Staff Response:

The proposed project is consistent with the above goal and policies in that the removal of private protected trees is necessary to accommodate the proposed development and the Urban Forestry Division of the Department of Public Works has required the applicant to provide a tree replacement plan consistent with City regulations to mitigate impacts to trees.

General Plan - Arden Arcade Community Plan
The subject property is located within the Arden Arcade Community Plan Area of the General Plan.

The General Plan identifies the Community Plan Area as a diverse collection of neighborhoods, centers, and business districts within the city limits. The Plan Area is mostly built out with little vacant land available for development. Unlike most community areas within the City, the incorporated portions of the Community Plan Area are predominately attached multi-unit dwellings. No goals or policies specific to Community Plan Area supplement the goals and policies in the General Plan.

Given the project’s consistency with the ECMR designation and goals and policies from the 2035 General Plan, the proposed project is also consistent with the Community Plan Area.

Campus Commons PUD
The subject site is located within the Campus Commons PUD which was originally adopted in 1965.

No goals or policies specific to the Campus Commons PUD have been adopted. 200-Year Flood Protection
State Law (SB 5) and Planning and Development Code chapter 17.810 require that the City must make specific findings prior to approving certain entitlements for projects within a flood hazard zone.

The purpose is to ensure that new developments will have protection from a 200-year flood event or will achieve that protection by 2025. The project site is within a flood hazard zone and is an area covered by SAFCA’s Improvements to the State Plan of Flood Control System, and specific findings related to the level of protection have been incorporated as part of this project. Even though the

Page 12 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
project site is within a flood hazard zone, the local flood management agency, SAFCA, has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will ensure protection from a 200-year flood event or will achieve that protection by 2025. This is based on the SAFCA Urban level of flood protection plan, adequate progress baseline report, and adequate progress toward an urban level of flood protection engineer’s report that were accepted by City Council Resolution No. 2016- 0226 on June 21, 2016, and the SAFCA 2023 Adequate Progress Annual Report accepted by City Council Resolution No. 2023-0337 on October 24, 2023.

Economic Impacts: The construction of a 24-unit condominium development would not have significant economic impacts.

Environmental Considerations: The proposed development is a “project” as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City, as lead agency, is required to proceed in accordance with CEQA requirements prior to considering any approval. Environmental Planning Services of the Community Development Department has reviewed this project and determined that it is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332, Infill Development Projects (Categorical Exemption - Class 32). The project is consistent with the ECMR General Plan designation, the OB-PUD zone, and the Campus Commons PUD. The project site is in the city limits on a site that is less than five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The project would have no significant effect on traffic, noise, air, or water quality because the project is consistent with the standards of the ECMR General Plan designation, the OB-PUD zone, and the Campus Commons PUD. The site is adequately served with all urban services and utilities and will have adequate access including emergency vehicle access.

Further, based on the preponderance of evidence, the existing structures do not meet the significance criteria for the listing on the California Register of Historic Places or as a Landmark in the Sacramento register, and the structure does not appear to be a historical resource for the purposes of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5.a.2.

Therefore, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and no further CEQA analysis is required.

Sustainability: The proposed project is consistent with the City’s sustainability goals by providing for infill residential development. The City has adopted policies that encourage infill development as a strategy to reduce vehicle travel, one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

Commission/Committee Action: The Tentative Map was reviewed at the Subdivision Review Committee on August 15, 2023. During the meeting, the proposed conditions of approval specific to the map were accepted by the applicant and forwarded by the Committee with a recommendation of approval with conditions.

Page 13 of 14 ends

File ID: 2024-00479 6/18/2024 Public Hearing Item 32
On November 6, 2023, the Zoning Administrator and Design Director considered the project at a special Director Hearing and approved the project, consistent with staff’s recommendation. Third- party appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s decision and Design Director’s decision were filed on November 16, 2023.

On January 11, 2024, the Planning and Design Commission considered the third-party appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s and Design Director’s decisions and approved the project thereby denying the third-party appeals, consistent with staff’s recommendation. Staff’s analysis and rationale for the recommendation to deny the previous appeal is available for review in the Planning and Design Commission report:
<https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=34&clip_id=5782&meta_id=761339> Rationale for Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the requested Tentative Map entitlement, thereby denying the third-party appeal, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 3. Staff supports the project because it: a) is consistent with the ECMR designation, the OB-PUD zone, the Campus Commons PUD, and the Citywide Design Guidelines; b) promotes sustainable growth and change through urban infill development, and proposes a higher-density, compact housing type that diversifies the housing stock while being consistent with the key urban form characteristics of the ECMR designation and taking design cues from the adjacent Campus Commons community; c) increases public safety by upgrading pedestrian crosswalks, including ramps compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, at portions of the Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive intersection, and restriping/repairing existing sidewalks at the Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive intersection; d) contributes positively to the surrounding area by providing public safety surveillance with houses oriented toward Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive; and e) will not impact the integrity of any adopted historic districts or result in the loss of a landmark structure.

Financial Considerations: Not applicable.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): No goods or services are being purchased under this report.

Page 14 of 14 ends

BACKGROUND

This Background section of the report is intended to provide readers with a complete overview of the Contemporary Commons project. While the City Council’s review is limited to the appellant’s Tentative Map claims, staff has included analysis of all the requested entitlements, including the Site Plan and Design Review and Tree Permit that were approved by the Planning and Design Commission.

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Project Overview

The proposed project is located at 707 Commons Drive on a ±1.09 -acre parcel, north of the intersection of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road, within the Office

Business Low -Rise Mixed -Use (OB -PUD) zone and Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD). The project parcel is surrounded by office developments to the north and west and residential condominiums within the Campus Commons community to the west, east, and south. The project site contains an office building constructed in 1957 and mature landscaping, including 26 trees.

The applicant is requesting entitlements to demolish the existing office building and remove all trees to facilitate the construction of six, three -story, residential fourplexes resulting in a total of 24 dwelling units and asso ciated site improvements. A subdivision for condominium purposes is proposed to allow for individual ownership of each dwelling unit.

Figure 2: Zoning Map

Figure 3: Existing Conditions – Commons Drive

Figure 4: Existing Conditions – Campus Commons Road

Figure 5: Contemporary Commons Rendering – View from Commons Drive

Table 1: Project Information
General Plan Designation: Employment Center Mid-Rise (ECMR) Density: 18 – 60 du/ac | FAR: 0.25 – 2.0
Housing Element Inventory Site: No
Community Plan: Arden Arcade
Specific Plan: n/a
Zoning: Office Building Low-Rise Mixed-Use (OB-PUD)
Special Planning District: n/a
Planned Unit Development: Campus Commons
Design Review District: Campus Commons
Parking District: Urban
Historic Landmark: No
Historic District: No
Property Area: 47,691 square feet / 1.09 acres
Dwelling Units: 24
Density (du/ac): 22
Floors: 3
Height (ft): 31 (42 to top of roof)

Entitlement Review

The proposed project requests three entitlements, including a Tentative Map, Site Plan and Design Review, and Tree Permit. Director -level review is required for all three entitlements.

As previously stated, t he project was heard and approved by the Zoning Administrator and Design Director at a special Director Hearing on November 6, 2023. However, third- party appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s decision and Design Director’s decision were filed on November 16, 2023. On January 11, 2024, the Planning and Design Commission considered the appeal and approved the Class 32 (Infill Development) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Categorical Exemption, Tentative Map, Site Plan and Design Review, and Tree Permit, thereby denying the third-party appeal.

The third -party appellant has now appealed the Planning and Design Commission’s approval of the project to the City Council for review. B ecause this project has already been heard by the Zoning Administrator / Design Director and the Planning and Design Commission, the City Council’s review is limited to the Tentative Map entitlement. For informational purposes, staff has provided the previous analysis of the Site Plan and Design Review and Tree Permit entitlements.

Tentative Map

The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel for condominium purposes to allow for the individual airspace ownership of the 24 dwelling units within the six buildings. The existing parcel boundaries and lot configuration will not chan ge as part of the requested tentative map. The existing parcel and its proposed subdivision will maintain adequate access to the public street and available utility infrastructure and is sized to accommodate the requested development density and is free fr om constraints that would prohibit development of the parcel. The applicant will be required to form a privately funded maintenance district or homeowners’ association to ensure the maintenance of the utility systems, as well as record a maintenance agreem ent with the Sacramento County Clerk/Recorder to ensure maintenance of interior roadways and the fire protection system. There are no requested deviations to the standards that apply to the proposed map.

The proposed map was heard at the Subdivision Review Committee on August 15, 2023.

During the meeting, the proposed conditions of approval for the Tentative Map were accepted by the applicant and forwarded by the Committee. The resulting conditions are listed under Conditions of Approval.

Site Plan and Design Review

The purpose and intent of the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement is to ensure the project proposal complies with the relevant development standards established by the underlying zone, overlay, PUD, or special planning district. In addit ion, the entitlement ensures the horizontal and vertical design of the development is compatible and complementary to surrounding development and consistent with applicable design guidelines. Although each of the dwelling units will function in a manner similar to that of a single-unit dwelling, the applicable design guidelines for the project site are the Citywide Multi-Unit Dwelling Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines). Staff does note that many of the design principles established with the Citywide Single -Unit and Duplex Dwelling Design Guidelines are consistent with those of the Multi-Unit Design Guidelines.

Figure 6: Front Elevation – Style A

Figure 7: Front Elevation – Style B

Site and Building Design

The applicant is proposing to construct six, three -story residential fourplexes resulting in a total of 24 dwelling units and associated site improvements. Access to the project site is provided via a new drive way off Commons Drive, and an internal private driveway network would provide access to the proposed residential units, as well as branch off into a series of private alleys associated with the units. The proposed dwellings along Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive are oriented to have street -facing front doors with rear garage access, providing activation along these two public roadways. The remaining fourplex dwellings are oriented in a grid -like pattern with front entries facing internal shared paseos and driveways and garages located in the rear off the shared drive aisles.

The homes along Campus Commons Road are proposed and Commons Drives create a rhythm of massing and open space, with greater spacing between the proposed buildings to allow for pedestrian connections from the internal paseos to public rights-of-way.

Each residential fourplex contains two, three -story unit types (Plan A & B). Plan A is an 1,866 square foot, two-bedroom unit with a two-car tandem garage and Plan B is a 2,698 square foo t, three -bedroom unit with a standard two -car garage and ground floor office/den that can be converted into an optional studio. Each building contains two Plan A and Plan B unit types, and all units feature second floor balconies which provides for activation and visibility of interior paseo walkways and along Campus Commons and Commons Drives.

Campus Commons PUD

PUDs are development guided by a total design plan in which one or more of the zoning regulations, other than use regulations, may be waived or varied to allow flexibility and creativity in site and building design and location. SCC chapter 17.452 establishes general criteria for the adoption of PUDs, including requirements that PUDs establish a schematic plan and development guidelines. A property located within a PUD is subject to the requirements of the schematic plan and development guidelines adopted for the PUD in addition to the underlying zone of the property. The schematic plan and development guidelines for a PUD may modify the underlyin g zoning regulations to establish specific design standards (e.g., setback requirements, height limits, etc.), sign programs, density standards; however, uses are determined by the underlying zone. The Campus Commons PUD was established in 1965 and predates current PUD regulations and does not establish the same standards/guidelines found in more contemporary PUDs. However, compliance with applicable provisions of the PUD are required regardless of the PUD’s age.

PUD History and Applicability

The Campus Commons PUD was originally adopted in 1965 and did not establish guidelines or development standards. Instead, a general design concept was adopted which indicated relatively few parcel boundaries to promote the development of different types of environments through a more flexible application of standard zoning regulations.

In 1969 the PUD was amended to adopt a revised schematic plan that identified a more conventional development pattern, with proposed and existing uses identified parcel by parcel to guide the development of the PUD. However, no development standards were established as part of this PUD amendment.

In 1971 and 1974, the PUD guidelines were amended to establish consistent landscaping and setback standards for developments along Fair Oaks Boulevard as the City had deemed it desirable to develop major entrance s into the City with aesthetically pleasing and functional landscaping. The proposed PUD amendments established unified setback, landscaping, grading, plant material, irrigation, and maintenance standards for properties along Fair Oaks Boulevard between Ho we Avenue and the H Street Bridge; however, these standards do not apply to portions of the PUD outside this specific area. As such, these development standards do not apply to the proposed project.

In 1986, 1987, and 2019, the PUD guidelines were amende d to establish and (subsequently) revise sign regulations for properties within the PUD. It is noted that the applicant is not proposing signage. As such, these development standards do not apply to the proposed project.

Schematic Plan & Development Guidelines

The Schematic Plan for the PUD identifies the site as a location for an “OB” land use. The existing building was previously used as an office, a use permitted by right within the OB zone. Multi-unit dwellings are also identified as a use permitted by right within the OB zone as such the proposed project is consistent with the PUD.

As outlined above, no specific development standards or guidelines have been adopted for the Campus Commons PUD that apply to the project site. In the absence of specific development standards or design guidelines, the standards of the underlying OB zone and the Citywide Design Guidelines are applied.

Design Guidelines

The purpose of the Citywide Design Guidelines is to encourage consistent design while allowing for v ariety, innovation, and for residential structures that will improve the character of neighborhoods by making them more attractive and inviting places to live while maintaining visual interest and a sense of place. Understanding context is crucial to the conception and development of a project's design. Context is the character of the physical environment of a project site, which includes the scale, massing and architectural style of adjacent buildings while considering larger issues around technology, sustainability and regional character. A design may respond to context by 1) emulating a specific architectural style that may exist in a neighborhood; 2) re -interpreting existing building through the use of proportion, form, features, rooflines, massing, and detail; or 3) intentionally contrasting with existing buildings/neighborhoods to facilitate emerging design ideas or new technology to contribute to the diversity and interest of a neighborhood.

Staff find that the proposed buildings are consistent with the Design Guidelines as the proposed development takes design cues from the adjacent Campus Commons community by incorporating grey and dark grey wood -like siding into the building design while also updating the homes with stone brick, contemporary railin g and awnings, and stucco. The applicant proposes two color palette options for the project (Style A and Style B), which are both generally earth toned and neutral with warm-toned accents emulating the color palette of the neighboring community. The proposed buildings also incorporate both gable and hip roof designs re-interpreting the gable and roof forms found throughout the existing neighborhood, with the corners implementing a gable roof and interior units implementing a hip roof to break up the massing of the overall buildings. The design of the homes are also consistent with the Design Guidelines as the proposed buildings 1) offer variation in materials used, including the use of varied materials and colors for the wainscoting, the use of gable roofs; 2) incorporate porches which encourage a sense of community and attractively identify entry features; 3) attached garages are located at the rear of homes thereby reducing their visual impact; and 4) HVAC units are conditioned to be ground-mounted and screened from street and pedestrian views.

Development Standards

The OB -PUD zone establishes prescriptive development standards applicable to the proposed residential development, including height maximums, density regulations, setback requirements, and gene rally applicable development standards. A s shown in Table 1, the proposed dwelling unit designs comply with applicable development standards except for rear-yard setback regulations. The rationale for the deviation request is discussed below.

The site is located within the Urban parking district and is located greater than 0.5 miles of a light rail station and outside of areas subject to Assembly Bill 2097. Pursuant to SCC section 17.608.030.B, multi-unit dwellings are required to provide on-site vehicle parking at a ratio of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit or a total of 12 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide 48 parking stalls within a two-car garage located within each dwelling unit. Pursuant to SCC section 17.608.030.C, multi-unit dwellings with private garages are required to provide short -term bicycle parking at a ratio of 0.1 spaces per 10 dwelling units or a minimum of two spaces. The project has been conditioned to provide two spaces. No long-term bicycle parking is required.

Pursuant to SCC section 17.600.135, multi -unit dwellings are required to provide a combination of private and common open space at a ratio of 100 square feet per dwelling unit or a total of 2,400 square feet. The applicant is proposing to provide 3,360 square feet of open space located throughout the project site outside of setback areas via balconies, patios, and paseo areas between units.

Table 1: Development Standards
Required Project Site
Proposed Deviation
Setbacks
(ft)
Front-Yard
(Campus Commons Road) None 8.5 – 15.0 no
Street Side-Yard
(Commons Drive) None 8.0 – 10.9 no
Interior Side-Yard
(west) 5 5 no
Rear-Yard
(east) 15 5 – 30 yes
Height (ft) (max) 35 31 no
Lot Coverage (%) None 40 no
Density (du/ac) 36 22 -
Open Space (sq ft) 2,400 3,360 no
Parking
Vehicle 12 48 -
Bicycle – Long-Term 0 0 -
Bicycle – Short-Term 2 2 -

Deviations – Setbacks

SCC section 17.216.130.D.2 establishes applicable setbacks that include: no front -yard and street -side yard setback, a five -foot interior -side yard, and a 15 -foot rear -yard setback. As proposed, the project would setback the buildings 8.5 to 15 feet from t he front-yard (Campus Commons Drive), eight to 10.9 feet from the street side -yard (Commons Road), five feet from the interior side-yard (northern property line), and five to 30 feet from the rear-yard (eastern property line). As portions of the rear-yard setback are less than 15 feet, a deviation is being requested.

The purpose and intent of rear -yard setbacks include a desire to provide open space, separation for privacy, and to allow for access to light and air between structures. Staff supports the proposed deviation as the rear yard lot line abuts an existing private driveway that currently serves the project site and the adjacent residential development to the east.

While the driveway w ill no longer be utilized by the proposed development, it will be retained for continued use by the adjacent development and will not be converted to open space for the adjacent development. As proposed, the project would provide between a five- and 15 -foot rear -yard setback along eastern property line that abut the private driveway and a rear -yard setback between 15 and 30 feet for the portions north of the driveway. As such, the proposed setbacks of five to 15 feet meets the purpose and intent of the setb ack standard since the development would not disturb neighbor privacy or hamper access to light and air along portions of the site that abut the driveway.

Demolition Review

SCC section 17.108.090 defines “demolition” of any structure 50 years old or old er as either the complete demolition of the structures or the partial demolition of the structure that would remove an aggerate of 50 or more linear feet of exterior wall or more than 50% of the building’s footprint. As proposed, the project would require the complete demolition of an existing two-story office building constructed between 1965 and 1966. The 57-year- old office building is not currently listed on the California register of Historic Places (CRHR) or as a landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (Sacramento Register). Per SCC section 17.604.600, the proposed demolition of the building shall be referred to the Preservation Director to make the determination of whether the office building is eligible for consideration for listing on the Sacramento Register the eligibility criteria and requirements specified in SCC section 17.604.210. It is noted that the Preservation Director meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for history and architectural history.

Staff received two historic resource evaluation reports for 707 Commons Drive prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants and Historic Environmental Consultants . The reports disagree on the building’s potential eligibility for listing on the CRHR or Sacramento Register as an individual landmark. Neither report evaluates the building’s potential eligibility as a contributing resource to a potential Campus Commons h istoric district.

As the City’s historic preservation specialist, the Preservation Director, has reviewed both reports and all public comments submitted as part of the project and concluded the building at 707 Commons Drive does not meet the qualificatio ns for listing on the CRHR or Sacramento Register as either an individual landmark or a contributing resource to a potential Campus Commons historic district and is not a historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Figure 8: Campus Commons rendering, published in the Sacramento Bee in 1965.

Potential Historic Significance of Campus Commons

Campus Commons is a 680-acre planned unit development that was first identified in the Sacramento’s Mid -Century Modern Context Statement (2016) as being potentially significant an early example of residential cluster planning in Sacramento and the design of master architect Charles Warren Callister. Campus Commons began to emerge in the late 1960s, and was described by the Sacramento Bee in 1965, as incorporating “key features of the land use pattern in the new development will be the clustering of homes to provide open land – the ‘commons’ – for recreation and park purposes, the sculpturing of the now -level land and the provision of separate but linked residential areas for childless adults, young families with children, families with older children and stu dents.” This site planning concept can be seen in the way the development emerged, and thrives today, with clusters of residential development surrounding landscaped open space (Figure 8) in a unique land use pattern that has become popular in modern subdi vision and apartment building design. One important benefit to residential cluster development was that the PUD allowed higher density, which would not be allowed by the underlying zone. The need for increased housing options during this period was being d riven by white flight out of urban cores and the baby boom caused by the war’s end.

While several public comments related to the proposed project at 707 Commons Drive indicate the potential eligibility of Campus Commons as a historic district, no comprehensive historic resource study exists of the 608-acre development. With the lack of a historic resource evaluation staff has analyzed the historic context presented within the SWCA and HEC historic evaluations and concluded the potential significance of th e Campus Commons development is related to the residential cluster development and the landscape design influenced by Callister. No buildings in the development would qualify on their own as individual landmarks. Rather the individual contributing building s draw their significance from the residential cluster and landscape design that exemplifies this unique development and the work of Callister. This residential cluster development was cutting edge at the time and makes the potential Campus Commons historic district likely eligible under SCC sections 17.604.210.1.b.i and ii and CRHR Criteria A and C. Criteria i and A relate to a concentration of buildings that are unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development. In this case Campus C ommons appears to be a cohesive PUD that exemplifies the planning concepts that were popular during the period, including ideas about separating residential from other land uses and designing residential developments into a landscape plan that connects res idents with nature.

Criteria ii and B relate to the architectural design of a master architect, in this case Callister. Both historic evaluations go into great detail about Callister and his significance.

The work of Callister on Campus Commons residential cluster design and landscape planning is clearly evident and should rightly be considered an excellent example of Callister’s work. For these reasons Campus Commons appears eligible for listing on the Sacramento Register and the CRHR as a historic distric t. Neither historical evaluation goes on to evaluate the district for individual contributing and non-contributing resources or landscape elements. Rather both focus on the individual attributes of 707 Commons Drive. However, the potential significance of any individual contributing building in the development cannot be accurately understood without evaluation in context of the potential significance and character defining features of Campus Commons as a whole.

Historic Eligibility of 707 Commons Drive

The building at 707 Commons Drive does not merit listing as an individual landmark on the CRHR or Sacramento Register. The SWCA report goes into detail to describe how the building lacks individual significance as landmark under any of the significance criteria on the CRHR or Sacramento Register and staff supports that conclusion. While the HEC report makes an argument in favor of historic landmark eligibility, it largely reiterates the information provided in the SWCA report while citing observations provid ed by area resident Carr Kunze without providing significant new information about why 707 Commons Drive should be considered individually eligible. The strongest argument for potential landmark eligibility is the building’s design by Callister who is nati onally known as a master architect. However, after reviewing Callister’s architectural works, including the two historically eligible buildings cited in the HEC report, Callister is clearly best known for his residential architecture. The building at 707 C ommons Drive is not a remarkable example of Callister’s work, lacking individual architectural elements that would make it a good example of the Second or Third Bay Tradition architecture or a good example of Callister’s architectural portfolio.

