Meeting Time: January 11, 2024 at 5:30pm PST
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

4. Third-Party Appeals of Contemporary Commons (Z22-079) (Noticed 12/29/2023) File ID: 2023-01576 [Updated 1/10/2024 @ 2:21 p.m.]

  • Default_avatar
    Inderjit Rye 10 months ago

    -I have been trying to make sense of the last year and a quarter and here it is:
    -developers know about the housing accountability act
    -there’s a great opportunity with 350 University because there is huge parking lot
    -problem is part of the parking lot (and an easement) belongs to owners of the adjacent 707 Commons
    -so you buy 707 to get the parking parcel
    -but then, what to do with an office building that has no parking
    -you develop it
    -you come up with a plan that you are proud of it but the neighborhood hates it
    -Commissioners: we think of that 707 building parcel as a part of us and to see the amazing building built to be cohesive with our residences removed, the 50 year old trees cut down, the berm flattened, it feels like a limb is being removed from us
    -so we fight a battle
    -but I see now it wasn’t a fair fight because we did not know about the housing accountability act… was it our fault…. 🤷🏽‍♀️
    -city officials and staff came to a meeting set up at the end of last January and heard us talk about general plan provisions that we thought were being violated and no one said anything about the HAA
    -We studied the city’s planning code, which had language that we thought would protect us, wrote a detailed letter with our findings, and asked for a response, and we were simply told the PUD was silent. We were not told about the HAA. There’s nothing in the Sacramento Code about the HAA.
    -we had a city forum in September and when we wanted to talk to planning and preservation directors, they would answer no questions about 707; another missed opportunity to learn about the HAA
    -I see the need for housing, but it galls me to see totally empty lots along Howe Ave and other parts of Sacramento but to have this beautiful 1.1 acre piece of us obliterated.
    -please do not allow approval of this project

  • Default_avatar
    707 comments 10 months ago

    I support the appeals. With 266 letters of opposition, this item needs to be considered by the City Council, not only the Planning and Design Commission.

  • Default_avatar
    Debra Banks 10 months ago

    As a resident of Campus Commons, I strongly oppose the redevelopment project at 707 Commons Drive. To be clear, I do support in-fill development, but I do not support this design. It does not, in any way fit in with the look and feel of the rest of the Campus Commons community. To read the documents associated with this, it is a shame that the City planning department, and developers are not working to create a development that has more of the look and feel of the rest of Campus Commons.
    Just because there isn't a recently found PUD for Campus Commons, it is clear that there is a "look and feel" for the neighborhood, and that 707 Commons Drive was designed with those planning guidelines. Either the City needs to find those plans or deduce what they were from walking the CC neighborhood, and return to design something that is more in concert with the rest of Campus Commons. The Z22-079 development violates the planning codes that have been in place that provided oversight for the entire area, including the nearby office buildings across the street on University Ave, see 400 and 425 University all of which have 35 to 40 ft setbacks from the street, and those buildings are built on berms, which puts them above street level. The plans for the new development include leveling the berm and building right up to the street, which is not in keeping with the rest of Campus Commons and has huge implications if the American River floods, which is entirely possible.

    In addition, I am deeply saddened about the destruction of 10 mature trees, redwood and otherwise that are a hallmark of Campus Commons. I am sure the Planning and Design Commission is aware that we have a climate crisis and that the City has a new Climate Plan as a piece of the larger General 2040 Plan coming online. The Draft 2040 General Plan spells out the dangers of urban heat island effect and Sacramento should be doing everything possible to mitigate it, including protecting existing trees. Currently tree canopy coverage in Sacramento is estimated at a low 19 percent. The 2040 General Plan calls for 35 percent canopy coverage, but the approval of this project (which saves only one healthy private protected tree out of ten and none of the site's other trees) is unacceptable. I understand that Sacramento must increase housing density, but it must be done in a way that protects the existing tree canopy while expanding it in areas that lack adequate canopy.

    I have read the design and zoning appeal letters related to the Z22–079 project. I ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors and ask the developers to return to the drawing board with engagement of and inclusion of Campus Commons residents.

  • Default_avatar
    Marilyn Piazza 10 months ago

    