As described in the SEC report, 707 Commons Drive is a long rectangle with a side gable roof and two primary facades. The façade facing Commons Drive is interrupted by a large utility building. The Commons Drive elevation is set well back from the street, making the hipped roof utility building the most prominent element on this facade. Facing the large parking lot to the north, there is a pergola that runs the length of the building and is accessed by stairs from the parking lot. The ground floor has large aluminu m window units from floor to ceiling across the majority of the façade, with a mix of stucco and vertical groove siding. Nearly all of these architectural features and site planning differ from the elements found throughout the rest of Campus Commons.

The clusters of residences in Campus Commons are condominium units that share common open space between interconnected clusters of residences. The residential clusters are at the heart of the potential district because they are clearly united aesthetically by plan and physical development and share similar massing and design elements. No individual cluster is significant on its own but taken together the clusters represent the height of Callister’s residential cluster design and planning. These clusters dominate the Campus Commons landscape and are the key contributing elements to a potential historic district. Other contributing elements include the designed landscaped open space and curvilinear streets. Without a more detailed historic district landscape analysis, it is difficult to identify all potential contributing elements within a potential district, but those elements would not include any buildings or landscape elements outside the potential district boundaries.

National Register guidance on creating historic districts, states that boundaries should “define the limits of the eligible resources…exclude additional, peripheral areas that do not directly contribute to the property’s significance” (National Register Bulletin on Defining Boundaries). This g uidance encourages district boundaries to be drawn to include the residential cluster development in the center of Campus Commons, while excluding the commercial areas on the periphery that are larger in scale with site planning dominated by surface parkin g lots, rather than interconnected paths, berms, water features, and plantings found at the heart of the district. While drawing boundaries of a potential Campus Commons historic district would require additional study, qualified preservation staff has vis ited the site several times to confirm the commercial buildings do not possess the features and characteristics necessary to convey the district’s potential historic significance and would be outside the district’s boundaries.

Conclusion

Campus Commons appears to be a potential historic district that is eligible for listing on the CHRH and Sacramento register. However, 707 Commons Drive does not share the aesthetic or historical qualities that make the district significant. Specifically, the significance of Campus Commons is: 1) the residential cluster design and landscape planning, and 2) the work of master planner and architect Charles Warren Callister. The building at 707 Commons Drive is located on the periphery of the potential district, and therefore, federal guidelines on drawing district boundaries would require district boundaries to exclude 707 Commons Drive and other commercial buildings located on the periphery of the district. Since 707 Commons Drive is not a listed or eligible historical resource, the Preservation Director has concluded the building does not represent a historical resource for the purposes of SCC section 17.604.600 (demolition of buildings or structures 50 years old or older) or CEQA. The Preservation Director does not oppose demolition of the structure on historical or environmental grounds.

Tree Permit

Pursuant to SCC chapter 12.56, the removal of private protected trees requires a Tree Permit entitlement. According to the arborist report prepared by CalTLC and related exhibits, this project proposes to remove ten private protected trees with an aggregate diameter standard height (DSH) of 398 inches, as follows:
 Tree #3415 – a 31-inch DSH flowering cherry;
 Tree #3416 – a 41-inch DSH linden;
 Tree #3417 – a 77-inch DSH coast redwood;
 Tree #3418 – a 52-inch DSH silver maple;
 Tree #3419 – a 32-inch DSH liquidambar;
 Tree #3420 – a 32-inch DSH liquidambar;
 Tree #3421 – a 24-inch DSH liquidambar;
 Tree #3422 – a 27-inch DSH liquidambar;
 Tree #3423 – a 27-inch DSH liquidambar; and
 Tree #3426 – a 55-inch DSH redwood.

The trees are proposed for removal because they conflict with building placement and associated grading and construction.

The replacement of 83 inches DSH is waived for tree conditions including uncorr ectable structural defects, according to the arborist report. The applicant has provided a replacement plan that is consistent with the replacement requirements described in tree ordinance that includes the new planting of (22) 36 -inch box landscape and street trees, the replacement equivalent of 66 inches DSH, and the remaining replacement requirement of 249 inches DSH met with the payment of in-lieu fees, payable at $325 per inch DSH removed, totaling $80,925.00, to be deposited to the Tree Planting and Replacement Fund.

RESOLUTION NO.

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
Date Adopted

ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING
THE CONTEMPORARY COMMONS PROJECT (Z22-079)
707 Commons Drive (295-0402-015)

BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO:

BACKGROUND

A. On October 12, 2022, Bardis & Miry Development, submitted a development application for Contemporary Commons (Z22 -079). The application included a request for a Tentative Map, Site Plan and Design Review, and Tree Permit (Project).

B. On August 15, 2023, the Tentative Map was reviewed and considered by the Subdivision Review Committee, pursuant to Sacramento City Code (SCC) section

17.828.080, and forwarded a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator a recommendation to approve the Project.

C. On October 26, 2023, a public hearing with the Zoning Administrator and Design Director, for which notice was given pursuant to SCC chapter 17.812, was scheduled; however, the Project was subsequently withdrawn from the agenda to be rescheduled.

D. On November 6, 2023, the Zoning Administrator and Design Director conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant to SCC chapter 17.812; received and considered evidence concerning the Project; and upon its conclusion approved with conditions the Project.

E. Pursuant to SCC sections 12.56.070.B, 17.808.140, and 17.812.060, the decisions of the Zoning Administrator and Design Director may be appealed to the Planning and Design Commission.

F. On November 16, 2023, Carr Kunze submitted a third -party appeal of the Zoning Administrator and Design Director decisions relating to the Project.

G. On January 11, 2024, the Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant to SCC chapter 17.812; received and considered evidence concerni ng the Project, and upon its conclusion approved with conditions the Project, thereby denying the third-party appeal.

H. Pursuant to SCC sections 12.56.070.B and 17.812.060.A.2 the Planning and Design Commission’s decision on Site Plan and Design Review and Tree Permit are not subject to further appeals. Pursuant to SCC sections 17.812.060.A.2 and

17.812.060.D, the Planning and Design Commission’s decision on the Tentative Map may be appealed to the City Council.

I. On January 22, 2024, Carr Kunze submitted a t hird-party appeal of the Planning and Design Commission decision relating to the Tentative Map.

J. On June 18, 2024, the City Council conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant to SCC chapter 17.812, and received and considered evidence concerning the Project.

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

Section 1. Based on the verbal and documentary evidence received at the hearing on the Project, the City Council approves the Project entitlements, thereby denying the third- party appeal, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval as set forth below.

Section 2. The City Council approves the Project entitlements based on the following Findings of Fact:

A. Environmental Determination: Based on the determination and recommendation of the City’s Environmental Planning Services Manager and the oral and documentary evidence received at the hearing on the project, the City Council finds that:

1. The existing structures do not m eet the significance criteria for the listing on the California Register of Historic Places or as a Landmark in the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources, and the structure is not a historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5.a.2.

2. That the project is exempt from the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332, Infill Development Projects (Ca tegorical Exemption – Class 32) and finds as follows:

a. The project is consistent with the Employment Center Mid Rise (ECMR) General Plan designation, the Office Business Low-Rise Mixed-Use (OB- PUD) zone, and the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD).

b. The project site is in the city limits on a site that is less than five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses.

c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

d. The project would have no significant effect on traffic, noise, air, or water quality because the project is consistent with the standards of the ECMR General Plan designation, the OB-PUD zone, and the Campus Commons PUD.

e. The site is adequately served with all urban services and utilities and will have adequate access including emergency vehicle access.

3. Therefore, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and no further CEQA analysis is required.

B. The Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.09 -acre parcel for condominium purposes resulting in 24 airspace dwelling units within six fourplex buildings within the Office Business Low -Rise Mixed -Use (OB -PUD) zone and the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD) is approved subject to the following Findings of Fact:

1. None of the conditions described in Sacramento City Code (SCC) section

17.828.090 and Government Code section 66474 exist with respect to the proposed subdivision as follows:

a. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan, all applicable community and spe cific plans, Title 17 of the City Code, and all other applicable provisions of the City Code;

b. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, all applicable community and specific plans, Title 17 of the City Cod e, and all other applicable provisions of the City Code as conditioned;

c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development;

d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development;

e. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;

f. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; and

g. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

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

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

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

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

C. The 200-Year Flood Protection. The project site is within an area for which the local flood -management agency has made adequate progress (as defined in California Government Code section 65007) on the construction of a flood - protection system that, for the area intended to be protecte d by the system, will result in flood protection equal to or greater than the urban level of flood protection in urban areas for property located within a flood -hazard zone, as demonstrated by the SAFCA Urban Level of Flood Protection Plan and Adequate Pro gress Baseline Report and the SAFCA Adequate Progress Toward an Urban Level of Flood Protection Engineer’s Report, each accepted by the City Council on June 21, 2016 (Resolution No. 2016 -0226), and the SAFCA 2023 Adequate Progress Annual Report accepted by the City Council on October 24, 2023 (Resolution No. 2023-0337).

Section 3. The City Council approves the Project entitlements subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

B. The Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.09 -acre parcel for condominium purposes resulting in 24 airspace dwelling units within six fourplex buildings within the OB - PUD zone and the Campus Commons PUD is approved subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

General

B1. Pursuant to City Code Section 17.500.190, indicate easements on the Final Map to allow for the placement of centralized mail delivery units. The specific locations for such easements shall be subject to review and approval of the Department of Public Works after consultation with the U.S.

Postal Service.

B2. Private recipro cal ingress, egress, and maneuvering easements are required for future development of the area covered by this Tentative Map.

B3. Meet all conditions of the existing PUD unless the condition is superseded by a Tentative Map condition.

B4. Show all continuing and proposed/required easements on the Parcel Map.

Environmental

B5. In the event that archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during construction, work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease until a notice to proceed is issued by the City. The applicant shall notify the City of Sacramento Manager of Environmental Planning Services (phone 311 or (916) 799 -1531; email [email protected]) and shall comply with City direction, and federal and State regulations and guidelines regarding the treatment of cultural resources and human remains. The Coroner shall be n otified in the event human remains are discovered; the applicant shall be responsible for the employment of a qualified archaeologist to advise regarding treatment of any artifacts.

B6. The project applicant shall conduct any tree removal activities required for project construction outside of the migratory bird and raptor breeding season (February 1 through August 31) where feasible. All trees slated for removal during the nesting season shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than 48-hours before removal to ensure that no nesting birds are occupying the tree.

B7. For any construction activities that will occur between February 1 and August 31, the applicant shall employ a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys in suitable nesting hab itat on or near the construction area for nesting raptors and migratory birds. If the biologist determines that construction may occur without impacting the breeding effort, the nest(s) shall be monitored by the biologist during construction. If the biologist concludes that the project would impact the nest, construction activities will cease until the nest is no longer active. Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by the biologist.

B8. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Basic Construction Emission Control Practices apply and compliance is required.

See www.airquality.org. Other air district rules may apply and the air district should be consulted.

Public Works

B9. Construct standard subdivision improvements as noted in these conditions pursuant to section 17.504.050 of the City Code. Any public improvement not specifically noted in these conditions or on the Tentative Map shall be designed and constructed to City standards. This shall include the repair or replacement/reconstruction of any existing deteriorated curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the subject property along Campus Commons Drive and Commons Drive per City standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

B10. The applicant shall install ADA compliant curb ramps at the northern corner of the intersection of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Drive per City standards and to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

B11. This project will requ ire the installation of streetlights on all public streets fronting this property to the satisfaction of Public Works. The number and locations of these lights will be determined when development plans are submitted for review.

B12. Construct a standard drivew ay along Commons Drive per City standards and to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

B13. Design private roads to meet the City standards regarding structural section. Private roads shall be inspected to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

B14. The applicant shall provide a signing and striping improvement plan if new signage or striping is proposed; or if existing signing and/or striping is removed or relocated. The plans shall be to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

B15. Form a Homeowner's Association (HOA). CC&R's shall be approved by the City and recorded assuring maintenance of private roads, common areas and common landscaping.

B16. The applicant shall satisfy all conditions of approval for the proposed abandonment.

B17. The Parcel Map shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the abandonments.

SMUD

B18. SMUD has existing underground 12kV facilities along Commons Drive that will need to remain. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all CalOSHA and State of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 128 safety clearances during construction and upon building completion. If the required clearances cannot be maintained, the Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of relocation.

B19. Structural setbacks less than 14-feet shall require the Applicant to conduct a pre-engineering meeting with all utilities to ensure property clearances are maintained.

B20. Any necessary future SMUD facilities located on the Applicant’s property shall require a dedicated SMUD easement. This will be determined prior to SMUD performing work on the Applicant’s property.

B21. In the event the Applicant requires the relocation or removal of existing SMUD facilities on or adjacent to the subject property, the Applicant shall coordinate with SMUD. The Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of relocation or removal.

B22. SMUD reserves the right to use any portion of its easements on or adjacent to the subject property that it reasonably needs and shall not be responsible for any damages to the developed property within said easement that unreasonably interferes with those needs.

B23. The Applicant shall comply with SMUD siting requirements (e.g., panel size/location, clearances from SMUD equipment, transformer location, service conductors). Information regarding SMUD siting requirements can be found at: https://www.smud.org/en/Business-Solutions-and- Rebates/Design-and-Construction-Services.

B24. The Applicant shall locate, verify, and provide a drawing to SMUD identifying all electrical utility infrastructure for the existing structures. If necessary, any existing onsite electrical infrastructure that serves existing structures shall be relocated to the satisfaction of SMUD.

B25. The Applicant shall dedicate any private drive, ingress and egress easement, (and the area between the building foundation and the 24' private drive) as a public utility easement for underground facilities and appurtenances. All access roads shall meet minimum SMUD requirements for access roads.

B26. The Applicant shall not place any building foundations within 5 -feet of any SMUD trench to maintain adequate trench integrity. The Applicant shall verify specific clearanc e requirements for other utilities (e.g., Gas, Telephone, etc.).

B27. The Applicant shall dedicate the Landscape Area or the common area as a public utility easement for underground facilities and appurtenances, except for those areas where structures or pools are located. The Applicant shall dedicate the Landscape Area or the common area as a public utility easement for underground facilities and appurtenances, except for those areas where structures or pools are located.

B28. The Applicant shall dedicate and prov ide all-weather vehicular access for service vehicles that are up to 26,000 pounds. At a minimum: (a) the drivable surface shall be 20 -feet wide; and (b) all SMUD underground equipment and appurtenances shall be within 15 -feet from the drivable surface.

Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD or SacSewer)

B29. Prior to the APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS: To obtain sewer service, construction of SacSewer sewer infrastructure will be required.

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

B30. Prior to the APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS: SacSewer requires each building on each lot with a sewage source to have a separate connection to SacSewer’s sewer system. If there is more than one building in any single parcel and the parcel is not proposed fo r split, then each building on that parcel must have a separate connection to a private onsite sewer line or a separate connection to the SacSewer public sewer line.

These improvements must be shown on the plans.

B31. Prior to the ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: The owner must contact Permit Services Unit at [email protected] or by phone at (916) 876-6100 to determine if sewer impact fees are due. Fees are to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.

B32. Prior to DISTRICT SIGN -OFF ON THE TENTATIV E PARCEL MAP: the existing and/or proposed sewer lines must be shown on a utility plan or the improvement plans. All onsite sewer plans and offsite sewer plans must be submitted separately to SacSewer for review and approval.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San)

B33. Prior to the ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: The owner must contact the Regional San Permit Services Unit at [email protected] or by phone at (916) 876 -6100 to determine if sewer impact fees are due.

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

Utilities (DOU)

B34. All existing easements and all existing right-of-ways shall be shown on the Final Map, except for all abandoned easements and right-of-ways.

B35. Per City Code Section, 13.04.070, multipl e water service to a single lot or parcel may be allowed if approved by DOU Development Review and Operations and Maintenance staff. Any new water services (other than fire) shall be metered. Excess services shall be abandoned to the satisfaction of the DOU. (Note: Only one metered domestic water service is allowed per parcel. Submetering will be required for multi -family residential construction.)

B36. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of improvement plans, prepare a project specific water study for review and approval by the DOU. The water distribution system shall be designed to satisfy the more critical of the two following conditions: (1) at maximum day peak hour demand, the operating or "residual" pressure at all water service connections shall b e at least 30 pounds per square inch, (2) at average maximum day demand plus fire flow, the operating or "residual" pressure in the area of the fire shall not be less than 20 pounds per square inch. The water study shall determine if the existing and proposed water distribution system is adequate to supply fire flow demands for the project. A water supply test may be required for this project. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Sacramento Utilities Department Development Review Section (916 -808-7890) at the early planning stages to address any water related requirements. Failure to submit the water study may delay review and approval.

B37. Common area landscaping shall have a separate street tap for a metered irrigation service.

B38. Public water or dra inage mains will not be allowed within the proposed private drive aisles and private open spaces.

B39. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the building permit application, the applicant shall prepare a project specific drainage study meeting the criteria specified in the current Onsite Design Manual and/or the Design and Procedures Manual, for review and approval by the DOU. Per the current DOU Onsite Design Manual, either a static or dynamic analysis for mitigating sizing and drainage system design may be used. Using the static analysis and per the DOU onsite project storage method, an estimated 5,400 cubic feet of detention must be provided per each additional acre of impervious area. The maximum discharge rate must be limited to an estimated 0.29 cfs /acre. The drainage study shall be consistent with the latest Basin 95 drainage model for the project area. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Sacramento Utilities Department Development Review Section (916 -808-7890) at the early planning stag es to address any drainage related requirements. Failure to submit the drainage study may delay review and approval. (Note: A maintenance agreement may be required for detention and Low Impact Development (LID) features.)

B40. The onsite water and storm drain system shall be private systems maintained by the homeowner association (HOA) or other approved entity.

B41. All on-site drainage systems shall be designed to the standards specified in the DOU onsite design manual.

B42. Prior to the initiation of any water or storm drainage services to the project, a homeowner association (HOA) or a privately funded maintenance district shall be formed and C.C. & R.s shall be approved by the City and recorded assuring maintenance of water and storm drainage facilities within the private property. Private easements shall be dedicated for these facilities.

The CC&Rs must provide that the City -approved provisions regarding water, surface and subsurface storm drainage facilities may not be revised without City consent. The responsible maintenance agency shall enter into and record an agreement with the City regarding the maintenance of these facilities. The agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the DOU and the City Attorney.

B43. Finished floor elevations shall be a minimum of six -inches above the 100 - year HGL or one-foot above the overland flow release elevation, whichever is higher or as approved by the DOU.

B44. Per City Code, the applicant may not develop the project in any way that obstructs, impedes, or interferes with the natural flow of existing off -site drainage that crosses the property. The project shall construct the required public and/or private infrastructure to handle off-site runoff to the satisfaction of the DOU. If private infrastructure is constructed to handle off -site runoff, the applicant shall dedicate the required private easements, and/or, at the discretion of the DOU, the applicant shall enter into and record an Agreement for Maintenance of Drainage with the City, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

B45. The lot s hall be graded so that drainage does not cross property line or private drainage easements shall be dedicated.

B46. A grading plan showing existing and proposed elevations is required.

Adjacent off-site topography shall also be shown to the extent necessary to determine impacts to existing surface drainage paths. No grading shall occur until the grading plan has been reviewed and approved by the DOU.

B47. This project will disturb more than one acre of land; therefore, the project is required to comply with the Sta te’s “Construction General Permit”. To comply with the State Permit, the applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) through the State’s Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). A valid WDID number must be obtained and provide d to the DOU prior to the issuance of any grading permits.

B48. The applicant must comply with the City of Sacramento's Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. This ordinance requires the applicant to show erosion and sediment control methods on the construction drawings.

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

B49. Post construction (permanent), stormwater quality control measures shall be incorporated into the development to mi nimize the increase of urban runoff pollution caused by development of the area. The project is in an area not served by an existing regional water quality control facility. However, the project has less than one -acre of new or modified impervious area, therefore, only source control, and certified full capture trash control devices are required. Improvement plans must include the measures selected for the site. Refer to latest edition of the “Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento Region” Chap ter 4 for appropriate source control measures and Appendix H for full capture trash control devices.

B50. A maintenance agreement is required for all on-site full capture trash control systems. Contact DOU for a list of accepted proprietary devices if considered for full capture trash control. Construction drawings must include all on -site full capture trash control features and devices selected for the site. Please refer to Appendix H in the latest edition of the “Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacra mento Region” for more details.

Fire

B51. Maintenance agreements shall be provided for the interior roadways of the proposed complex and for the fire protection systems. The agreement shall be record with the Public Recorders Office having jurisdiction and sh all provide for the following:

a. Provisions for the necessary repair and maintenance of the roadway surface.

b. Removal of vegetation overgrowing the roadway and infringing on the roadway clear vertical height of thirteen feet six inches (13’6”) and/or width of twenty feet (20’).

c. Provisions for the maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of NO PARKING-FIRE LANE signage or striping.

d. Provisions for the necessary repair and maintenance of vehicle and pedestrian access gates and opening systems.

e. Unrestricted use of and access to the roadways covered by the agreements.

f. Provisions for the control of vehicle parking in prohibited areas and a mechanism for the removal of vehicles illegally parked.

g. Maintenance and timely repair of all fire protection systems, inc luding but not limited to hydrants, fire alarm systems and fire sprinklers.

Parks

B52. Payment of In -lieu Park Fee. Pursuant to SCC chapter 17.512 (Parkland Dedication) the applicant shall pay to City an in-lieu park fee in the amount determined under SCC sec tions 17.512.030 and 17.512.040 equal to the value of land prescribed for dedication under 17.512.020 and not satisfied by dedication. (See Advisory Note).

B53. Maintenance District. The applicant shall initiate and complete the formation of a parks maintenance district (assessment or Mello -Roos special tax district) or annex the project into an existing parks maintenance district. The applicant shall pay all city fees for formation of or annexation to a parks maintenance district. (Contact Infrastructure Finance, Jessica Steinhauer, (916) 808-8243).

Advisory Notes

ADV.B1. General. If unusual amounts of bone, stone, or artifacts are uncovered, work, in the area within the distance required by federal and state regulations, will cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to develop, if necessary, further mitig ation measures to reduce any archaeological impact to a less than significant effect before construction resumes. A note shall be placed on the final improvement plans referencing this condition.

ADV.B2. SacSewer. ONGOING: Public lower laterals must not be smalle r than the upper laterals, sized according the California Plumbing Code requirements.

ADV.B3. SacSewer. ONGOING: All onsite sewer plans and offsite sewer plans must be submitted separately to SacSewer for review and approval.

ADV.B4. SacSewer. ONGOING: SacSewer will pr ovide additional Conditions of Approval when it is requested at a later date.

ADV.B5. Regional San. The Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) is responsible for providing local sewer service to the proposed project site via their local sanitary sewer collection system. Regional San is responsible for the conveyance of wastewater from the SacSewer collection system to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP). SacSewer will respond via separate correspondence.

ADV.B6. Utilities. The proposed p roject is located in a Zone X on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Accordingly, the project site lies in an area with no requirements to elevate or flood proof.

ADV.B7. Utilities. The proposed development is located within Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD). Satisfy all SASD requirements.

ADV.B8. Utilities. Water meters shall be located at the point of service, which is back of curb for separated sidewalks, back of walk for connected sidewalks.

ADV.B9. Utilities. As of January 1, 2018, all new multi -family residential construction will require sub -metering of each residential unit pursuant to all requirements found in California Senate Bill 7 (SB7). These requirements at a minimum include installing sub meters, billing for water based on the sub meters, and long -term calibration and maintenance of the sub meter. The SB7 requirements are the responsibility of the property owner.

ADV.B10. Parks. As per City Code, the applicant will be responsible to meet his/her obligations regarding:

a. Title 17, 17.512 Park Dedication / In Lieu (Quimby) Fees, due prior to recordation of the final map. The Quimby fee due for this project is estimated at $25,992. This is based on the creation of 24 new parcels at an average land value of $95,000 per acre for the Arden Arcade Community Plan Area, plus an additional 20% for off -site park infrastructure improvements. Any change in these factors will change the amount of the Quimby fee due. The final fee is calculated using factors at the time of payment. The fee is due at the time of the final map.

b. Title 18, 18.56 Park Development Impact Fee, due at the time of issuance of building permit. The Park Development Impact Fee due for this project is estimated at $67,119. The Park Development Impact Fee due for this project is based on the Remainder Zone rate of $3.39 per square foot for residential projects, with a minimum rate of $2,549 for units under 750 square feet and a maximum of $6,797 for units over 2,000 square feet. The applicant would likely receive credit for the demolition of any existing structures. Any change in these factors will change the amount of the PIF due. The fee is calculated using factors at the time that the project is submitted for building permit.

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

Section 4. Exhibit A is part of this resolution.

Table of Contents:

Exhibit A: Tentative Map

W
E
E
E
D
W
E
E
E
D
D D
D
LOT A24,183± S.F.

UNIT 13898± S.F.UNIT 14696± S.F.UNIT 15696± S.F.UNIT 16898± S.F.

UNIT 12898± S.F.UNIT 11696± S.F.UNIT 10696± S.F.UNIT 9898± S.F.

UNIT 5898± S.F.UNIT 6696± S.F.UNIT 7696± S.F.UNIT 8898± S.F.

UNIT 4898± S.F.UNIT 3696± S.F.UNIT 2696± S.F.UNIT 1898± S.F.

UNIT 17898± S.F.

UNIT 18696± S.F.UNIT 19696± S.F.

UNIT 20898± S.F.

UNIT 21898± S.F.

UNIT 22696± S.F.UNIT 23696± S.F.

UNIT 24898± S.F.

CLIENT

SHEET TITLE
707 COMMONS DRIVESACRAMENTOCALIFORNIA

PROJECT TITLE
SHEET NUMBER1317.002DRAWN/CHK BY:JOB NO.:DATE:7/19/2023

DELTAREVISION

MT / RP
DATE:
(916) 731-8088 office (916) 731-8089 faxSacramento, CA. 958161700 Alhambra Blvd., Suite 102Peabody Engineering RBM COMMONS, LLC10630 MATHER BOULEVARDMATHER, CA

COMMONS DRIVE

CAMPUS COMMONS DRIVE
SITE
PROPOSED: RESIDENTIALPRESENT: COMMERCIAL
MATHER, CA. 9565510630 MATHER BLVD.RBM COMMONS, LLC.

SCALE:1"=10'PROPOSED LAYOUTFIRE DISTRICT:SANITATION FACILITIES:SOURCE OF WATER:

CITY OF SACRAMENTOIMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS:DRAINAGE FACILITIES:IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE CONTACT: ROSS PEABODY PH# (916)731-8088

APPLICANT
SACRAMENTO, CA 958161700 ALHAMBRA BLVD. SUITE 102ENGINEER ZONING:295-0402-015-0000ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:PEABODY ENGINEERING
NUMBER OF LOTS:PRESENT: 1AREA:PROPOSED: 1
USES:

OWNER
GROSS: 47,691 ± s.f. NET: 47,691 ± s.f.

CITY OF SACRAMENTOCITY OF SACRAMENTOSACRAMENTO AREA SEWER DISTRICTCITY OF SACRAMENTO SCHOOL DISTRICT:SACRAMENTO SCHOOL DISTRICT
PRESENT: OB - OFFICE BUILDINGPROPOSED: OB - OFFICE BUILDING THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THECITY OF SACRAMENTO, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, STATE OFCALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:PARCEL NO.A:ALL THAT PORTION OF PARCEL NO. 1, AS SHOWN ON THEPARCEL MAP ENTITLED "LOB B", OF CAMPUS COMMONS UNITNO.1 (RECORDED IN BOOK 78 OF MAPS, MAP NO. 3).RECORDED IN BOOK 12 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 33,RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT "B",SAID CORNER BEING ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OFCOMMONS DRIVE, A 60.00 FOOT WIDE CITY STREET; THENCEFROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG THE SAIDNORTHWESTERLY LINE OF COMMONS DRIVE AND THENORTHEASTERLY LINE OF CAMPUS COMMONS ROAD, A 62.00FOOT WIDE CITY STREET, THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSESAND DISTANCES:(1)SOUTHWESTERLY CURVING TO THE LEFT, ALONG ANARC 790.00 FOOT RADIUS, SAID ARC BEING SUBTENDEDBY A CHORD BEARING SOUTH 39 DEGREES 01 MINUTES05 SECONDS WEST 215.36 FEET.(2)SOUTHWESTERLY CURVING TO THE RIGHT ALONG ANARC OF 20.00 FOOT RADIUS, SAID ARC BEINGSUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING SOUTH 73 DEGREES30 MINUTES 23 SECONDS WEST 26.93 FEET AND(3)NORTHWESTERLY CURVING TO THE RIGHT, ALONG ANARC OF 1593.70 FOOT RADIUS, SAID ARC BEINGSUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING NORTH 60 DEGREES58 MINUTES 58 SECONDS WEST 170.52 FEET; THENCENORTH 39 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST303.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINEOF SAID LOT "B"; THENCE ALONG THE SAIDNORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT "B" THE FOLLOWINGTHREE (3) COURSES TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.(1) SOUTH 42 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST44.91 FEET(2) SOUTH 57 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 36 SECONDS WEST10.15 FEET(3) SOUTH 42 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST140.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING 707 COMMONS DRIVE TOWNHOMESTENTATIVE MAPFOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES MATHER, CA. 9565510630 MATHER BLVD.RBM COMMONS, LLC.
10' P.U.E. 78 MAPS 3(TO BE ABANDONED)
15' SMUD & PT&TEASEMENT 660318 O.R. 616(TO BE ABANDONED) 8' P.U.E. 730521 O.R. 420
8' P.U.E. 730521 O.R. 420
5' P.U.E. 78 MAPS 3(TO REMAIN)
3' ELECTROLIER EASEMENT 78 MAPS 3

EXISTING DRIVEWAY
PUBLIC UTILITYEASEMENT78 MAPS 3
NUMBER OF UNITS:24 CONDOMINIUM UNITS

Project Z22-079 Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 Page 1 of 12 Date: January 22, 2024
To: Sacramento City Council, Planning Staff at [email protected] From: Carr Kunze, [email protected]
Re: Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 for Project Z22-079 CC: City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood, Vice Mayor Eric Guerra

Appeal to Sacramento City Council against the January 11, 2024 decision to approve Contemporary Commons Project Z22-079 Tentative Map and Zoning.

Overview
Contemporary Commons is a housing development project (24 multi-unit dwellings) on a 1.09-acre site at 707 Commons Drive within the Office Business Low-Rise Mixed-Use (OB-PUD) zone and the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD).

On January 11th, 2024, the Planning & Design Commission rejected the Design appeal and Zoning appeal for the Contemporary Commons project. Planning and Design staff rejected our Historic Preservation application nominating the 707 Commons Drive building for listing, denying that we would have an opportunity to appeal.

The zoning decision is for:

Item B. Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.09-acre parcel for condominium purposes resulting in 24 airspace residential units within six fourplex buildings within the Office Business Low-Rise Mixed-Use (OB-PUD) zone and the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD)

Tentative Map Appeal
The Contemporary Commons’ project approval was opposed by the neighboring Campus Commons (CC) community. Many issues were raised regarding the tentative map, density and non-conformance to the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD). Despite local opposition, and the project’s deficiencies in meeting the General Plan and City Code’s minimum requirements, the Zoning Administrator approved of the project on November 6, 2023. Subsequently, the Planning and Design Commission rejected the appeal, and approved the project on January 11, 2024.

Request to the City Council
The current Tentative Map subdivides the 1.09-acre parcel into 24 airspace residential units within six fourplex buildings. We contend that there are better design alternatives to support additional housing and City ordinances. We ask the City Council to revoke the approval of the currently submitted Tentative Map.

Project Z22-079 Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 Page 2 of 12 The Tentative Map needs to be reconfigured. At the Planning & Design Commission meeting, the developer stated that they were “dealing with density constraints of 18 being the minimum.” A possible reconfiguration could be to remove the fourplex located at the corner of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road to increase the setbacks at that corner and preserve the 90+ inch coast redwood tree. A former Sacramento City arborist stated this tree is likely one of the largest redwoods trees in the City of Sacramento and should be preserved.

Reconfiguration alternatives include reducing fourplexes at the back of the property to triplexes, permitting more appropriate setbacks and sustainable tree growth. Reconfiguration would better align housing density with the surrounding community and could widen alleys to accommodate onsite refuse collection.

Entitlements for this project would result in a change of land use within the PUD and are inconsistent with the PUD Schematic Plans. Entitlements within the PUD require a Special Permit. The City Council must act to reject the tentative map., pursuant to 17.828.097.

Project Z22-079 Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 Page 3 of 12 Issues Supporting the Appeal of the Tentative Map

The overall Project is Inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the Campus Commons PUD, and the General Plan. Due to this inconsistency, the proposed Tentative Map is flawed and should be modified.

17.828.097 Tentative map, provides: City Council to act on tentative map if any entitlement requires city council approval.

Since entitlements for this project would result in a change of land use within the PUD requiring a Special Permit, the City Council must act to reject the tentative map. Moreover, the noticing for a hearing on the tentative maps was not provided to property owners within 500 ft. of the subject property.

There are aspects of the tentative map and tentative map process which appear to be at variance with the property’s characteristics and relevance. As well, there may be procedural errors. For instance, but not limited to:
a) Tentative Map requirements call for topography. The developer is leveling the site. This is destroying an urban design element critical to the community: the intentional mound/hill separating the entire residential PUD from the office/commercial PUDs. Thus, besides Historical Preservation issues, it is an Urban Design issue and is integral to the Tentative Map’s approval. b) The developers misrepresented the facts in their original submissions --especially regarding existing setbacks and building heights (number of stories). The Tentative Map process calls for staff to have reviewed the map application within 30 days and if complete, to forward to other divisions (another 10 days). If reviewers never called this out, and to the extent that the Developer never corrected their claims, then such misrepresentations still exist and were never corrected; or were not corrected before planners moved the application forward.

Density
Density exceeds the designed densities of the Schematic Development Plan approved by the City in 1965 and most likely 1969. Without an amendment of the development plans for Campus Commons which govern this proposal is in non-compliance.

Land Use
This proposal is a change in Land Use from office to multifamily residential. Even though the property is zoned OB-PUD and the OB district permits multifamily residential, it is nevertheless a change in use. Any change in a PUD is, and requires a legislative action which must be taken by the City Council. Legislative City Council action did not occur. We request that the Tentative Map be denied until a corrected process occurs through the City Council.

Section 17.808.230 Legislative change request provides:

A. Changes are discretionary,

4. [such as] Amendment of a planned unit development schematic plan designation C. Decision and findings
Project Z22-079 Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 Page 4 of 12

1. c. A decision to designate a planned unit development or to adopt or approve an amendment to a planned unit development schematic plan [emphasis added], or development guidelines is made by resolution, based upon the following findings of fact:
iii. the zoning classification of the subject parcel is consistent with the proposed designation of a planned unit development, or adoption of or amendment to the planned unit development schematic plan [emphasis added] and development guidelines.

Moreover,

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).

17.104.100-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.

Accordingly, while the City may have lost or misplaced the Campus Commons PUD’s 1965 “Schematic Development Plan”, and those referenced in Resolution No. 79 of November 25, 1969, such error should not serve as an excuse for not applying objective, physically present, measurable evidence of such standards that may be consistently found in immediately proximate office buildings developed within the Campus Commons Office PUDs as well as the immediately proximate and adjacent residential PUD.

We can all see what the Schematic Development Plan provides through the current development throughout the CCPUD. The 1965 Schematic Development Plan was published in the Sacramento Bee at the time of adoption and has been referenced in other City publications.

Other amendments addressing setback, parking, landscape, and signage guidelines were adopted in 1971, 1973, 1974, and 1986, respectively.

The Schematic Development Plan (1965) indicated office use for this site. The 707 Commons Drive office building, including its greater setbacks, is clearly indicated on this plan. No amendment has changed this.

As well, the Schematic Development Plan and all prior and subsequent approvals, including those for office commercial have included approximately 25-foot or greater setbacks and extensive canopy trees along building frontages. The Contemporary Commons development along the street is currently designed with smaller, approximately 8-foot setbacks from the 1st floor structure, but the first floor fence, the 2nd floor balcony and the 3rd floor structure jut out several feet from the 1st floor structure, giving even smaller, perceived setback from the street. The developer mentions up to 15 foot setbacks at the proposed development, but only a very small section of the east side, non-street-facing setback has a distance of 15 feet. This east side (rear yard) setback requires a standard 15-foot setback, but the City granted the developer a deviation to only 5-foot. The adjacent buildings to the new development have approximately 25 to 40 foot setbacks from the street.

From our research to date, any change, whether a change in use, a new construction in the CCPUD, or even an addition to the same parcel, has required and obtained a Special Permit. All prior PUD projects have gone through this determination of consistency with the PUD. No such Special Permit has been applied for, reviewed by staff, or approved by the City Council for this project.

Project Z22-079 Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 Page 5 of 12 All office developments and multifamily developments within the PUD have setbacks of 25 feet or more.

Thus, regardless of whether the OB zone by itself, may permit setbacks of less than 25 ft., that would be inconsistent with the PUD Schematic Plan, both from publicly available evidence of such plan as well as what can be objectively observed from the physical evidence of what has been constructed throughout the residential and office community. Even more recently-built structures in the PUD appear to meet these setback standards.

Accordingly, staff cannot arbitrarily substitute another City-Wide set of Guidelines for use within this PUD without City Council approval. The argument that the more recent guidelines are a “more modern” set of standards, is a subterfuge for enabling this developer to cram more units onto the site while ignoring standard practices throughout the CCPUD as well as what is clearly indicated in the Schematic Plan. Moreover, the fact that the applicant has chosen to develop on a small, one acre site does not provide carte blanche to ignore setbacks simply because they are inconvenient or fail to facilitate the developer’s density and unit count goals. Had the developer been working on a 3 or 4 acre site, they most likely would be able to more readily accommodate such setbacks while achieving their density goals. And, it is not a staff obligation to bend prior standards and practices in order to meet such density goals. [regardless of any perceived imperatives from the Housing Accountability Act.]

Similarly, any approvals must respect the urban forestation coverage standards set forth in the 1965 and 1969 Schematic Development Plans

Project is Inconsistent with Sacramento General Plan

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

Protect Established Neighborhoods. The City shall preserve, protect, and enhance established neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between these neighborhoods and adjoining areas, and by requiring new development, both private and public, to respect and respond to those existing physical characteristics buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban form that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood.

The subject proposal fails to respond to Campus Commons’ physical characteristics, open spaces, urban form and related factors contributing to the community’s character. The subject proposal’s site planning is an exercise in cramming as much structure onto the limited site within the townhouse configuration as possible. Thus, the proposed units per acre is nearly double the adjacent and surrounding Campus Commons units, and will be comprised of incompatible 3 story structures. This density is achieved by eliminating open space and landscaping within the development, with minimal setbacks, minimum alleyway widths and a lack of visitor surface parking.

LU 2.4.2 of the Land Use Element provides:

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

The design is ridden with today’s so-called post-modernist clichés—a few projecting and receding planar elements with broad bands of window trim or outlines. The suspended awnings are purely decorative and accomplish little in terms of sun control. They are meaningless Project Z22-079 Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 Page 6 of 12

The proposal’s insensitivity to the surrounding 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 is equally reflected in the positioning and design of the 707 Commons office building.

Project is inconsistent with Title 17 / Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD) The Directors’ decisions improperly relied on the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) even though the Project does not comply with the applicable General Plan and development standards of the CCPUD.

The subject parcel (295-0402-015-0000) is zoned OB-PUD.

The parcel is within the area designated as the Campus Commons PUD. (CCPUD) Applicable Planning Code provisions:

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).

Accordingly, each PUD is treated as its own, independent zoning district with its own set of standards and requirements

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.

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.

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 [emphasis added] adopted for a planned unit development apply to development in that planned unit development.

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.

17.452.040-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.

Project Z22-079 Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 Page 7 of 12

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 [emphasis added] and development guidelines adopted for the property.

17.860.030 Other Infill Housing Projects

A. A housing project, including a mixed use project, will be granted an administrative permit if it complies with all of the following:

9. The project is not located …
a. Within a Planned Unit Development [emphasis added]

CCPUD staff statements and language and issues:

Per the 2023 Staff Report (page 6): The Campus Commons PUD was established in 1965 and predates current PUD regulations and does not establish the same standards/guidelines found in more contemporary PUDs. (See argument below regarding looking at physical characteristics followed by all developers prior to 2023.)
Per the 2023 Staff Report (page 6): The Campus Commons PUD was originally adopted in 1965 and did not establish guidelines or development standards. (However, the City has not provided to us any CCPUD documents from 1965 or 1969 that could potentially contain approved graphics or plans and specific guidelines regarding setbacks and landscaping and other criteria that are important to discuss before final approval of this project. Something existed: see the Sacramento Bee 4-13-66. City Planning Commissioner Sooky Lee postponed approval of a project within the CCPUD area on the grounds it differed radically from the overall plan.

Per the 2023 Staff Report (page 6): In 1969 the PUD was amended to adopt a revised schematic plan, but no development standards were established as part of this PUD amendment. (The revised schematic plan related to only 259.44 acres of the original 660 acres. Development standards in the 11-25-69 Resolution and the 11-10-69 Document were general versus specific.) Per the 2023 Staff Report (page 7): no specific development standards or guidelines have been adopted for the Campus Commons PUD that apply to the project site. (We do not have any documents from Project Z22-079 Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 Page 8 of 12 1965. The 1969 documents related to 259.44 acres, seemingly the unplanned areas of the CCPUD, though probably could apply to redeveloped parcels.)
As noted above, no PUD documents from 1965 to November 1969 were provided to our community.

Moreover, the 11-25-69 Resolution mentions “submitted schematic development plans” reviewed by the City Planning Commission. Those were not provided to us.

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”.

These portions of the CCPUD were built prior to November 1969 and consist of Campus Commons Village One, Village Two, and the office building on the subject parcel. The Campus Commons community building, designed by the same noted architect, Charles Warren Callister, was also constructed at this time
All areas planned before 2023 appear to have certain common characteristics until the Z22-079 proposed project was brought submitted to the City.

The Schematic Concept section of the 11-10-69 Document 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 707 Commons Drive proposed development looks like an unrelated project.

We contend: in the absence of written concepts, it is proper to look at the final product: the Campus Commons neighborhood itself, the residential portions and also the commercial portions.

They contain 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 Garden City or park-like appearance stemming from U.K. and U.S. New Town concepts, not at all an urban appearance,
Project Z22-079 Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 Page 9 of 12 • Entrances from Howe Ave and Fair Oaks Blvd, where when one enters and reaches the main throughfare street of Commons Dr, with ample 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 • 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 approximately 40 feet, • The setback across Campus Commons Rd from the subject property is approximately 25 feet, • Canopy trees are planted along the entire residential portion of the Commons Drive streetface.

In contrast, the planned trees along the 707 Commons Drive streetface do not have adequate setback room to reach their mature size, and will result in their early removal. The proposed tree replacement plan is flawed.
• All development, from before 1969 through 1979, provided adequate onsite space off the street, for garbage bins and green waste bins and recycle bins.

The minimal setbacks of the 707 Commons Dr proposal will not allow for any of the exceptional environmental characteristics described above.

The final build-out of Campus Common PUD has been substantially consistent with its schematic plans, which the City claims it no longer has in its possession. From the form of the final build-out it is clear that the setbacks and grading should be consistent and extend to the proposed Contemporary Commons development. (Setbacks even somewhat 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. Consistent setbacks will also allow the planting of canopy trees that currently line the rest of Commons Drive.) The 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. The proposed project threatens to establish a new standard raising 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, setbacks, etc.).

Moreover, 17.808.180-B.4 appears to be violated since it states: "The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the proposed development are [to be] visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Urban Forestry
The proposal removes 25 of the 26 onsite trees, 10 of which are private protected trees. The tree ordinances do not specify that a developer must be allowed to develop on every portion of a project site. Destruction of such a large percentage of trees appears to be in conflict with the goal of having private, protected trees within the city. It is possible to avoid removing this volume of trees with a new housing development.

Project Z22-079 Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 Page 10 of 12

Policy ER 3.1.3. Trees of Significance states: The City shall require the retention of City trees and Heritage Trees by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design of development projects provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible. Where tree removal cannot be avoided, the City shall require tree replacement or suitable mitigation.

Historic Preservation of Building
1) The City’s Directors’ hearing procedure did not provide an opportunity to appeal the Preservation Director's decision; this denied us, as appellants, administrative due process.

HCR 2.1.12 of the General Plan Historic Preservation Element states:

Contextual Features þ. The City shall promote the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and/or reconstruction, as appropriate, of contextual features (e.g., structures, landscapes, streetlamps, signs) related to historic resources. (RDR)
In approving the planned demolition of the 707 office building, the Preservation Director violated this General Plan policy and failed to consider the historical significance of the building, particularly as an important and relevant component for a potential Campus Commons historical district.

The 707 Commons office building as designed by Callister and Payne is 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 first office structure in the overall planned concept but may well be a rare surviving example of a low rise office building executed in the NorCal/Bay Area Tradition by such a distinguished architect of the era.

The Preservation Director's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The staff analysis ignored evidence that we submitted together with that of Prof. Mathew Lasner, an architectural and planning historian and expert on the works of Charles Warren Callister. The staff report inferentially disparaged Historic Environment Consultant’s study, commissioned by the community, recommending the building’s preservation. The staff analysis omitted several strong characteristics of the building’s design tying it to the community while emphasizing features inherent to an office building but otherwise irrelevant to its overall context. Moreover, the staff analysis abridged a section of the Secretary of Interior’s guidelines for delineating historic districts in a manner that was quite contradictory to the actual thrust of the guidelines which would have required the building’s inclusion in such a delineation.

Moreover, the developer sponsored SWCA study was authored by the former Vice Chair of the City’s Preservation Commission. What kind of conflict does that present for the staff as well? Importantly however, 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 Project Z22-079 Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 Page 11 of 12 mid-twentieth century, 707 Common Drive merits evaluation as a potential district contributor under Criterion 3.”
Yet, it was this very finding that the preservation staff seemed to inappropriately and arbitrarily attempt to define out the 707 Commons building from inclusion in any preservation district, misconstruing the Secretary’s Guidelines as discussed above.

Accordingly, we urge the City Council in addition to denying the Tentative Map, to consider means by which the 707 building may be considered as a historic landmark.

In conclusion, this is a run of the mill housing development, which proposes to cut down 10 large protected trees and destroy an historical landmark in the area, and the City appears not to care about these losses. This project could go anywhere, it could go on the adjacent parcel at an increased density, there is no reason for the City to approve the project verbatim as proposed by the developer. We urge the City to deny the project as presently proposed.

Project Z22-079 Planning and Design Commission Appeal-Form CDD-0066 Page 12 of 12

APPENDIX I
1965 Schematic Development Plan

Project Z22-079 03/04/2024 – Buehler City Council Appeal Comments Page 1 of 4 Date: March 4, 2024
To: Zachary Dahla, City of Sacramento Planning, via email [email protected] From: Janet Buehler, Marilyn Buehler
Re: Contemporary Commons Development, 707 Commons Drive, Project Z22-079 CC: Mayor Steinberg and Sacramento City Council, Councilmember Guerra Dear Mr. Dahla:

Please forward this letter to Mayor Steinberg and the Sacramento City Council members in preparation for the March 12 City Council meeting.

As Campus Commons homeowners, we ask that the City Council reconsider and revoke the approved Tentative Map for the Contemporary Commons Project Z22-079.

We are in full support of the Zoning/Tentative Map appeal submitted by Carr Kunze on January 22, 2024. This appeal requests the denial of:

Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.09-acre parcel for condominium purposes resulting in 24 airspace residential units within six fourplex buildings within the Office Business Low-Rise Mixed-Use (OB-PUD) zone and the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD)

Both of the City’s objectives for more housing and climate change mitigation can be achieved through an improved Tentative Map.

Project Z22-079 03/04/2024 – Buehler City Council Appeal Comments Page 2 of 4

A denial of the current Tentative Map would allow for either a re-configuration or reduction of units to remedy the following items:

• There are 26 trees on the property, 11 of which are private, protected (heritage) trees. All trees are being removed except 1 tree at the back of the property. A revised Tentative Map would allow for the retention of more than 1 tree. There are 2 coast redwood trees - a 90+ inch and the 55-inch diameter - on the property that meet the criteria of private, protected (heritage) trees that could be retained with a new Tentative Map. If these 2 trees cannot be retained, there are other candidate trees for retention. o Policy ER 3.1.3. Trees of Significance states: The City shall require the retention of City trees and Heritage Trees by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design of development projects provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible.
o Sacramento’s new General Plan calls out combatting Climate Change as a key objective.

The retention of more 1 than of the 26 existing trees, would bring the City closer to meeting this objective.

• A deviation was granted to allow for a 5-foot setback, instead of enforcing the required, standard (objective standard) 15-foot rear yard setback. o The setback on the eastern non-street side of property facing the Campus Commons homes to the east (rear yard) has been granted a deviation from the standard. o The adjacent Campus Commons homes to the east, will be impacted by the lack of light, space, and privacy by these 3-story condos built 5 feet from the property line. o The fact that there is an adjacent driveway on the Campus Commons residential property should have no bearing or effect on this deviation decision. o This is standard, required setback should be enforced, and not have a deviation granted.

Not granting the deviation will allow for more green space and trees on this side of the property.

• The staff appears to be waiving General Plan standards and ordinances to accommodate the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) as an overriding factor from the State level. o The development is not providing affordable housing, therefore, HAA should not be used as criteria to override General Plan standards and ordinances. The price point for this housing will likely be around $900k+ (based on what they are selling their similar Allbright Village condos for, in a less desirable neighborhood.) o At the Planning & Design Commission meeting, planning staff commented that they likely overstated HAA at the Director’s hearing.

• Number of units can be reduced
o In the Planning & Design Commission meeting, the developer commented they were “dealing with density constraints of 18 being the minimum.” o Much of the developer's objectives could be achieved through a more thoughtful site plan and design which would retain the CCPUD setback standards, along with some of the private, protected heritage trees.
o Currently there are 24 units planned for the development, so it appears there is room to move the design towards 18 units. The initial plan submitted to the City was for 25 units, so the developer has brought down the number of units by 1 unit, not from 30 units as they stated at the Planning & Design Commission meeting.

Project Z22-079 03/04/2024 – Buehler City Council Appeal Comments Page 3 of 4 • Nonconformance of street-facing setbacks to CCPUD and the surrounding Campus Commons commercial and residential community
o Conformance with the CCPUD and surrounding community would require larger setbacks of the structures from the street and would allow for more green space and trees.
o Larger setbacks would necessitate a revision of the Tentative Map’s configuration of units or number of units.
o We encourage the Council members to visit our neighbor and view the property and surrounding neighborhood setbacks in both the residential neighborhood and in the commercial area on University Avenue to clearly see the types of setbacks in the CCPUD.

Please note the property’s current look of abandonment is due to the lack of attention to the property by the current owners. Prior to the developer’s acquiring the property and letting the leases run out, the building did not appear abandoned as it does today.

• Alleyways are not wide enough for onsite refuse collection o City of Sacramento specifies that refuse containers are placed 3 feet apart. There is not adequate room streetside for the placement of 72 containers (24 units X 3 containers).

This will result is tipped containers, traffic hazards, or containers being placed on the sidewalks.
o Refuse pick up for more dense units in the CCPUD neighborhood occurs onsite in alleyways.
o Alleyways can be widened with a new Tentative Map to provide consistency with the neighborhood for onsite refuse pickup and to prevent traffic hazards on the street.

• Loss of approximately 40 feet of City landscape strip (strip of land between the street and the sidewalk)
o The City stated that they did not want to force the developer to further modify the existing sidewalks when this section of landscaping strip was lost to accommodate the development’s new driveway.
o Currently, the primary access and parking for the 707 Commons office building is from the 350 University Avenue parking lot, which is why this new driveway was added for the development.
o The community should not lose the use of this City landscape strip. We ask that the lost, approximate 40 feet of landscape strip be relocated to another portion of the development's street face. This relocation would allow for community use and the addition of canopy shade trees to shade the sidewalk, either near the corner on Commons Drive or on Campus Commons Road where there is currently no landscape strip.

Project Z22-079 03/04/2024 – Buehler City Council Appeal Comments Page 4 of 4 Images showing landscape strip at project site (project site in foreground)

Unrelated to the March 12 Tentative Map decision, there is the ongoing issue and discussion that the current 707 Commons Office building is an important and critical building to the potential residential historic district in the Campus Commons neighborhood. Members of our community hope to discuss this issue with the City Council at a later date. While this historic issue is still being discussed with the City Council, we request that the City not issue a permit for the demolition of the building or for the removal of trees. We believe the current building can be retrofitted for residential housing with the addition of windows on the backside of the building.

Thank you for your consideration.

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Inderjit Rye <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2024 8:24 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Z22-079 - 707 Commons Dr
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I am wriƟng in support of the appeal of the tentaƟve map for project Z22‐079 at 707 Commons Dr. (Please revoke approval of the current tentaƟve map.)

The Campus Commons residenƟal neighborhood was the ﬁrst area built within the 1965 established CCPUD. It is a gem of a neighborhood due to the eﬀorts of the 1960s and 1970s owners and developers and city planners.

It’s my hope that the 2020 owners and developers and city planners will realize that a diﬀerent layout of housing units will beƩer serve to preserve this gem of a neighborhood for future generaƟons of residents and visitors to this area.

I appreciate the two miƟgaƟons thus far:
‐to change the color paleƩe of the exterior (oﬀ white and gray to earth tones) ‐to increase the setbacks from zero feet to

8.1 ‐ 10.9 feet on Commons Dr and from zero feet to 8.5 feet on Campus Commons Rd.

I am grateful that SMUD infrastructure at the very corner of Commons Dr and Campus Commons Rd resulted in 24 units instead of 25 units and a slightly larger setback at that corner.

I am grateful that the owners of the driveway directly to the east of the development‘s 1.1 acre parcel did not oﬀer an easement to the developers. I like an entrance at the mid‐point of the development instead. (Mirrors other nearby cul‐ de‐sacs.)

Is it possible to achieve the minimum of 18 units per square acre (which means a total of 20 units) instead of 22 units per square acre (which equals the current 24 units) and save some more (than one) private protected trees? The large redwood is a good one to save. The gnarly‐based one near the corner is lovely.

Thank you for your consideraƟon,

Inderjit Rye
[email protected]
916‐761‐8149

Sent from my iPhone
Since my previous email on 1-28-24, I have had a chance to do more research and further reflect on Z22-079.

I still oppose the tentative map and the placement of 24 units in their proposed location/space. From the Sacramento Bee, the 1960s owners and developers and planners worked together on the residential portion of the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (CCPUD). Whose responsibility was it to document the plans in 1965, to 1969, for the Campus Commons residential neighborhood? Whose responsibility was it to retain documentation from that time period?

It was the Planning Commission that, in 1969, prepared a memo and a resolution, writing that up to then, this was a community of “exceptional environmental characteristics” and that future development in the CCPUD “should reflect the original schematic concepts, and should enhance the overall environmental characteristic of this area”. Did they inadvertently and seriously err in not adding the number of feet of setbacks and not adding protections for items that are exceptional environmental characteristics such as half century old trees that enhance the overall environmental characteristic of the CCPUD?

From a review of some of the documents that pop up when “Campus Commons Planned Unit Development” is searched on the City Clerk’s online records library, it appears:
-early Sacramento PUDs in today’s development environment must rely on whatever written documents the city planning commission developed in the 1960s and 1970s, -We do have from the 1965 adoption of the CCPUD a schematic development plan that shows the front half of the current 707 building parcel as landscaped, with building only on the back portion
-in the 1990s there appears to be 25 feet setbacks for new development in the CCPUD -a 1995 city planning department document related to a development within the CCPUD states: Unrelated PUDs, however, recognize the importance of broad landscape front setbacks and therefore require… a minimum of 25 feet of landscape front setback, -our CCPUD’s 1960s original sellers and buyers and developers and planners, all, recognized the importance of broad landscaped front setbacks and developed an illustrated schematic development plan that incorporated that standard and built to that standard in all the residential parcels within the Campus Commons and adjacent Nepenthe residential neighborhoods (and this practice continued in the later developed residential East Ranch and University Park).

I have a solution to the problem that the City erred in the past by not documenting objective guidelines, and will discuss it at the 3-12-24 council meeting.

Inderjit Rye
916-761-8149
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: JOANNE MEDWID <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 12:48 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I oppose this project and ask the City Council to revoke approval of Tentative Map, for the reasons in the appeal filed by the Campus Commons working group. The project is incompatible with the Campus Commons neighborhood and inconsistent with the ordinances, general plan, and Campus Commons PUD. Thank you.

Joanne Medwid
Zach,

I moved in to Campus commons in 1967. The year after 707 Commons drive was completed. Look at this picture, it is criminal what the city is letting barfis for with this piece of property. They have turned it into Urban Blight. What the hell is going on. We’ve been staring at this mess for 8 months.

If it was anyone else code enforcement would have already fined them. I sincerely hope you never have a mess like this in your neighborhood. This is criminal. Their office is right next door. It’s not like they don’t know what’s going on.

Jeff Gardner
611 Commons Dr

Mr. Dahla:

I am in full support of the Campus Commons appeal to the City Council, and more importantly I am opposed to the developers’ approved project and its design, which is wholly inconsistent with Campus Commons. The developer could care less about the residents’ concerns and is only profit driven, where their 24 townhomes will be marketed for over $1 million for each townhome. And the City’s approval is motivated by increasing the property tax base and not preserving an iconic neighborhood, an historic building, 20+ massive trees which took 50+ years to grow, and the beautiful park-like environment of Camous Commons. Just look at the developers other like- designed townhomes, Albright Village, at 13th & U Streets downtown, and you can see how incompatible their project is at 707 Commons Drive. The Albright Village project townhomes, which is in a blighted area, were marketed at over $850k-$950k for each townhome, so there was no increase in affordable housing, where 1/4 mile away there are homeless camps.

If this project is built, destroying an historic and iconic office building, destroying massively beautiful trees, and not in compliance with Campus Commons PUD, etc requirements, then our government and City Council has failed their residents and us constituents whom they represent.

As I generally stated in my original objection letter last year, when will our leaders do the right thing and not act purely on business and profit motives, and act in the best interests of homeowners who care about where they live?

Sincerely,
Laurie Pejuhesh

Dear Mayor Steinberg and Sacramento City Council Members,

I am writing to you in reference to an appeal that will come before the Sacramento City Council on June 18 regarding the development proposed for 707 Commons Drive (Project Z22-079; Contemporary Commons). The Planning and Design Commission approved the proposal on January 11, 2024. Our June 18 appeal asks the City Council to deny the proposal and have it resubmitted with modifications.

The comments below relate to the connection - and conflict - between the Draft Sacramento Urban Forest Plan and the City of Sacramento's apparent intention to bulldoze mature canopy trees at 707 Commons Drive in order to clear a path for high-end housing. This update to the Urban Forest Plan could lead to significant preservation of the mature shade canopy in this City of Trees, but meaningful urban forest preservation must include City action to protect the mature canopy trees at 707 Commons Drive.

The City cannot reach 2030 and 2045 urban forestry goals if it continues to override the Urban Forest Plan, cutting down mature and significant trees to make way for housing and other development, and then replacing those trees with fewer and smaller species in cramped and inadequate planting strips that do not permit the trees to reach maturity. This is the status of the development proposal for 707 Commons Drive.

The City does need to increase housing production, but there needs to be much more analysis and community consultation in that process. And the preservation of mature tree canopy need not stand in the way of housing construction. City plans and policies exist specifically to protect natural and cultural heritage throughout the development planning process.

The Draft Urban Forest Plan is explicit about the need for tree protection:

Pressure from Planned Development

… policies and design standards can help ensure that trees are preserved and incorporated throughout the design process and are afforded the above- and below- ground growing space needed to reach maturity, all while minimizing conflicts with other infrastructure (e.g., roads, sidewalks, streetlights, solar panels, and utilities).

Strategic review and updating of community development and design standards, as well as monitoring development to achieve canopy cover goals, is necessary to ensure that neighborhoods and business districts include trees that can grow to maturity and provide canopy cover. (p. 20)

The City has been in the process of approving the clear-cutting of mature canopy trees at 707 Commons Drive so that a developer can construct high-end housing. This destruction of mature canopy trees flies in the face of Urban Forest Plan’s stated “canopy goal” to “require protecting existing, healthy trees.” Where is the protection for these existing, healthy trees?

When the City finally grants permission to destroy these trees, that action will utterly contradict the commitment stated in the Urban Forest Plan to “maintaining the existing canopy.” Permission to clear-cut will extinguish the possibility that “ordinances, increased enforcement capacity, creative planning, expert tree care, and public private partnerships [can] protect and care for as many trees as possible.” In this situation, and in similar cases, the Urban Forest Plan will mean little to nothing.

The 188 pages of the Urban Forest Plan reassure residents of Campus Commons that the City recognizes the value of shade trees and intends to preserve them, “maintaining existing canopy or protecting existing, healthy trees.” Yet for the past 18 months residents have been repeatedly reminded that City staff are instead poised to permit clear-cutting “existing, healthy trees” at 707 Commons Drive without regard to any ordinance or plan.

If City staff determine that the mature canopy at 707 Commons Drive must be cut down in order to satisfy the Housing Accountability Act, then no trees in Sacramento will be safe from the bulldozer, and no Urban Forest Plan can save them, as long as a developer proposes any type of housing, including high-end units like those planned for 707 Commons Drive.

The City has the opportunity at 707 Commons Drive to take a meaningful step toward preserving our urban forest. The City can honor the promises in the Urban Forest Plan and validate its hopeful language. Or the City can pass on this opportunity and determine that the trees must go. This is your chance to show that the Plan is more than empty rhetoric.

Thank you,
Mary Ann Robinson
Campus Commons homeowner

1 Zachary Dahla
From: JOANNE MEDWID <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 12:48 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079, 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I oppose this project and ask the City Council to revoke approval of Tentative Map, for the reasons in the appeal filed by the Campus Commons working group. The project is incompatible with the Campus Commons neighborhood and inconsistent with the ordinances, general plan, and Campus Commons PUD. Thank you.

Joanne Medwid
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 7:27 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Project Z22-079 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Zach:

I want to register once again my voice as an opponent to the planned development at 707 Commons Drive.
 The project is inconsistent with the City Code and Zoning Ordinances, the City General Plan, and the Campus Commons PUD. The current Tentative Map is simply not the right plan for that corner location.  A new, improved Tentative Map subdivision could meet t he City's housing needs, the developer's needs, and the community's needs.
 Revisions to the Tentative Map can re configure or reduce units to allow for appropriate setbacks, green space, tree canopy, and wider alleys for onsite refuse collection.  I ask the City Council to revoke approval of the current Tentative Map.

Thank you for your attention.

David L Norene MD
437 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-920-3046

Gentlemen,

I am writing to ask you to please revoke the approval of the current Tentative Map. The creation of this project needs more work. If you look at the proposed map and come and actually see Campus Commons, you will realize there are too many buildings placed on the parcel to blend in with the Campus Commons PUD. In the existing map, there is no consideration for refuse collection (alleys aren't wide enough), green space, tree canopy and setbacks (which we have throughout Campus Commons) and guest parking. The current Tentative Map is not the right plan for that corner location. For those who may want to get technical, please realize the project is inconsistent with the City Code and Zoning Ordinances, the City General Plan and the Campus Commons PUD.

Those of us who live in Campus Commons are NOT saying we will not welcome new neighbors. What we are asking is that the developers please take us into consideration and blend the development into an existing, well-established community. Surely there can be greater compromise by developing an improved Tentative Map subdivision that could meet the City's housing needs, the developer's needs and the Campus Commons community's needs. Isn't there a way where all could meet and design a plan for that corner that would allow all to come away having been heard and respected? The developers have only spoken to the community once at a Town Hall meeting. Perhaps if there was a small appointed group from Campus Commons who could meet with the City and the developers and, as a group, create a plan, all needs/requirements/requests could be met.

Thank you for your consideration,

Ann Alter
906 Vanderbilt Way

1 Zachary Dahla
From: bob baskerville <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 6:56 PM
To: Eric Guerra
Cc: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rick Jennings; Inderjit Rye Subject: Commons Drive Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Sent from my iPad— ‐Sir, I live in Campus Commons and do not want a beauƟful, iconic and historical building torn down along with a beauƟful green space destroyed and replaced with high rise apartments. They will be ugly, inappropriate architecture and stand out like a boil on a fan dancers ass. Have some regard for your city and fellow ciƟzens and stop this proposal .Thank you. Bob and Marilyn Baskerville
1 Zachary Dahla
From: bob baskerville <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 2:13 PM
To: Eric Guerra; Zachary Dahla; Katie Valenzuela (City); Rick Jennings; Darrell Steinberg Subject: Project Z22-079. 707 Commons Drive

Sent from my iPad— ‐Ladies and Gentlemen , I ask that you vote against tearing down the beauƟful , old Wells Farge bank building at above address. It’s an historic building‐really the architectural model for all the ﬁrst class oﬃce buildings on University Ave. It was also the incenƟve for developers to build Campus Commons. Why in gods name would allow mulƟ story apartment buildings on this beauƟful site and tear down a historic building? Please show a liƩle respect for the community and the past, the ciƟzens and the city. Bob and Marilyn Baskerville 326 Elmhurst Circle , Nepenthe.

Dear Mr. Zahla,

I am one of the many Campus Commons residence who strongly oppose the building Of new homes at 707 Commons Dr.

The project is inconsistent with the city code, and the zoning ordinances, the city, general plan, and the Campus Commons PUD. The tentative building map is just not the right plan for that Corner location

A new, improved tentative map subdivision could meet the city,s housing needs, the developers needs, and the community’s needs. A revision of the tentative map could be reconfigured or reduced so that the units allow for appropriate setbacks, green space, tree canopy, and wider alleys for on-site refuse collection.

In addition, given the number of additional cars being parked along Commons Drive, the increased population density would cause significant obstacles for emergency vehicles, especially fire engines.

I do hope you will listen to the desperately of me and other area residence and reduce the number a home is built and their footprint.

Sincerely,

Bruce Rogers
2325 American River Dr.

Sacramento 95825

Hello Zach and vice-mayor Guerra,

As I have said many times, I am opposed to the proposed development of the 24-unit, 36 residence (24 + 12 studio apartments) proposed for 707 Commons property and I support the appeal which is pending before the City Council.

I have said multiple times that I believe that this development is not permitted in the current OB zone. Zach told me that this was permitted but never addressed how that was determined and I question whether this was actually considered in detail as it is not mentioned in the staff report.

§17.216.110 provides that among the permitted use for a development in the OB zone is “Dwelling, Multi-Unit” “Subject to special use regulations in section 17.228.117”.

These requirements for a “multi-unit dwellings” are set forth in §17.228.117 which provides:

A. Maintenance and repair. Buildings and premises, including paint, siding, roofs, windows, fences, parking lots, and landscaping, shall be kept in good repair. Premises shall be kept free of junk, debris, and abandoned vehicles.

B. Operational standards. The operational standards in this subsection B apply to multi-unit dwellings:

1. For projects of 15 or more dwelling units, a manager shall reside on-site;

2. The owner or operator shall post and maintain signage on the premises that provides the phone number to contact maintenance and management staff, which signage is subject to approval by the planning director;

3. The owner or operator shall conduct periodic inspections, not less than monthly, of the exterior of all buildings, trash enclosures, and recreation facilities;

4. The owner or operator shall establish and conduct a regular program of routine maintenance for the property. The program shall include common areas and scheduled repainting, replanting, and other similar activities that typically require attention at periodic intervals but not necessarily continuously. The owner or operator shall repaint or retreat all painted or treated areas at least once every eight years, provided that the planning director may approve less frequent repainting or retreatment upon a determination that less frequent treatment is appropriate, given the nature of the materials used or other factors. The program is subject to review and approval by the planning director;

5. The owner or operator shall maintain landscaping and irrigation in a healthy and serviceable condition; and

6. The owner or operator shall indicate and maintain all locations of parking stalls for disabled access and strictly enforce applicable rules.

C. Modifications. A zoning administrator conditional use permit is required to waive or modify the operational standards in subsection B. (Ord. 2013-0020 § 1; Ord. 2013- 0007 § 1)
It appears from this section that what is permitted are apartment houses and rental complexes with an on-site manager, one owner or operator, and a trash enclosure for the use of the residents. There is nothing which permits the proposed project as it does not comply with any of the requirements contained in Subsection B and there is nothing to indicate that there has been any waivers in compliance with Subsection C.

I don’t know why the fundamental question of proper zoning has not been answered in detail. The rather perfunctory response was not illuminating. The requirements imposed in §17.228.117 are very understandable in light of the high occupancy permitted in this area particularly when considering the requirement for universal trash enclosures since the current plan to have all of the trash carts placed in the streets which very well may have vehicles occupying those spaces is of very questionable efficacy.

Finally, at the previous hearing the commission had the building applicant present the final comments even though this was an appeal and the appellants were entitled to make the final comments. The result of this was that the applicant made several false or misleading statements which could have been corrected. For example, she said in response to a question that she had made an offer to Campus Commons for payments to address some of the issues regarding the use of private property. If there had been any such offer, I would have received it since I was the chair of the Campus Commons Park Corporation board until I retired in June 2023. I never received any such offer nor heard anything from the applicants other than at meetings. She further contended that the 707 building had to be destroyed since there were no tenants but did not say that she had terminated them. Further, she said that the 350/707 properties could not be part of the development because the 350 building was fully occupied (even though the initial plans had shown the 707 Commons development was “phase 1” and she said in the meeting at the Campus Commons clubhouse that the 350 University development was the second phase). She failed to state that it is occupied by them.

I request that the appellants be permitted to make the closing statement at the hearing so that these types of issues will not occur again.

Thank you for your consideration. Please distribute this to the remainder of the Council.

David R. Lane
1258 Commons Dr.

We are writing to ask the City Council to revoke the approval of the currently submitted tentative map.

We support infill development as a way to curb urban sprawl. But this plan is not appropriate for this location. It is inconsistent with the City Code and Zoning ordinances, the City General Plan, and the Campus Commons PUD.

Infill development is intended to revitalize communities. This plan will destroy the Campus Commons community with clashing architecture, housing density almost 4 times that of the current neighborhood, and destruction of the tree canopy.

Infill development is intended to meet housing demands. The need is for affordable housing, not luxury housing. This proposal projects sales prices of $900K+ per unit.

Infill development prioritizes walkability to public transportation. Public transportation is limited in this community. (A better use of the 707 lot might be for a transportation hub!)

Infill development is intended to reduce urban sprawl. Urban sprawl increases our carbon footprint because of long commutes to distant neighborhoods. The proposed project increases the carbon footprint in this community by clear cutting to accommodate 24 unwanted condominiums.

Re: this last point— The argument to preserve the tree canopy is not frivolous. It is estimated that the trees in the US remove 17.4 million tons of air pollution per year, providing 6.8 billon dollars in human health benefits. (From The Nature Fix by Florence Williams)

Please do the right thing. Please revoke the approval of Project 222-079.

Theodora Wilner, [email protected]
Mary Ann Robinson, [email protected]
Holly Wallin, [email protected]
Erin Laine, [email protected]
Birinder Aujla, [email protected]
Susan Peterson, [email protected]
Joan Barrett, [email protected]
Kathie Vaughn, [email protected]
Mary Tamraz, [email protected]
Rosalie Mahoney, [email protected]
Johanna Gregory, [email protected]
Michael & Louise Caplan, [email protected]
Nancy Fisher, [email protected]
Anita Fante, [email protected]
Cheryl Nelson, [email protected]
Mindy Rothbard,[email protected]
Bruce Heard, [email protected]

,@ 7 ,; O-' '3
.,(t-a44 f:!ra5ii
// k /. j
L
// .-/" '
December 20, 2022
Mr. Jack Dahla
City of Sacramento
Planning Department
300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Bob /M7tjr&i.
6 . CA95825
(916) 712-1074
Re: Planning application 222-079, regarding 707 Commons Drive Dear Mr. Dahla:

I wish to voice rrby concerns and object to the development proposed for 707 Commons Drive in theCampusCommonsarea. lliveacrossthestreetfromttieproposedproject.

It is an llurbanization" of a bucolic and well-established community Campus Commons has been in existence since the mid-1960s. l've lmed on Hartnell Place for 19 years, left for a home in Greenhaven for IS years, and now lave returned having lived here now forfouryears. Mylatemfernovedherebecauseofitsproximitytohe2obasaprofessorat Sacramento State. I moved back following her death because Ilove the area. It offers a tranquil and beautiful setting for me to live out the rest of my years. I do not wish to see it interrupted by the noise and destruction of our area by this project.

The proposed development will severe§ impact our community wRh regards to triffic and noise. We already have issues witb vehicle speed on Commons Drive, and the increase in the number of cars from this pmject will make the situation worse. Parking on our streets, because ofthe lack of parking within the development (except for grages), will also be impacted.

From what I've read, the plan calls for only one dtieway into the property, wbich could impact firetrucks,ambulances,andpolicevehiclesaccessingthepmperty. Withonlyonedriveway, traffic jams will occur during work commute hours. The office building is basically served by a driveway and parking lot on University Avenue. That will disappear when this project is fully built out, with no access to that more majorthroughfare.

All homes in Campus Commons are set back from the sidewalks and curbs, creating a green space with many trees. The proposed development essentially puts tbe buildings right next to the sidewalks, which impact sight lines forvehicles turning on or off Campus Commons Road 1 onto Commons Drive. This will resuk in accidents and will create other issues with traffic flow, even if a three-way stop is implemented at ttiat intersection.

The proposed project is not in keeping with the original design and current appearance of Campus Commons. The current office building design is complementary to our townhouses and single-family homes. The new development is not and does not fit in with the esthetics of our neigbborhood. It would be better suited in downtown Sacramento.

Campus Commons is known for its trees and park-like setting. This new development's plans call for removal of most if not all trees on the property - including what must be Ilheritage trees." I understand that the developer will reimburse the city for loss of these trees. Doing so does not offset the impact their removal will have on our area. Our area is a welcome place for joggers,bicyclists,andpeoplewalkingtheirdogs. Thishugedevelopmentwillbeablightonour community. It does not belong here.

For these and many other reasons, l would ask the planning department and whomever else has to llvote" on this developmentto reject it.

Thankyou foryourtime.

Bob Aldrich
Cc: The Honorable Eric Guerra, Sacrarnento aty Council, District 6 Campus Commons Board of Directors
Campus Commons Village 1 Board of Directors
2 ;;:9:e,eg/, jxJ:6h
,d &.,('a41 95J2.r
Campus Commons Village Four
c/o The Helsing Group, Inc.
4000 Executive Parkway, Suite 100 San Ramon CA 94583
Website: www.helsinq.com
Mr. Zack Dahla
City of Sacramento Planning Division
300 Richards Blvd. 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Re: Planning Application 222-079; 707 Commons Drive Dear Mr. Dahla,
I am writing this on behalf of the Campus Commons Village Four Homeowners Association Board of Directors representing 53 homeowner units.

I understand that you have already received many comments from residents of Campus Commons regarding this proposed development, but Village Four's residents have requested that the Board write and set forth various concerns that have been raised as it was felt that these have s% aeen adequately addressed in the meetings that have taken place to date. The purpose of ti : letter is to summarize those main concerns.

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."l
Further, "The 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 1LU2.1.1
existing physical characteristtcs buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban form that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood."2 Also, "[tlhe City shall promote the design of compjete 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."3 This proposed development is bordered on three sides and therefore is being built substantially within Campus Commons. The existing structure at 707 Commons Drive presents a consistent and conforming appearance to Campus Commons=, whereas the proposed development is not only inconsistent but actually presents a significant contrast which conflicts with the entire Campus Commons neighborhood and is in conflict with the General Plan's intent to maintain conformity in the neighborhood. "The City shall promote infill development, reuse, rehabilitation, and reuse efforts that contribute positively (e.g., architectural design) to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas." The proposed architectural design of the building will not "contribute positively" due to its significant departure from the mid-century modern style of Campus Commons.

Campus Commons is a private planned unit development (PUI) with amenities such as established green spaces, tennis courts, swimming pools, lakes, fitness center, playground, etc. The proposed project includes no amenities and its density as much as quadruples or more that of the surrounding neighborhood. The immediate proximity of Campus Commons creates an increase in liability caused by the likelihood of the proposed development's residents attempting to take advantage of the Campus Commons park-like setting and amenities. The proposed development does not include fences or barriers designating the boundaries to protect Campus Commons residents from intrusion. The developers have indicated that they do not intend to notify prospective purchasers that Campus Commons is private property and not affiliated with or usable by the development's homeowners. They also stated that they intend to market the property as being in an urban forest-type environment, which could be interpreted as beirig avaiiable for pubiic use. The potential for trespassing on Campus Commons' private property is exacerbated by the lack of any services, walking paths, open space, playground, or other amenities being included in the developer's plans.

The proposed development calls for one vehicle access point for the property, a driveway currently utilized by Campus Commons Village One and Village Two. The occupants and visitors from the existing building at 707 Commons Drive rarely if ever utilize that driveway. 'LU2.1.2
aLU2.l.3
='LU2.1.8
Instead, they use the parking lot, which is accessible from University Avenue. While this driveway is scheduled to be widened, this situation raises several concerns. Traffic on Commons Drive will be significantly increased, which will have a negative impact on all of Campus Commons, particularly on the immediate neighboring residents of Villages One and Two. Their driveway will be subject to more congestion and noise. The additional daily drivers from the proposed development will adversely impact the intersection of Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive, which already suffers from heavy traffic and speeders during rush hour from commuters avoiding the intersection of Howe Avenue and Fair Oaks Boulevard.

Having the one entrance to the proposed development may create issues for emergency vehicles as well as current Campus Commons residents.

Campus Commons is nestled within a beautiful and mature urban forest, a distinct point of pride for the residents. This forest extends to and includes mature heritage trees on the site of the proposed development. The plan calls for the complete removal of these trees.

The destruction of these magnificent trees will be a tremendous loss for the entire community and is contrary to City standards. The developers simply stated that they would pay money to the city for the removal of the trees. Payment for the removal of these mature heritage tree does not compensate the neighborhood for the loss to the community. Sacramento prides itself as being a "City of Trees." This development, as proposed, violates that assertion.

The current neighborhood has its buildings set back from the sidewalks, which improves the sight distance for drivers, provides a green space from the sidewalk to the road, and is consistent with the ambience of the neighborhood. The proposed development's structures have minimal setbacks of just a few feet, essentially placing buildings next to the sidewalks. It is questionable whether this placement meets City building standards and the General Plan's goals.

The proposed development has no interior parking other than the two-car garages. IT garages are usea in part or in totai for purposes other than vehicie storage, residents wouid utilize the already limited amount of street parking. The existing 707 Commons Drive property currently uses the University Avenue parking lot. The developer stated that the University Avenue lot would only be available temporarily until the anticipated second development is constructed. Additionally, with no on-site parking other than garages, visitors will be forced to use street parking, which again, is already limited.

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 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,
q7V R. 1 /31 /2023
Nancy Comstock, President
Campus Commons Village No. Four
[email protected]
l'!
IfThi
, -i-
! I : l
I
01 '
I lli J i
}iiJ
l" i
i I'X R
August 14, 2023
Zach Dahla, Associate Planner
City of Sacramento
300 Richards Blvd, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, Ca 95814
Dear Mr. Dahla:

As residents of the Nepenthe (Campus Commons) Community, we are writing again to express our serious concerns about the proposed townhouse development at 707 Commons Drive (Project No. 222-079).

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 preserve and enhance Sacramento neighborhoods". While the proposed project is situated in Catnpus Commons, in its scale, design, density, placement on the land, materials landscaping, etc., the proposal datnages rather than preserves the identity and livability of the existing neighborhood.

The proposed project 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 to respect existing physical characteristics, buildings, streetscapes, open spaces and urban forms that CONTRIBUTE to the overall character and livability of the community.

The design of the proposed three story buildings totally ignores the design and intention of the mid-century architecture that surrounds the property. The design completely ignores the intentional and architecturally significant Campus Commons development.

In the General Plan, the City commits to "promote infill development, reuse, rehabilitation and reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areaS". The development plans contribute nothing to the architectural design of the existing neighborhood. In fact, the proposed design clashes with the intention that underlies the original design of the planned unit development.

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 the cultural and historic context. With its imitation wood panels, false stone facades and an absence of variety and details, the proposed plan violates the historic context of the adjacent neighborhood. Furthermore, removing Letter to Associate Planner Mr. Dahla

Page 2 ends

canopy trees and filling open space with concrete and asphalt worsens the heat island effect in an already warming climate.

The General Plan is very clear about the importance of trees: "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".

Again, the developers continue to plan actions that contradict the General Plan, cutting substantial healthy trees and planting small tree species that will cast little shade in spaces that are already too small for healthy growth.

Finally, the developer claims that the proposed design is compatible with the existing neighborhood. IT IS NOT! The plan stands in dramatic contract to "those existing physical characteristics, buildings, streetscapes, open spaces and urban forms that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood55. Approval of a plan that violates the City's General Plan in so many instances would indicate that the City is not adhering to its own planning process.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,
Q,.t/1,9
Patrick Ray Jones
E";.rO? >
100 Elmhurst Circle
Sacramento, CA 95825
Edit to reflect your voice and interests.

Dear Mr. Dahla,
-23, =2t)=;> -3
I am a 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 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 enty 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 ataeas 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, senicepeople, friends and family, visitors, and others need to park a block away? What if converted rooms atae 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 views.

Sincerely,
Mr. Zach Dahla
City of Sacramento Planning Division
300 Richards Blvd. 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Date: 1 2 3, 2 a ',,- 3
Re: Planning Application 222-079; 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. o 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 wtiich 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,
etf572-S;"
Ifii !
17 r : i I
I
r t : f
t
iH I

8.15.2023
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I am a resident of the Campus Commons-Nepenthe community. I see problems with the developer's latest plans for redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive (Project No. Z22- 079). The plans continue to disregard parking problems that the new development will create for the residents currently living in Nepenthe/Campus Commons.

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.

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.

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 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 close to that goal.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Siiteri
August 15, 2023
Dear Mr. Dahla,
My Campus Commons/Nepenthe 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. 222-079). One concern is the difficulties created for all of us 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 altemate 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:

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 I 2 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.

There is clearly no plan and no space 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,
Rebecca Siiteri
1403 Commons Dr
Sacramento. CA 95825
Date: August 10, 2023
To: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner, City of Sacramento (via email [email protected]) CC: Vice Mayor Eric Guerra
From: Sally McLaughlin
Re: 222-079 (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 planninganddesigncommissionundersection17.812.060. Thezoningadministratormayreferany 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.

7.452.030: The planned unit development (I'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.

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 inciuded wittiin the area designated in the 11-10-69 document.

The 11-10-69 Document states that in 1965'lthe 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 projece'.

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 exceptionaj 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 chamcter 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.

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.

Sacramento, CA 95825
[email protected]
Bob Aldrich
708 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
916.712.1074
[email protected]
Zach Dahla
City of Sacramento Planning Division
300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Re: Pmjed No. 222-079, 707 Commons Drive
Degr Mr. Dahla:

I'm writing as a resident of Campus Commons Village #4 with my concems about the developmen! plans far 707 COmmonS DrjVe tbai Bardj8 and Marl Daval<4imcnt have filed with the city of Sacramento, the most reoent updated plan was filed on July 25, 2023 (Project No. 222-079). I live directly across the street from the proposed project. I'm concemed regarding the design and materials of the projed, landscaping, loss of trees, potential increases in occupancy, possible in-home businesses, vehicle traffic, and parking- These mncerns directly impact our entire planned unit development (PUD) - Campus Commons-Nepenthe.

The design of ttie unb is not in keeping for the historic atmosphere of our planned community of Campus Cummunb-NcpCnthC. The proposed four-plexes would fit in better in Crocker Village, McKinley Village, or another in-fill project elsewhere in the city. The materials being used is a total departure from the look and design of our nearly 60-year-old planned development. The propose units will stand out like a sore thumb.

Despite the deve4oper's daims that their pAamh hannonize with the Campus Cornrnons PUD, the three-story pmposed units are oompkstety incompatible mth the existing neighborhood in design, scale, density, pla>ment, landscaping, materials, and more - "wholly ladcing of respect for the neighboring ardiitecture" aing to a neighborhood planning professional With its imitation wood panels, false stone facades, and an absence of variety and details, the plan violates the historic context of our adjacent neighborhood- Removing canopy trees and filling open spaoe with ooncrete and asphalt worsens the heat island effect in a warming dirnate- The plans (now in its 4- iteration) call for removal of 26 mature trees, including 11 private protected trees- For many years city officials have proclaimed the importanoe of the extensive aanopy in our "City of Trees-" The development plan with removal of so many mature trees is permanent loss to the Campus Commons urban forest, a loss that impacts the neighborhood, the region, and the dimate.

The lost mnopy mnnot be effedively repla. The artist's rendition of replaoement trees across flie front ofthe buildings is a mjrage. The developers oontinue to plan to ait down I
healthy trees and plant small tree species that will cast iittle shade in spaces that are too small for healthy growth. Given the minimal bpat,e Lietwccn buildings and pavement, it is very unlikely that canopy trees could flourish-
Limited green space in the new plans is not oompatible mth every other area in Campus Commons and Nepenthe, defeating ffie planning and envimnmental design ooncepts fundamental to the PUD, embra by ttiis oommunity, and axlffied in ffie C$ General Plan.

Along with removal of the trees, the developers want to level the elevated berm on which the 707 Commons office building was mnstructed. Rolling landscape is a central and intentional feature throughout Campus Commons and even along Fair Oaks Blvd- Even commercial buildings have the raised berm to blend in with the residential areas.

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 thmughout the PUD. The development plans also show building overhangs that appear to nearly reach the sidewalks and HVAC untts on street-facing sides of residences.

The plans for Phase 1 at 707 Commons Drive >11 for demolishing an architecturally significant building, with its signature trellises and pergola, that is integral to the Campus Commons planned unit development concept.

Neighbors continue to press for historic preservation of the office building at 707 Commons Drive. The existing structure is an important and consciously designetl linkeigt, Lictwccn the two residential and offioe/oommercial PUD sections of Campus Commons. The office building was designed by the community's original architect, a leader in Mid-Century Northern California's architedure, and it 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 offioes, fazlty live/work, senior care, and more- Density of the proposed buildings continues to be an issue. The revised plans show 24 units across six buildings, with features in the plans that make an additional 121ivable units a possibility. Twelve of the 24 units contain a room with a half bath and a kitchenette- If city code allows at a future time, a buyer could oonvert to a full bath and create a rental studio apartment or live/workspace- Thus, residents could operate a business out of their workspaoe, with possible clients (with more mrs) visting-
The same j2 units also have a "4th bedroom option" with a full bathroom. By adding a kitchenette, a homeowner oould also create a rental. Either of these conversions would increase density, traffic, and parking issues (These possible rental studio apartments will have no garages. So, occupants will have to park on the street.) The number of vehicles for residents of this project is estimated at about 48 cars, SUVs, and pick-up tnicks (24 units at two cars per unit). It is realistic that many new residents will use their garages for storage and park on the main streets (Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road)- If these new residents have guests, those cars also will be on the streets making for congested traffic and more hazardous oonditions- Add 12 more vehicles for rented studio apartments and you have 60 vehicles jockeying for places to park- 2 I also have a concern regarding trash pickup- There is no indication where these new residents will put their three garbage, recycle, and organic waste bins forweekly and bi wcckly colicction.

If the bins are placed on the main streets, there oould be issues with the vehides thatwiH be parked there, including possible damage from the city trash trucks.

It should be noted that this is allegedly just Phase 1 of the project- Tm second phase will reportedly include development of the property at the corner of University Ave and Campus Commons Road, which shares a property line with this project. I understand that the entire project is being done by Bardis and Miry in two phases so as to not trigger requirement of amenities, open space, and perhaps having a percentage of lower-income housing.

All of the issues in this letter - loss of trees, the elevated berm, density, the destruction of a historic building - may be resolved through joint planning for the mo adjacent properties and pursuit of historic preservation and alternate uses for the existing building, Joint planning for the adjoining 350 University Avenue (Phase 2) and 707 Commons Drive (Phase 1 ) properties oould resolve some of the thomiest issues for ours neighboring PUD. Both properties were purchased under one PUD ah;gl'ialiun ond both should mntinue to be subject to the requirements of the PUD. Planning for both properties, as one projed, would also be more consistent with the planning that went into the original PUD designation- As the developers on 707 Commons Drive and 350 University Avenue, Bardis and Miry are in a position to unify planning for the two properties.

Thank you for considering my concems and possible solutions from us residents of Campus Commons-Nepenthe. I hope and would officially request that this proposal be brought before the full City Council for approval, rather than just a sign off from the planning department.

Sincerely,
Bob Aldrich
3 I(ICA, D[?!i[,Q
ll/ lc4 12 -Z,
a""TPFr PlANeR
niy 0 2L c:J
""Qlz 7ri,i,t:rga h'B
l'NMaDr\to '%)=3SS ay7.rpB a'o7
J ThSJL!x 13,4zl p,:>vsets 99 P7"Q'1,S52vgt,,
"'/' ze,,4,i7,va'-re-s,b7, r¥tau pasogoq,)ooop S/
""QI'P"fl"s"7'srvl";tvo<,uvvtoasndvuvsxo
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. 222-079).

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 l'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 propcsed developmerit is enciosed withiri 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 ffdentlt)f, enSur € 3 pub!/C SafeO/; are family/-friendly/ and addreSS (he NEEDS Of a// 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)toexistingneighborhoodsandsurroundingareas.J'LlJ2.'l.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: 5JThe City shall promote the preseravation, 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 residentiai areas of the two PUDs. it is the work of master architect of suburban office design in the Bay Area/Nor-Cal
The General Plan requires building design that "respects and responds to the local context, including use of local materiais where feasible, responsiveness to Sacramenfo'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 Pian 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 retam healthy trees." ER 3.1.2 And: llThe City shall continue to promote planting shade frees 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 foms that contribute to the overall character and iivabi!ity of tthe neigh5ortiood." 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 ,
Kurt Wessale
514 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I'm writing as a resident of Campus Commons Village 3 with my concems 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 settiacks 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 t}iat 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 conve:it 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 destrauction of a historic building - can be resolved through join't 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 existirxg structure is an importa:.t arid 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 Califomia'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 hatmonious resolution.

Thank you for considering these concerns and solutions.

Sincerely,
Kaxrt Wessale
514 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
Dear Mr. Dahla,
l 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. 222-079).

In recognition of Sacramento's neighborhoods as '?)88/'C living environments that make up the city's urban fabric,y'ttie General Plan commits the City to € 'strive through its planning and urban design to preser've 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 overa// character andlivabilityoftheneighborhood."LU2A.2. Thedesignoftheproposed3-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 we//- 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 a// 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)toexistingncighlis>ghuudbaiidsurroundingareas."LU2A.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 oT 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 Ilrespects 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 deveiopments have sufficient right-of-way width for tree plantings, manage and care for all publicly owned trees, and work to retain healthy frees.'yER 3.1.2 And: € lThe Cityshall 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 characterand 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 concems
Sincerely,
20, .:l-x,.tg
Dear Mr. Dahla,
I'm writing as a resident of [Campus Commons Village or Nepenthel with my concerns about the development plans for 707 Commons Drive that Bardis and Mitay 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 Comtnons 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 environtnental design concepts fundamental to the PUD, embraced by this community, and codified in the City General Plan.

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.

All of the issues in this letter - loss of traees, the elevated berm, demhy, the destruction of a historic building - can be resolvedthrough jointplanningfor2 udjacenLpwpsitiss and pursuit ofhistorL pit,A'ei vuiLix an.! -41!imte mes pr the existing building.

Joint planning for the adjoining 350 University Ave. and 707 Commons Dr. properties could resolve somq of the thorniest issues for the neighboig PUD. Both properties were purchased under one PUD designation and both should continue to be subject to the requirements of the PUD. Planning for botti 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 presenration 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.

Thank you for considering these concerns and solutions.

Sincerely,
Edit to reflect your voice and interests.

Dear Mr. Dahla,
231 o'J3
I live in [Campus Commons Village or Nepenthel. 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. 222-079). 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 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 fi to each set of 3 containers to meet the City's spacing guidelines. - 5.5 ft + 9 ft = -14.5 ff. This is the curb space needed for each of the 24 units. 24 units x -14.5 ff = -348 ft. A football field is 360 ft. including end zones.

Residents may order more and larger containers, requiring even more curb space.

On Thursday evenings much or all of the curb space needed for containers will probably already be occupied by parked cars because of tandem garages for 12 units, garages used for storage, cars belonging to optional studio units, and absence of visitor parking.

With curb space taken up by parked cars, Campus Commons neighbors can expect to find containers, some fallen, and debris spread out for hundreds of feet along Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. If containers do find curb space on a Thursday, it will be the 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).

Edit to reflect your voice and interests.

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.

Sincerely,
* The July 25 revised plans show groups of 3 refuse containers with no space between the individual cans, hiding the true proportions of the problem. 1 Zachary Dahla
From: AOLMAIL! UPDATE!!!! <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 7:24 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: New Development at 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I, along with most other residents of Campus Commons, are more than concerned about the proposals put forth to develop the plot at 707 Commons Dr. You would do well to research the history of the development and contrast it with what appears to be your crass and tasteless plans. This entire village was designed as just that, a village in the midst of urban access to stores, restaurants etc. Your proposal violates and degrades the concept. First, removal of the trees constitutes a violence against the area, both in intent for this to remain a green belt and environmentally. What this area does not need is more unattractive stucco boxes. This village strived to create a cohesive design of one story structures of three, fully landscaped with trees and plantings and paths. It is known for this. You are proposing to replace this well thought out design theme with a charmless apartment complex, adding multiple units and cars to an already congested area. The assault on the green belt is untenable and the truly unpleasant apartment complex destroys the concept of village life. This entire design appears to quite crassly serve the economic greed of its developers and ignore the beauty and grace of its surrounding area. You are the toad sitting on its lily pad in a beautiful pond. You are taking advantage of the reputation of this community while violating all of its principles. Unacceptable and a gross disappointment. The only development here is in the exploitation of an established community for the further enrichment of tone deaf and greedy developers.I implore you to reconsider both the design and the impact this rat maze will have on s street with speeding cars amidst many older residents. Howe already is a noise problem . You are assuring that the problem will grow and spread into the interior of the village with your proposal. With great concern, SG O’Gara, 903 Commons Dr. 1 Zachary Dahla
From: Sue Blomberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 1:31 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: New development at 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
As a resident of Campus Commons for
nearly 30 years I am adamantly opposed to the new development being planned at the above address. Our community is already effected by traffic and this new project will make traffic issues much worse!! The existing building was used as offices and the building had its own par king lot. The new plans will use the parking lot for building homes. The developers are building 25 three story homes on little over an acre. The existing building esthetics complement the surrounding area. The new project is an eye sore for Campus Commons and I worry about our property values decreasing.

Campus Commons is very uniqu
e for Sacramento and would like to honor this property by keeping the standard high.

After going to the meeting with the developers I feel they are interested in making money and not necessarily concerned about Campus Commons at all.

Please help keep Campus Commons th e very unique property it is.

Thank you,
Suzanne Blomberg
Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: PAUL STIFFLER <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 8:49 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive, Notice of Planning Application Z22-079 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr. Zach Dahla,

I am writing to you to object to the above referenced proposed development at 707 Commons Dr. My objections are to the following:

1. Architecture of proposed residential buildings are not in keeping with the architecture of the other residences in Campus Commons. The exterior of the proposed buildings are an eyesore in Campus Commons. The exterior of the proposed buildings should be a complimentary color, not stark white and the finish should be in keeping with the other nearby building that it will be neighbors to.

2. Removal of all mature trees on the 1 acre site will be a disgrace to Campus Commons that touts being an urban forest. An urban desert that this project will project does not belong in Campus Commons. The city should be ashamed of itself for allowing the developers to even consider cutting down these trees by simply paying a fee to the city.

3. The traffic congestion on Commons Dr. at Campus Commons Road with additional 50 cars for the new residents.

4. No parking spaces within the 707 development for guest or service vehicles.

5. With no amenities for the residents of 707 Commons Dr., there is great concern about these residents trespassing on the private property of Campus Commons to use the amenities paid for by the homeowners of Campus Commons for their exclusive use.

Please provide me with the dates, times and location of meeting with the city departments pertaining to this project so I can attend the meetings to hear the city address and discuss these complaints.

Thank you,
Paul W. Stiffler
945 Commons Dr.

Sacramento, CA 95825
847-219-4910
[email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Paula <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 1:08 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra; [email protected] Subject: 707 Commons Drive Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
As a long-time Campus Commons resident I strongly oppose this development as it is proposed for the following reasons:

They will destroy dozens of mature trees including decades old redwoods and will not replace any. The architect did not make any efforts to design the buildings to blend in with our neighborhood. The 25 homes sit right at the street with no landscape of the grounds.

This will be a monstrous stucco outcrop adding no aesthetic value. These 25 homes will have 3 garbage bins each which means there will be 75 trash bins lining the street, in full view, for at least two days every week.

This project needs to be reconfigured to save trees and setback the homes off the street and to include more landscaping -- even if it means building fewer homes on the site. As it is, this is an ugly intrusion and inappropriate use of the space. They are contributing nothing to our neighborhood aesthetic, only diminishing it along with property values.

Paula Zaby

1 Zachary Dahla
From: MARILYN PIAZZA <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 9:17 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Re 707 commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
How ugly. Totally not consistent with design and appearance of campus commons.

Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mary Goodley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 1:53 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Drive
I would like to add my voice to the opposition of the proposed development at the address shown. One can only imagine the parking problem that would develop and the general disruption that we would see in our tranquil neighborhood. The trees that would be destroyed is another concern. Hopefully, the city will not grant permits for thi s project.

Mary C. Goodley
243 Hartnell Place
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 2:48 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Planning
Subject: Neighbor concerns about proposed development Z22-079 at 707 Commons Drive Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Zach,

I am a 25‐year home owner in Campus Commons. I am reaching out to you to express my concerns about the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive. After reading an email that my neighbor sent to you, I have similar concerns as he expressed, along with additional concerns.

1. Remo
val of private protected trees. This is very undesirable from an environmental and quality of living perspective and appears to be in violation of strategic goals and initiatives of the city as a whole. Many Campus Commons neighbors/ owners would object to this plan and so far the developer and owner have not engaged with the community sufficiently to assess whether the details of this plan can be accepted by the city. We need our trees, their shade and the open spaces around them; all of this is at the core of the appeal of the entire Campus Commons neighborhood and Sacramento as the "city of trees". Moreover, the pro
posed layout and the proximity of "phase one" buildings to the street do not match the local development’s principles and contradicts key environmental goals of the city as outlined in the city’s environmental justice initiative, the climate plan, the urban forest master pla n, the General Plan 2040 item 6 "increase urban tree canopy" and the ORDINANCE NO. 2016‐0026.

The plan as posted fails to detail the nature and necessity for the proposed regulated work. ‐ Do you have any more details about this and why this has to involve 25 units and dest roy as many trees as proposed? ‐ Can the city limit the number of trees lost and request a plan to compensate for any removed trees?

2. Traffic safety: The intersection of Campus Commons Road/ Commons Drive is already a concern as speed limits are often not complied with and many complaints have been comm unicated to the police about cars speeding on Commons Drive including drivers who do not live in Campus Commons but appear to utilize this street as a shortcut to avoid the busy Howe/ Fair Oaks intersection. More residential homes will add more traffic which would endanger neighbors and bicycl
ists. Item 9 of the General Plan 2040 "Prioritize walking, biking and transit over automobile use" would suggest that the city has an interest to maintain and create safe spaces for walking and biking, which certainly has been noticeable in Midtown and other places.
‐ How are pedestrians and bicyclists going to be protecte d? ‐ Will there be a barrier at the entrance/ exit to the new development? ‐ Will the city install speed lumps?
‐ How will the tall buildings impact the line of sight at the intersection where visibility is currently great thanks to open lawns?

3. Precedence setting for similar
housing to replace office nearby buildings along University Avenue. The developer of 707 Commons Drive, also owns the office building at 350 Commons Drive. Apparently, relatives of the 707 Commons Drive developer own additional office buildings nearby. There are berms on these properties that help separate the structures from the street view. If this 70 7 Commons development is successful in removing the berms and all of huge protected trees, there is concern that it is just a matter of time, before the neighborhood with office buildings has all the berms and lovely trees demolished in order to create an urban village. An urban village of to wnhomes built right up to the street with little regard to the existing large tree canapy in the area will be a devastating blow and devalue nearby existing residences, and eliminate the lovely tree‐shaded sidewalks. 2 4. 1234 U Street is an example of a similar development. The units at 1234 U Street have the HVAC units placed in the front yard. The 707 Commons Drive units will be even closer to the street than the units at 1234 U Street. The HVAC units for the 707 Commons developme nt may be placed at street level, near the sidewalks. This will be an eye‐sore and increase noise when walking in the area. This is highly objectionable.

5. Sustainability: The plan does not mention whether the proposed new units will be equipped with solar roofs, higher LEED standards, a community garden or any other thoughtful sustainability ele ments to benefit the community and
future generations. The developer appears to want to maximize their profits with limited or no regard to the environmental impact of the project. If more information is available, there may be value in sharing this information with the Campus Common s Park Corporation Board and the various Campus Commons Villages. If such information is not available, I would request that the planning department challenges the developer and owner alike to do better.

Could you please consider these aspects and respond? The impact of this proposed investment goes much beyond the direct nei
ghbors in the village 1 HOA (I’m in village 3, for example) and there is a growing concern in our community about the information posted.

Thank you,
Marilyn Buehler
[email protected]
916‐812‐9496

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Inderjit Rye <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 12:12 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,

This morning, I attended a meeting between the developer and Campus Commons Village Two. I’ll be attending another meeting today at 4 PM.

I have concerns about the development plan, which I will write to you about tomorrow.

But two immediate questions I have are:
‐ is the developer right in saying that
it is OK to remove healthy mature trees in order to demolish the existing office building and rebuild on that spot?
‐ and that city zoning would allow 36 units to be built on that spot? (The developer is indicating that they are planning on only building 25 units, implying that we should look on the dev elopment as a positive.)

Thank you,
Inderjit Rye
906 Commons Dr

Sent from my iPhone
From: Janet Buehler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 2:10 PM
To: Urban Forestry <[email protected]> Subject: Saving Private Protected trees at 707 Commons Drive

City of Sacramento Urban Forestry,

I am writing to understand the process involved to save the private, protected trees located at 707 Commons Drive. There is currently a permit submitted by the developer to remove these trees. I, and other nearby residents, would like to see the trees remain protected and preserved with the new development.

I found the following information on your website.:

In accordance with Sacramento City Code 12.56.030, a written objection may be made in regards to removal of a tree within 15 days of the posting date. Written objections must state the grounds for the objection and may be sent to City of Sacramento, Department of Public Works, Urban Forestry at 5730 24th St., Bldg. 12A, Sacramento, CA 95822 or email at [email protected].

I have attached information regarding the permit submitted by the developer. Is the posting mentioned above and the 15-day period based on the posting of the tree on your website? Any additional information that you can provide regarding this objection process is appreciated.

Removal of private protected trees is mentioned in the permit. This is very undesirable from an environmental and quality of living perspective and appears to be in violation of strategic goals and initiatives of the city as a whole. This development plan contradicts key environmental goals of the city as outlined in the city’s environmental justice initiative, the climate plan, the urban forest master plan, the General Plan 2040 item 6 "increase urban tree canopy" and the ORDINANCE NO. 2016-0026.

Thank you,
Janet Buehler
916-524-8124

1 Zachary Dahla
From: David Lane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 10:58 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Planning application Z22-079; 707 Commons Dr.

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

I understand that you are the planner reviewing the application for the development of 707 Commons Dr. The developers made an informational presentation at the Campus Commons clubhouse last night. This provided significantly more information and, at first glance, it appears that this would be a very nice project with 25 three and four bedroom home and “large” two car garages.

However, I believe that th
ere are significant problems with it which should disqualify this project. I am a resident of Campus Commons residing on Commons Dr., and am opposed to it as currently designed.

Initially, in looking at this entire area, as it currently exists, it is important to note that the two parcels, 707 Commons and 350 University, are closely tied together and operate together. Both of these parcels are currently office buildings. They utilize one common parking lot, apparently physically located on the 350 University parcel. This can be easily verified by looking at the property as there are two pedestrian exits from the parking lot, one designated for the 350 property and the other for the 707 property. I do not know if there is a recorded common use agreement but it is clear that this is necessary for the 707 C ommons property. Both of these properties are claimed to be owned by the developers; but, during the presentation, they made a point to say that these are being treated by them as separate and unrelated properties. I submit that this is a major issue with their proposed developmen t.

The developers have admitted that they have zero parking places in their proposal other than in the garages.

They also denied that they considered the possibility that any of their proposed units would be purchased to be used for student housing. They said that they intend to develop th is as an HOA and that they would prohibit rental units. They are apparently unaware of the provision of the Davis‐Stirling Act, Civil Code §4741, which expressly prohibits such restriction. I am unaware if they actually lack this knowledge or if they were simply trying to pacify us. In either event, this is a major
problem. There is no provision for visitors parking and the proposed plan would require that they park on the streets. It is beyond question that there will be visitors to the proposed development. It is also most probable that there will be residents who will need a dditional parking, whether because they use the garage to store items, have more than two vehicles, or more than two people with vehicles reside in the home. Further, there is no parking for people coming to the proposed development to make repairs, make deliveries, etc. When questioned further about the la ck of interior parking, the developers said that they would permit parking on the 350 University lot, but later said that this would be a temporary measure since this was a “separate” property. In other words, they intend to permit this so that their development plan is approved and, once it is approved, and they develop the 350 prop erty, this will be terminated.

This is essentially equivalent to a loss‐leader to get approval and then leave their residents to their own struggles. If this plan or any subsequent plan is approved, it should require that there be adequate parking and the use of the parkin g lot be maintained on the 350 parcel for the use of the 707 parcel in perpetuity.

There are concerns about the destruction of the heritage trees on the property. I am not an arborist, but these trees primarily appear to be in good health. I u
nderstand that many of them are in excess of 50 years with many remaining years if properly maintained. The City of Sacramento is proud to claim to be a City of Trees and has multiple 2 restrictions to protect trees, including specific protections for heritage trees. The developers said that they have applied for permits to remove the trees and that they will pay fees to remediate the loss. These fees will do nothing to ameliorate our lose and will significantly damage the entire neighborhood. As you must be aware, this area is an oasis within the cit
y known for the trees and green spaces. All of these are located on private property but enjoyed by all of the residents both in Campus Commons and Nepenthe.

The manner of construction itself is not conducive to this area. The buildings are essentially design ed in such a way that they conflict with all of the construction currently in this area. It would stick out and be a blight rather than an asset. A walk around our area shows that all of the properties are set back from the sidewalks with landscaping. The proposed developmen
t essentially has the buildings almost on the sidewalks, with the furthest off of the sidewalk being perhaps 3‐5 feet. The abrupt flat surfaces of the buildings would only emphasize the difference to the rest of the neighborhood.

The plan calls for one entry to the development, an e
xpansion of the current shared entry on Commons which
only has a few parking spaces for 707 and is seldom used for that property. As set forth above, at this time the vast majority of the access to the property is from the University entrance to the parking lot. This plan not only will significant
ly increase the traffic and will move what traffic there is now which remains on University to Campus Commons and Commons. Neither of these streets are built for that increased traffic. There is apparently a proposed exit from the property onto Campus Commons but I understand that it is too close to the in tersection to be permitted for an entrance. Commons is currently a through street at this intersection. If this or a revised project is permitted, there should be a controlled intersection in order to provide more safety.

I understand that the developers purchased these pro perties for the purpose of constructing residential HOAs.

While they propose to develop them independently, they are ignoring the fact that these properties are closely tied together and the separate development of them, while perhaps more financially beneficial to the developers, creates many problems which can be ameliorated by simply developing them under one plan. They could then utilize the full properties, provide for some open space, enough parking, entrances from University, Campus Commons, and Commons, preserve at least some of the heritage trees, be complementary to the community and be an asset. Their development could be done over several years as they currently propose but be a unified plan. There is no legitimate reason why this would not work as one, unified development.

As currently presented, I strongly oppose the plan and request that it be denied.

David R. Lane
1258 Commons Dr.

Sacramento CA 95825
530‐632‐9423
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Dan Powell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 11:08 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I was at the meeting yesterday at the Campus Commons Clubhouse but had to leave early.

It appears the developer is well within the limits of what the space is zoned to hold. That is very much appreciated My comments pertain to design of the buildings.

What was the process for coming up with that desig
n. It doesn’t fit well with the care and thoughtfulness of current design. The current design is understated and classy. The new design does not meet that simple criteria at all. It is bulky and angular and has a very cheap look to it. What other options were explored and how did the developer come up with this one? There has to be something better that would be cost effective AND fit in much better. The current design is not a good fit at all in my opinion and I would like them to explore other option s and bring those forward for review with the homeowners. This is a beautiful area and this project design absolutely does not fit. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you.
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Brenda Wise <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 12:44 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 commons drive development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I have lived in Campus Commons for 37 years and I’m against the proposed new development at 707 Commons Drive.

We don’t need additional residential housing in the area. The office building that is there, is a perfectly fine neighbor and has been for 37 years! The developer is just trying to make money and not considering the impact on the neighborhood. I was unable to attend the meeting due to the fact that it was during work hours. Thank you, Brenda Wise

Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Alan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 5:45 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Public comment about Application Z22-709
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr. Dahla, below is my comment about this project. Thank you for passing it along.

Public Comment about Application Z22-709
707 Commons Drive condominium project

To Sacramento’s Department of Planning:

I am a homeowner who has owned a PUD house in Campus Commons for 20 years.

Bardis & Miry Development, along with their associated contractors, has done a highly detailed and professional job of envisioning their proposed development at 707 Commons Drive project. It is attractive and professionally planned.

One point I note is that the density and the siting of the proposed houses on the lot are not in keeping with those of the surrounding community and differ considerably.

Proposed are 25 houses on this roughly one-acre lot. For comparison, one of the neighboring Campus Commons Villages consists of 53 houses on 10 acres, about one fifth the density of this new development.

Currently, the office building at 707 Commons rests on a raised mound and is quite a bit set back from the sidewalk, as are all the residences occupying the other three corners of the intersection of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Drive.

The plan to position these new townhouses only 3 feet from the sidewalk of Commons Drive and to place them on a lot level with the street alters the character and feel of this neighborhood.

The proposed architecture, while stylish and fashionable, pays little obeisance to the Mid-Century Modern architecture used through the various villages that constitute Campus Commons. The white, off-white and gray hues are not used on the existing townhouses; rather they use earth colors, like tones of tan or beige. Use of these colors on the exterior would help the new project harmonize better with the neighborhood. One would hope that the architecture would acknowledge, at least in small ways, that of the neighboring houses.

If the number of townhouses could be scaled back, the houses fronting on Commons Drive could have a greater set back, more in keeping with the neighborhood.

I would prefer to see the Planning Department consider imposing changes similar to those I have mentioned to 2 the project.

Thank you.

Alan T. Watters
1149 Vanderbilt Way
Sacramento, CA 95825

Alan T. Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2022 9:59 am
Subject: Inquiry about Application Z22-709
Mr. Zach Dahla,

How does a citizen go about requesting to see information pertaining to a Planning Application in order to comment?

I am interested in Z22-709 whose Project Name is Contemporary Commons, at 707 Commons Drive.

Thank you,

Alan T. Watters
Sacramento, CA
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Jo Gregory <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 11:59 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Proposed Development at 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento, CA 95825 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: Zach Dahla

Please deny approval for the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento, CA.

The project would remove several beautiful, mature, heritage trees.

It would also create a traffic nightmare with only one access drive at the far end of the property to enter and leave twenty‐five large units. Th ere is limited parking on Campus Commons Road, the adjoining street.

The units will be large enough for multifamily living, yet there will be no outside amenities.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Johanna Gregory
621 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: BRUCE ROGERS <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 2:26 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Planned houses at 707 Commons Dr.

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

As a resident Campus Commons for over six years, I was extremely concerned to learn about the proposed housing development at 707 Campus Commons. My concerns cover a number of areas:

1. The significantly increased amount of traffic on Commons Drive, especially at morning and evening rush‐hour. I am also concerned
about the increased dangerous conditions that the addition of up to 50 new automobiles will bring to the various streets in our neighborhood. This increased traffic will certainly greatly inconvenience our neighbors in the village to who will be forced to share their driveway with the new inhabitants. Our streets were not designed for large amounts of traffic.

2. I lament the plans to cut down the beautiful and very old trees in front of the present 707 Commons building. One of the beauties, indeed one of the great drawing elements of our unique Campus Commons neighborhood, is the wonderful ca
nopy of trees that we live under. To remove those from 707 in Commons would leave a gaping hole in our panoply of trees.

3. I have seen the proposed design for the new houses to be built on Commons Drive. Their style is completely wrong for this entire area of mostly single story mid cent
ury modern homes. They are a glaring eyesore. Those of us who have purchased homes here certainly never expected that kind of brash change to our neighborhood. Besides the diminished charm and beauty of our environment, we also fear a loss of value in our home s because of the striking contrast of housing.

As a voter and taxpayer, I urge you to do whatever you can to prevent this disrupting development from coming to fruition. It does not belong in the Campus Commons community.

Sincerely,
Bruce Rogers
2325 American River Dr.

Sacramento, CA 95825

Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPad
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Thomas Fante <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 3:22 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Campus Commons: 707 Commons Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
My husband and I are residents of Campus Commons and are very concerned by the proposed development on Commons Drive, Z22-079, APN:295-0402-015-0000.

Here are the main issues I see with 707 Commons:

Trees & landscaping-All the trees & landscaping are planned for removal to accommodate the 25 housing units. Has the developer filed a permit to remove them? By removing the trees and landscaping, the new housing dramatically conflicts with the CC development. The new project look is stark, barren, and abrupt. In direct contrast to the graceful and low-key look of our homes. As with the removal of the trees, there is little attention to the landscaping.

Architectural Design
-The design of the buildings are also in stark contrast to the homes in CC. The new design is vertical in appearance. That look blends on U Street, where there the developer has built condos. In downtown, the vertical look works since many buildings are apartment high rises or office buildings. Basically, the developer has dropped the same buildings in the Campus Commons neighborhood. This same look in CC does not mix well with the horizontal, low-key appearance of our homes.

Parking-There is no space for visitor parking. Visitors will be parking on Commons Rd. and Commons Drive. Parking will be a problem for the current residents of CC.

CC Amenities-There is nothing to prohibit the residents of the new development from using some of the CC amenities since it is directly across the street. Some will use our playground, ponds, landscaping and walkways, the amenities that have been paid for by CC residents over many years. We suggest a playground and exercise room for these new homeowners.

Site Planning-In reviewing the plans, it looks like the 25 units were packed into a one- acre parcel. This is almost twice the number of housing units in the adjacent village. This is a dramatic contrast with the homes in CC, which have ample space for walkways, landscaping, and cluster housing.

Repurposing the 707 Building-Has the City considered repurposing the building for additional senior housing? The current Campus Commons community is likely to generate demand for its aging 2 population, where many CC residents may soon or already need some form of alternative housing. These residents will most likely want to keep a close proximity to their community and friends.

Developing the project in the Phase 2 site- Is it possible to retain the current office building for re- purposed senior housing and instead develop the adjacent second phase of the development at the northerly parcel for the new units?

Postpone the Comment Period-Can the city delay the comment period so that CC residents can complete their review and comment of the project?

Thank you,

Tom & Anita Fante

2319 American River Drive

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Sandy Schaafsma <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 4:12 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Proposed development Commons Dr
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

I’m writing to express my objection to this planned development. I live in Campus Commons and I think the high density of this project will bring negative results for our community. Thank you for your consideration.

Sandra Schaafsma

Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Nancy Comstock <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 2:01 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Notice of Planning Application #Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,

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

This proposal calls for a massive change to the current use and look of the property. It seeks to tear down an existing office building and many heritage trees to erect 25 housing units. This is the wrong development for this property for the following reasons:

Trees & landscaping
All the trees and landscaping are planned for removal to accommodate the 25 housing units. The trees that are to be removed are beautiful heritage trees that have been there for decades and provide a visible example of Sacramento's claim to be "the city of trees." The developers plan to achieve mitigation for the tree removal by paying a fee. This is not mitigation - it is a mere budget item for the developers and is not acceptable. As with the removal of the trees, there is little attention to the landscaping.

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

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

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

Site Planning
2 The developer has packed the 25 units into a one-acre parcel. This is almost twice the number of housing units in the adjacent village (which is representative of the rest of Campus Commons) and is a dramatic contrast with Campus Commons homes, which have ample space for walkways, landscaping, and cluster housing.

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

Postpone the Comment Period
I hope the city will delay the comment period so that Campus Commons residents can complete their review and provide additional comment.

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

Nancy Comstock
[email protected]
916 296-2171

Thank you,

Nancy Comstock
2321 American River Drive

Thank you,
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Naomi <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 2:14 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; [email protected]
Subject: oppose removal of private protected trees: Contemporary Commons 707 Commons Drive: zoning application Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,

I would like to provide commentary on the planned Contemporary Commons development at 707 Commons Drive.

Zoning application Z22-079
APN 295-0402-015-0000

I strongly oppose the removal of the private protected trees, especially the trees that have beautified this landscape for 100 years or more!

Any planned condominium or building development should be built around these magnificent trees rather than removing them. This is totally possible and is common practice in many countries, such as in Norway where they build around nature, rather than remove nature.

There is no way these magnificent trees could be replaced. They have made this area of Campus Commons very beautiful for 100 years or more. Please do not remove the private protected trees!

There are many other community members who feel the same as I do.

I would be happy to provide more feedback upon request.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you,
Naomi Ennis

2 3

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Marty Stiffler <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Eric Guerra
Subject: Notice of Planning Application Z22-079 - 707 Commons Drive Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Zach Dahla:

I am writing to object to the above referenced proposed development at 707 Commons Drive. The highlights of my objections are:

1. Architecture of proposed residential buildings – The appearance of the buildings is not in keeping with the architecture of the other residences in Campus Commons. This makes it stick out like a sore thumb and detracts from the graceful beauty of the rest of Campus Commons.

In comparison to the current community of Campus Commons, the exterior of the proposed buildings should be: a complimentary color and style, not stark white instead of muted earth tones; vertical instead of horizonal; and contemporary instead of mid-century modern.

Additionally, the finish should be in keeping with other nearby buildings.

2. Removal of all trees and building placement close to the street – Removal of all trees, including mature heritage trees, completely contradicts Sacramento’s promotion of itself as the City of Trees. It also stands in stark contrast to the urban forest that characterizes Campus Commons. Having 25 units on a 1-acre site with no trees and with tall buildings extremely close to the street will be a detraction to Campus Commons. This project’s urban desert does not belong in Campus Commons. It boggles the mind that the developers would be able to cut down the trees on the lot by simply paying a fee to the City.

3. Traffic congestion and no parking spaces within the 707 development – The addition of the project’s residents and guests’ 50+ cars will cause further problems at the intersection of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. Additionally, on-street parking with resident car overflow plus the cars of guests and service vehicles will add to the congestion on Commons Drive and difficulty navigating its intersection with Campus Commons Road. This intersection is already in need of a 4-way stop.

4. Impact on Campus Commons amenities - With no amenities for the residents of 707 Commons Drive, there is great concern about the project’s residents trespassing on the private property of Campus Commons to use the amenities paid for by the homeowners of Campus Commons for their exclusive use.

Please provide me with the dates, times and location of meetings with the city departments pertaining to this project so I can attend the meetings to hear the city address and discuss these complaints and those of the vast majority of residents in the 571 homes in Campus Commons.

Thank you,
Marcele S. Stiffler
2 945 Commons Dr.

Sacramento, CA 95825
202-421-1983
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kathy Styc <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 1:07 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Development - Second email with additional concern.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Zach,
I wrote you last week about the 707 Common Drive developments I addressed primarily the need for a 4-way stop sign at the intersection of Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive. I also asked about the trees that will be removed. Thank you for your phone back about this email.

After a meeting the developers had with homeowners in Campus Commons, I also wanted to let you know that I have an additional concern expressed by many residents about the style of the proposed homes.

The style of the new housing is more suited to midtown. In fact, the developers said as much when they met with homeowners on November 28. They were addressing the look and size of the units and said they were similar to developments they had in two or three midtown areas. That is the exact concern I have – they look like midtown and Campus Commons is a suburb.

Isn’t there a city effort to preserve the integrity of neighborhoods? At the meeting, several residents noted that the style of the current office building was mid-century modern and was designed by a noted architect. The proposed homes don’t look remotely like that in style, density, color or landscaping. I am wondering if that is being considered by the Planning Directors.

Unfortunately, I don’t have enough time to look at the codes related to planning before providing this input today. I know the city is encouraging infill and higher density housing and I support that, but I wouldn’t consider this an infill area or comparable to other areas of the city such as midtown. It is more like River Park but even more suburban than that even though we are a community of condos. So, the high density and style proposed don’t really fit the community or the building style of the offices on University. I will continue to look on the website for the codes regarding this type of building but if it is easy to provide thoses references, I would appreciate that.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this input.

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

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Georgia McGreal <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 3:50 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Comments on development of 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Re: Project: Z22-079
707 Commons Drive

I live at 700 Commons Drive directly across the street from the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive. I have very serious concerns about the traffic situation at the intersection of Commons Drive and Campus Commons Road. There are currently stop signs only on Campus Commons Road and the driveway across Commons Drive that leads to the Campus Commons Clubhouse. I feel this intersection should be a 4-way stop, as are the other two intersections at American River Drive and Swarthmore Drive where external streets come into the community and intersect with Commons Drive. There is no less traffic here than at the other 2 intersections, and the development will increase that traffic. In addition, as I understand it, the homes will be 3-story including a garage at the bottom and will be built close to the sidewalk greatly reducing visibility for cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians approaching the intersection. This is another reason to have a 4- way stop at that intersection.

More detail on the traffic situation. I’m sorry that I don’t have more skills with maps and copying things into documents since a picture would probably take the place of the next few paragraphs. But, I will describe in a bit more detail the situation that concerns me.

Commons Drive is used by residents, of course, but there is also significant use especially on weekdays by people driving to medical and office buildings on University Avenue, driving and parking on University Avenue for access to CSUS, and people driving through the community to avoid the Howe and Fair Oaks intersection (one of the busiest in the city and maybe even the county if I recall correctly). I can personally attest to the increase in traffic on weekdays since my house is at that intersection, and my bedrooms are on that side of my house.

There is also significant bicycle and pedestrian traffic including dog walkers. There is a pedestrian crosswalk painted at the intersection but many times cars do not stop for the pedestrians. So, I feel the intersection at Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive needs to have 4-way stop signs, just as the other intersections on Commons Drive.

The building of the development at 707 Commons Drive makes the need for a 4-way stop sign even more urgent since the visibility will be decreased by buildings close to the intersection. Currently, there is a grassy area with a slight rise that provides some visibility across the corner of the property at 707 Commons. South bound traffic on Commons Drive can see cars close to the corner on Campus Commons Road, and vice-versa. However, with 3-story homes built close to the edge of the sidewalk, that visibility will be greatly diminished, especially for pedestrians. Many drivers barely slow 2 down now when they are making a right turn onto Campus Commons Road and definitely not slow enough to stop if a pedestrian is approaching and ready to cross.

I think it would be helpful to make this a 4-way stop intersection now so that people will get used to stopping. When clearing of the property and construction begin, this intersection will provide more challenges with trucks and service vehicles moving more slowly and increasing the potential for accidents.

On a different topic, why does the City allow the trees to be removed from this property when we must get approval from the City Arborist to remove trees and even trim trees when the Campus Commons Community is on private property as well? And we are usually only given approval when the tree is almost completely diseased and/or presents a hazard in terms of limbs dropping. Is the standard different when the land is being cleared for new development? I do understand that these are different circumstances, but I couldn’t find anything that addresses this in a brief review of the City website.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.

Kathy Styc
700 Commons Drive
(916) 484-0881 or (916) 715-7668
[email protected]

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Julie Kraus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Project Z22-079 Contemporary Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Mr. Dahla:

I am a 12 year owner resident in Village 1 of Campus Commons. I would like to voice a couple issues with the proposed housing development of 707 Commons. First, I feel the existing protected trees should remain because they are very important to the environment. Secondly, 707 Commons is geographically too close to Campus Commons. Campus Commons prides itself for many mature trees, established landscape, and space between homes. The proposed map calls for a completely opposite look with a much higher population density and is too close geographically to Campus Commons. As such, there would be much more traffic on Commons Drive and an incr ease of parking on Commons Drive.

If housing development occurs at 707 Commons my hope is that development be consistent with the homes and landscaping existing in Campus Commons. Campus Commons has been a jewel in Sacramento since late 1960’s. Please do not allow 707 to be the exact opposite of wh
at is across the street with noise, destroying of protected trees, congestion. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Julie Kraus
804 Commons Drive, Sacramento

Sent from my iPad
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Judy Cooke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 3:19 PM
To: Zachary Dahla; Eric Guerra
Subject: Development at 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To City Planners and Council: I am a resident of the Campus Commons Village and am very dismayed by the thoughtless development being planned at 707 Commons Drive. This dense housing project will be nothing short of a barren concrete SCAR in the iconic Campus Commons neighborhood. Let me say first that I realize housing is needed. But this developer has done nothing to respect or preserve this beautiful neighborhood. It is a travesty that he can buy permission to remove dozens of heritage trees that make Sacramento and East Sacramento, in particular, a spectacular and healthy place to live. In addition, he has made no effort to design buildings that blend in with the surrounding architecture or landscape. His only concern is his pending profits.

Our neighborhood meeting last evening was virtually unanimous regarding our concerns and requests for this property/project, as follows:

The architecture should blend in seamlessly with the Campus Commons neighborhood. Not cookie cutter concrete condos. We provided him with the name of the original architect, and suggested that he be retained if they are unable to figure out how to build in the existing style.

Trees--including large trees--should NOT be destroyed and replaced with occasional shrubs and sidewalk. Require them to preserve a reasonable number of existing, beautiful trees, especially on the perimeter.

There is woefully inadequate parking for resident's visitors in the immediate vicinity of their individual homes. Parking along Commons Drive will be a mess and should not be permitted. Their proposed parking in some adjacent parking lot will be of no benefit; it will be inconvenient and thereby not used.

They must add outdoor living space and amenities for the residents: GRASS or other attractive landscaping, Walking areas, a garden, a small pool or clubhouse or playground--it was clear the developers are counting on prospective buyers to make advantage of Campus Commons' private open spaces, sidewalks and playground. This is appalling.

They must reduce the density so that street setbacks are consistent with the neighborhood and are landscaped attractively and allow large trees, and off-street parking. Setbacks of 10+ feet is standard in this neighborhood and should be required.

I urge you not to allow developer profits to destroy this neighborhood and all that it provides for East Sacramento and the surrounding University. This developer CAN reduce the density and CAN address the concerns of our residents while making a profit, if he is required to do so..

Thank you.

Judy A. Cook, M.D.
1226 Commons Drive

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Inderjit Rye <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 5:12 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Re: Z22-079
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Thank you for such a prompt response.

Last night’s meeting was attended by perhaps as many as 100 owners/residents. They (and I) are heartbroken that what we always considered a part of Campus Commons (the lovely mature trees and beautiful office building) will be removed and instead will have structures that are not consistent wit h the rest of (original design of) the neighborhood.

Could I get a contact name and number for the tree permit department to convey my thoughts about the removal of the trees?

For you, as planner, I would like to mention two things:
‐Commons Dr from University Ave to Campus Commons Dr curves a great deal and is hazard ous to cross. Building new
structures (which are in line with the City’s current planning rules) at 707 Commons will cause the removal of an important sight line for vehicles traveling (and pedestrians crossing) on Commons Dr and on Campus Commons Dr. At a minimum th
e corner at Commons Dr and Campus Commons Dr needs to become a four way stop corner for safety reasons.
‐Campus Commons has been considered one of Sacramento‘s nicest neighborhoods. Although it would be great if 707 Commons could remain as it is, at a minimum if the dist ance from the curb to the edge of the new buildings were consistent with all the other buildings in the neighborhood, that would be highly desirable. (I believe that distance would be 10 feet… but I will check tomorrow and let you know if it is more or less.)

I un
derstand that the new owners have to have an economically feasible plan for 707 Commons, but in the morning meeting they said that they do own 350 University Ave but will be keeping it as an office building since some tenants have five year leases. I think that the curb to build ing distance of 10 feet (and an economically feasible plan) could perhaps be achieved if the developers think of the economics of 707 Commons Dr and 350 University Ave together.

Thank you,
Inderjit Rye
906 Commons Dr

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 29, 2022, at 2:36 PM, Zachary Dahla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Inderjit,
>
> Thank you for the below comme
nts. I've provided answers to your questions below:
>
> 1) The removal of mature, private protected trees is allowed with an approved Tree Permit entitlement. The applicant has requested a tree permit en titlement as part of the project and the City is currently reviewing this request. >
2 > 2) Yes, the project site is in the OB zone, which allows for a maximum of 36 dwelling units to be built on the project site.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Zach Dahla (He/Him)
> Associate Planner | Central Area | Planning Division City of > Sacramento
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
> From: Ind
erjit Rye <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 12:12 PM
> To: Zachary Dahla <[email protected]>
> Subject: Z22‐079
>
> Hello,
>
> This morning, I attended a meeting between the developer and Campus Commons Village Two. I’ll be attending another meeting today at 4 PM.
>
> I have conc
erns about the development plan, which I will write to you about tomorrow. >
> But two immediate questions I have are:
> ‐ is the developer right in saying that it is OK to remove healthy mature trees in order to demolish the existing office building and rebuild on that spot?
> ‐ and that ci
ty zoning would allow 36 units to be built on that spot? > (The developer is indicating that they are planning on only building > 25 units, implying that we should look on the development as a > positive.)
>
> Thank you,
> Inderjit
Rye
> 906 Commons Dr
>
> Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 2:53 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Trees STAY 🙏

2 My name is Heather Mashler a decades‐long resident of our beautiful “City of Trees.”

Please support a project that will incorporate the historical older trees and allow them to thrive for decades to come.

Your grandchildren and mine may one day seek shade beneath them and be moved by their beauty.

Sincere
ly,

Heather Mashler

916‐308‐8773.

Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Holly Diamond <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 3:32 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Holly Diamond
Subject: Opposed
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To whom this may concern,

We adamantly oppose the development that is currently in the approval stages for 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento 95825.

Please do not approve this proposed development on this site. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Laurence and Holly Diamond
916‐660‐1800

Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 2:35 PM
To: Eric Guerra
Cc: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Fwd: 707 commons drive project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: [email protected]
Date: November 29, 2022 at 2:24:57 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: 707 commons drive project
Hello,
I have great concerns about this upcoming project due to the following issues:
‐ It does not appear it will blend in with remaining community due to all mature trees being rem oved, lack of green spaces with curving paths separating clusters of condos, and structures being built so close to road. Our community is one of the largest urban forests in Sacramento and may no longer be after this destruction.
‐ Concern regarding safety and traffic at a very busy corner with site obstruction from structures too close to road and only one driveway to be shared wit
h existing condos.
‐ At a minimum the builder should be required to keep some existing trees and plant a large volume of new ones to blend in with existing community. They should be required to use our existing color palette.

Structures should be set back further from road. A four way stop should be added. An alternate driveway should be added.

Thank you for your consideration,
Holly Larson
Local community resident
Sent from my iPhone
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Georgia McGreal <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 4:06 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Comments on 707 Commons Drive development project Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Project: Z22-079
707 Commons Drive

Good day Mr. Dahla.

I have no objection to the project as proposed.

However, I think it would be wise to make Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive a 4-way stop intersection. There are just two stop signs currently. One on Campus Commons Road and one on private property exiting the Campus Commons Clubhouse driveway. Traffic on Commons Drive has no stop sign.

Navigating the intersection currently is often hazardous as drivers unfamiliar with the area and entering from Campus Commons Road assume Commons Drive traffic has a stop sign, so they pull out in front of traffic moving at speed.

Similarly, drivers on Commons Drive often stop at the intersection though they do not have a stop sign, creating a problem for drivers familiar with the area and not expecting a car to stop ahead of them. Between the confusion of drivers and the many pedestrians who frequent the intersection, it is hazardous and an accident waiting to happen.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this project.

Georgia McGreal
401 Hartnell Place
916-919-4428
[email protected]
2 1
Zachary Dahla
From: Gail Burriss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 9:50 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Proposed development at 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: Zach Dahla

Please deny approval for the proposed Development at 707 Commons Dr.

It is poorly planned and designed for this neighborhood.

The project would remove several, mature heritage trees and offers minimum set backs for 3‐story units.

It would also create a traffic nightmare with only one access drive at the far en d of the property to enter and leave
twenty five large units.

There is very limited street parking and no service or visitor parking on the property.

Sincerely,
Gail Burriss
272 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Gail Burriss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 2:35 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Proposed 25 home development at 707 Commons Dr.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To Zach Dahla:

The current site plan for the building of 25 townhouses on the 707 Commons Drive property will create majors problems for the residential community near Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive. Here are just a few of the of the objections we have:

The project requires removing all trees, some of them beautiful herit age trees, and plans very limited green space with just 2 young trees.

The site is on the busy corner of the main access road to the residential area with minimum set‐back for the 3‐ story units.

There is only one access drive at the far end of the property to enter and leave the driveway/fire lanes of all twenty five large units.

The units will be large enough for multifamily living, yet there are no amenities.

There is very limited street parking and no service or visitor parking on the property.

The front entran
ce to 13 of the homes face the street with little set‐back near the busy corner of Campus Commons Road or Commons Drive.

The city will need to put stop signs on Commons Drive at Campus Commons Road.

The developers own the property behind this, so could and should plan an entra nce and exit to the development from University Ave.

Our community would welcome a planned development that would offer better to the buyer. This project does not belong here. It would do well by a park or close to a mall or shipping center, but on the entrance corner to Campus Commons where they have no access is absurd and the buyers will see that.

Would appreciate your help.

Gail Burriss
272 Hartnell Place
Sacramento, CA 95825

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Barbara Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 3:44 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 commons drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I am a concerned homeowner at Campus Commons. You had an information meeting yesterday which I was unable to attend. My concerns relate to preservation of the trees, traffic access, and architectural features [the structures should blend with campus commons.]
Barbara Rubin
1 Zachary Dahla
From: bob ogren <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 2:27 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 Commons Dr. Proposed Demolition and Redevelopment Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr Dahla:

As a retired architect and current resident of Campus Commons, I am very much against the proposal (in its current form) for the property in question on the corner of Campus Commons Dr. and Commons Dr.

The present grading of this site is such that the existing office building floor level is approximately 10+ feet above the Commons Drive front of the building, and varies up to 12+ feet along the Campus Commons Dr side of the building.

At the same time, the buildings on both sides of the clubhouse driveway, and on both sides of Campus Commons Drive, are sloped planting of at least 6’ in height w/buildings set back at least 15’ from the back of the sidewalk. As illustrated on the drawings provided by the developer, these setbacks would incorporate 5’ of planting ‐ though this is not all that clear on the drawings. The rendering provided by the developer indicates planting areas, but the site plan provided wasn’t so generous. More importantly, as shown, this would constitute a major deviation from the existing entry to Campus Commons. Any new building ought to be set back on Commons Dr enough to allow for the continuation
of street trees as well as an adequate
setback from the sidewalk to the units.

As it is, this seems more than anything like an urban solution in a suburban setting.

Please notify me of any hearings that may be held concerning this project.

Thank you,

Robert Ogren
2333 American River Dr.

To: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner
Re: Comments on Planning Application Z22-079; 707 Commons Drive Date: November 29, 2022
Dear Mr. Dahla:

I was at the developers meeting last night and my concerns are as follows.

1. The developers did not seem to realize the history of Campus Commons. The trees, open spaces and the caring of this property since the early 1960’s. We need to protect the trees in Sacramento so the permit to remove the private protected trees should be denied.

2. The overall design is mediocre at best.. The buildings does not enhance the area, the design is vertical in appearance and does not blend with the existing design of Campus Commons.

3. Will the people at 707 Commons Drive have the right to use Campus Commons amenities? How do the people in Campus Commons keep the owners off of our property? We have a pool, tennis courts, club house and a lot of green areas that all of us pay for in our monthly dues. This is a huge concern of many of the people in Campus Commons.

Thank you,
Very truly yours,
Barbara Eide-Pippi
884 Campus Commons Road
[email protected]
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Theodora Wilner <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 5:51 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: Stop development on 707 Commons Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I am writing to protest the proposed development on 707 Commons Drive.

This proposed 25‐Unit complex is high density housing at its worst. The proposed 3‐story units have minimum set‐backs from the street. There is only one entry/exit for all units. There is very limited street parking and no service or visitor parking on the property.

The complex has no amenities.

The project would also remove all trees, including mature heritage varieties. This flies in the face of the Tree Foundation and SMUD’s collaborative energy‐saving efforts to plant more shade trees. This is a vital strategy for decreasing energy costs from ev
ery‐increasing summer temperatures.

Thank you for withdrawing approval of this crowded, inappropriate development.

Theodora
Theodora Wilner, MA, RYT
1118 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-913-1028(h)
916-849-0229 (m)
www.wilnerweb.com

My husband and I are residents of Campus Commons and are very concerned by the proposed development on Commons Drive, Z22-079, APN:295-0402-015-0000.

Here are the main issues I see with 707 Commons:

Architectural Design-The design of the buildings are also in stark contrast to the homes in CC. The new design is vertical in appearance. That look blends on U Street, where there the developer has built condos. In downtown, the vertical look works since many buildings are apartment high rises or office buildings. Basically, the developer has dropped the same buildings in the Campus Commons neighborhood. This same look in CC does not mix well with the horizontal, low-key appearance of our homes.

Parking-There is no space for visitor parking. Visitors will be parking on Commons Rd. and Commons Drive. Parking will be a problem for the current residents of CC.

Site Planning-In reviewing the plans, it looks like the 25 units were packed into a one-acre parcel. This is almost twice the number of housing units in the adjacent village. This is a dramatic contrast with the homes in CC, which have ample space for walkways, landscaping, and cluster housing.

Repurposing the 707 Building-Has the City considered repurposing the building for additional senior housing? The current Campus Commons community is likely to generate demand for its aging population, where many CC residents may soon or already need some form of alternative housing. These residents will most likely want to keep a close proximity to their community and friends.

Developing the project in the Phase 2 site- Is it possible to retain the current office building for re-purposed senior housing and instead develop the adjacent second phase of the development at the northerly parcel for the new units?

Postpone the Comment Period-Can the city delay the comment period so that CC residents can complete their review and comment of the project?

Thank you,

Tom & Anita Fante
2319 American River Drive

To: Zach Dahla
Associate Planner / Central Area / Planning Division
City of Sacramento, Community Development Department
300 Richards Blvd, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811-0218

RE: Proposed development at 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento, CA 95825 Parcel #295-0402-015-0000

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!
This proposed development is an affront to the Campus Commons Villages and Nepenthe residential communities! It is a money-making ambition of the developers that opportunistically capitalizes on the surrounding Campus Commons and Nepenthe neighborhoods. I add my profound concern regarding this proposed development to the concerns of my neighbors. (Their document is attached below.) I strongly support each of their itemized concerns and emphasize two points:
(1) Residents of the existing communities pay sizeable homeowners’ association dues to keep the walkways, trees, landscaping, water features, playground, etc. accessible, well lit, and enjoyable. Will the new neighbors also be paying dues? Or will the proposed addition of the high-density housing development mean that potentially 100 people or more will be taking advantage of things they do not pay for!!
(2) The encroaching buildings of the proposed project and resultant increases in population, traffic, and wear and tear on the area would make the neighborhood less desirable. Therefore, residents throughout the Campus Commons and Nepenthe communities would see damaging declines in their property values! The proposed development would be an unwelcome intrusion and simply does not belong in the area.

Should poor judgment prevail and this project in any form or to any extent be allowed to proceed, it would be an absolute necessity that the Campus Commons and Nepenthe communities and their residents be compensated. Compensation must be provided by both the developers for the intrusion and decline in neighborhood aesthetics and value, and by the new residents for their use and enjoyment of the surrounding grounds and amenities.

The developers must negotiate with the existing residents and boards of the Campus Commons Villages and the Nepenthe Homeowners Association to address how any new structures and new residents will be assimilated into existing communities. The developers’ oversight (to be kind) or blatant disregard of the potential negative impact of their proposed development is completely unacceptable. The developers must provide significant funds to the communities to mitigate negative effects and ensure the neighborhood continues to have its pre-development appeal. Likewise, it should be made mandatory that the new residents pay dues to the Campus Commons Villages and Nepenthe HOAs so that they share in the cost of maintaining this special neighborhood.

Overall, the best decision is that this development NOT BE ALLOWED to proceed! The creation of such an eyesore would hurt the existing communities and benefit only the developers. The lovely building that currently occupies the property at 707 Commons Drive should ideally be repurposed, keeping its existing footprint, exterior and beautiful grounds and trees! At the very least, a scaled-back version of the proposed development that is less encroaching, less dense and more commensurate with the surrounding neighborhood must be required.

This is all happening much too fast and without all the interested parties being fully informed and allowed to voice their concerns. The Campus Commons Village 4 arranged a meeting with the developers and a number of residents a few days ago, and individuals have subsequently written letters of concern to your office. I am writing this letter as a Nepenthe homeowner. I only learned of the proposed development yesterday through friends who live in the Campus Commons Village 4. The proposed development impacts all the Campus Commons and Nepenthe neighborhoods, not just the Village adjacent to the proposed build, so it is critical for all the Campus Commons Villages and Nepenthe residents and boards to become aware of and provide input on this proposed development.

There has not been time for any organized process for all the Villages and Nepenthe residents to become informed and provide comments to your office and to the developers. I urge your office to wait for more input, fully investigate the impact of the proposed development, and to include the Campus Commons and Nepenthe HOA boards and residents in any discussions, meetings and decisions regarding it.

In this regard, our general manager for the Nepenthe HOA has provided me with her contact information to share with you, as she will be able to receive information from you and provide it to the Nepenthe Board and residents.

Bettsi Ledesma, General Manager
Nepenthe HOA
1131 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 929-8380
[email protected]

The Nepenthe Board will have a special meeting next week during which time the topic of the proposed development will be presented. I have also been informed that the Campus Commons Board has scheduled an emergency meeting next week to determine whether they will be providing an organized response to the proposed development. It may also be the case that the boards from Campus Commons and Nepenthe will choose to confer with one another. Please wait for more input after these meetings have taken place and the resultant information has been distributed to residents.

Thank you very much for your consideration of all the above concerns. I know you will address this situation in the best possible and most inclusive way.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Oprendek
Nepenthe Homeowner
Attachment - Sample letter of concerns drafted by Campus Commons Village 4 I am a (We are) resident(s) of Campus Commons and are very concerned by the proposed development on Commons Drive, 222-079, APN :295-0402-015-0000.

Here are the main issues I see with 707 Commons:

Trees & landscaping-All the trees & landscaping are planned for removal to accommodate the 25 housing units. Has the developer filed a permit to remove them? By removing the trees and landscaping, the new housing dramatically conflicts with the CC development. The new project look is stark, barren, and abrupt. ln direct contrast to the graceful and low-key look of our homes. As with the removal of the trees, there is little attention to the landscaping.

Architectural Design-The design of the buildings are also in stark contrast to the homes in CC, the new design is vertical in appearance. That look blends on U Street, where there the developer has built condos. ln downtown, the vertical look works since many buildings are apartment high rises or office buildings.

Basically, the developer has dropped the same buildings in the Campus Commons neighborhood. This same look in CC does not mix well with the horizontal, low-key appearance of our homes.

Parking-There is no space for visitor parking. Visitors will be parking on Commons Rd. and Commons Drive. Parking will be a problem for the current residents of CC.

Site Planning-ln reviewing the plans, it looks like the 25 units were packed into a one-acre parcel. This is almost twice the number of housing units in the adjacent village. This is a dramatic contrast with the homes in CC, which have ample space for walkways, landscaping, and cluster housing.

Repurposing the 707 Building-Has the City considered repurposing the building for additional senior housing? The current Campus Commons community is likely to generate demand for its aging population, where many CC residents may soon or already need some form of alternative housing. These residents will most likely want to keep a close proximity to their community and friends.

Developing the project in the Phase 2 site- ls it possible to retain the current office building for re-purposed senior housing and instead develop the adjacent second phase of the development at the northerly parcel for the new units?

Postpone the Comment Period-Can the city delay the comment period so that CC residents can complete their review and comment on the project?

Thank you,
Name
Address
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Patty Resendez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 2:55 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I live at 815 Commons drive. I will be sharing the driveway with the new neighbors at 707 Commons drive. I’ve lived at 815 for close to 14 years. I would like to express my support for the developers of the new townhomes. My husband and I describe our area as the Bermuda Triangle. Tre es and plantings are not given the best care. There is a drainage problem in the area. The office building and various structures have deteriorated over the past 5‐6 years. I attended a meeting 11/28/22 at 4:00. I left pretty confident the people responsible for the 707 development will produce a good product that hopefully will improve this area for Village 1 and 2.

Thank you fo
r your time.

Patty Resendez

Sent from my iPhone
Subject: 707 Commons Drive

I am a resident of Campus Commons Village and am very concerned by the proposed development on Commons Drive, Z22079-0402-015-0000.

Here are the main issues of concern with 707 Commons.

Trees and Landscaping All the trees and landscaping are planned for removal to accommodate the 25 housing units. Has the developer filed a permit to remove them? By removing the trees and landscaping, the new housing dramatically conflicts with the Campus Commons development. The new project look is start barren and abrupt. It is in direct contrast to the graceful and low-key look of our homes. As with the removal of the trees, there is little attention to the landscaping. I bought my condominium in Campus Commons in large part to the beauty of the tree lined streets and enjoy the seasonal changes that are reflected by the trees and landscaping. Commons Drive between Campus Commons Rd and American River Drive is the most beautiful street in Campus Commons. There must be a way to keep the beauty while considering new housing.

Architectural Design The design of the buildings are in stark contrast to the homes in Campus Commons. The new design is vertical in appearance. That look blends with other buildings in other parts of Sacramento the developer has built on U Street and downtown. Unfortunately, the developer has proposed the same vertical building style in Campus Commons which would not blend well with the horizontal low-key appearance of the surrounding homes.

Parking There is no space for visitor parking. Visitors will need to park on Campus Commons Road and Commons Drive which will not be sufficient for the number of proposed units and will impact the available parking for current Campus Commons residents.

Campus Commons Amenities There is nothing in the proposed development to prohibit residents of the new development from using some of the Campus Commons amenities since it is directly across the street. Some will use out playgrounds, ponds, landscaping and walkways. These amenities have been and continue to be paid for by homeowners. Homeowner dues are expensive and needed to keep up the beauty of Campus Commons.

Site Planning It appears that the proposed 25 units are packed into a one-acre parcel. This is almost twice the number of housing units in the adjacent village.

This would be a dramatic contrast with the homes in Campus Commons which have amble space for walkways, landscaping and cluster housing.

Repurposing the 707 Building Has the city considered repurposing the building for additional senior housing? The current Campus Community has a large number of older adults which would generate demand for some form of affordable senior housing. This current older resident population would most likely welcome the opportunity to stay in the area where they are familiar with services, grocery stores, etc. as well as friends.

Developing the project in the Phase 2 site Is it possible to retain the current office building for re-purposed senior housing and instead develop the adjacent second phase of the development at the northerly parcel for the new units? Add Additional Time to the Comment Period I have lived in my Campus Commons residence for over 17 years. Yesterday was the first day I heard about the possible redevelopment plan at 707 Commons. I want time to learn more and give input to this important issue.

Thank you,
Maureen Price
909 Commons Drive
Sacramento, CA

916 442-8334

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Martha Fort <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 1:27 PM
To: Eric Guerra; Koy Saeteurn; Alejandro Cabrera; Zachary Dahla Subject: 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento - vehicle access Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Councilman Guerra, Mr. Dahla and City Staff:

I write to request a change to the vehicle access point in the proposed development at 707 Commons Drive, APN 295-0402-015-0000.

Bardis & Miry are proposing the development of 25 3-story units at 707 Commons Drive, with 2-car garages for each unit on the first floor. As proposed, the sole vehicle access point to this new development would be via the shared driveway off of Commons Drive. This shared driveway is a VERY quiet driveway with only about 9-10 cars using it on a daily basis. The proposed development will mean that there are potentially 50 more cars coming in and out on a daily basis. This will create safety issues for existing residents, not to mention noise.

The vehicle access point to this new development, should it go forward, should be off of Campus Commons Drive, not Commons Drive. Campus Commons Drive is a much busier street and a primary access point for many more residences than the driveway off of Commons Drive. Bardis & Miry said that the City would not allow the access point to be off of Campus Commons Drive because it is too close to the corner of Campus Commons Drive and Commons Drive. Assuming this is true, I'm sure that the development could be changed to allow vehicle access off of Campus Commons.

If you have not already, I urge you to come and visit the site so that you can see what the existing residents know to be true: The driveway off of Commons Drive should not be the only access point for the new development; the access point is more appropriately off of Campus Commons Drive.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,
Martha Fort
737 Commons Drive, Sacramento
(916) 418-4245

1 Zachary Dahla
From: Mary Ann <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 9:44 PM
To: Zachary Dahla
Cc: Mary Ann
Subject: Proposed development at 707 Commons Drive, Sacramento, 95825 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Dahla,

I've been a homeowner in Campus Commons for 11 years. I'm writing to you regarding the proposed construction of 25 townhomes by Bardis and Miry Development at 707 Commons Drive. On Monday, Nov. 28 the developers met with a large number of Campus Commons residents, many of whom expressed serious concerns about the devel opment plans. These are mine.

At the Monday meeting the developers stated that they did not know anything about the architectural history of our community. This disconnect from the background of the neighborhood they plan to join is evident in their design choices. The siting and design of the new buildings show little relationship to the architectural style, color sc hemes, limited density, sidewalk setbacks, and landscaping of the Campus Commons residences that surround them on three sides. On the other hand, they showed great interest in advertising the proximity to our open spaces, leafy neighborhood, and other amenities, none of which will be included at 707 Commons.

The developers need to make an effort to remedy these omissions. They can create a greater sense of open space by moving buildings further back from the sidewalks. Wider setbacks will help the buildings harmonize with neighborhood architecture and will improve visibility and safety at the street corner. Significantly, wider setbacks and ope n space within the development will also allow the developers to reconstruct some of the shade canopy they plan to destroy. As it is, the proposed development stands in stark and institutional contrast to its more widely distributed and leafy neighbors.

All of the neighbors I have spoken to are distressed by the developer's plans to remove the trees on the site. At Monday's meeting the developer stated that they would mitigate removal of trees on site. This statement cannot be true. The proposed 3'‐5' setback, residential density, and underground infrastructure of the development leaves little room for trees, especially trees that will mature into shade canopy. The developer also suggested that they would plant liquidambar trees, a species that has been highly problematic in our neighborhood and has required a small fortune in treatments to limit production of the haz
ardous seed balls.

Again, the developers need to create setbacks and other space on the property for trees that will grow to canopy size. They should select species that shade buildings and soil, reduce noise, and offer such ecosystem services as attracting bir
ds and the insects they need to survive. Trees, especially large trees, are essential to the health of a neighborhood, and a city. In proclamations and ordinances, the City of Sacramento has expressed a strong commitment to preservation of the City's trees. If the City approves this plan without requiring a meaningful canopy, it violates its own commitment. Other developers will seek similar exceptions.

All of my suggestions, and nearly all of the others I've heard, require that the developers scale back either the number of dwellings or their size or both. At Monday's meeting, the developers insisted that they were not maxing out their "right" to develop 36 units.

I'm offended by this insistence on their right to impose th eir incongruous vision on our architecturally coherent, established neighborhood. Do all rights rest with the developer? What about our right to continue to enjoy the character, the trees, the relative open space, the safety, and the amenities of the neighborhood where we chose to buy our homes?

Please consider my concerns about architectural style, color schemes, density, setbacks, open space, and canopy trees. 2 Thank you for your time.

Mary Ann Robinson
1 Zachary Dahla
From: Kurt Wessale <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 10:01 AM
To: Zachary Dahla
Subject: 707 commons drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
As a longtime homeowner in campus commons I am very disappointed about the notification of the demolition of 707 Commons! Myself as well as all my friends and neighbors in campus commons are vehemently opposed to the proposed new housing development. This new development is a compete contrast to our current architecture. The removal of th e existing trees is also terrible as well as leveling the lot. The new residents of contemporary commons will most likely utilize our private surrounding pathways, parking areas, and many of other amenities. With these homes being 3 story it makes not only an eyesore but also a serious safety hazard crea ting a blind corner at the intersection of Commons and Campus Commons drives. The additional traffic will also be a negative impact. Please help our community and not allow this awful development to be done. Thank you!
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
December 1, 2022
SENT TO: [email protected]

Mr. Zach Dahla
Associate City Planner
City of Sacramento

RE: Proposed Development on Commons Drive (222-079, APN :295-0402-015-0000)

Dear Mr. Dahla:

I am writing regarding the proposed development referenced above.

As a long-time homeowner in the area, the proposed development concerns me for several reasons.

First, the development would require the removal of existing trees and landscaping. We have spent decades tending to our neighborhood, and it would be a travesty to clear healthy trees and bushes to make way for new houses that are not designed to reflect the style of the current homes.

In addition, the project design is not in any way reflective of our current neighborhood.

Consistent with well-established principles of infill development, any new houses should adopt the same look and feel of the current ones. It is clear from the proposed design that no care was taken to meet this requirement. Rather, it seems the developer simply copied plans from other developments (such as the one on U Street downtown) and stuck it in the middle of Campus Commons. Campus Commons is an established neighborhood with character and visual continuity. Frankly, the proposed development will stick out like a sore thumb.

Where will visitors park? In front of our houses, and on our streets. Obviously, the developer is attempting to keep its costs down by not including parking.

Moreover, residents in the new development will use Campus Commons playgrounds, streets, ponds, etc., for which Campus Commons residents pay every month (and have for decades).

Campus Commons is a planned community—our residents have paid for these amenities over the years. Everyone in Campus Commons is invested in maintaining our facilities—we pay handsomely every month for the privilege of living here.

I am not against development, but it must be done with integrity and respect for the current neighborhood. New buildings should blend in, and reflect the character of Campus Commons.

Allowing anything else would be irresponsible and unjust.

Mr. Zach Dahla
December 1, 2022

Page 2 ends

Sacramento City CouncilJune 18, 2024

Sacramento City Council
June 18, 2024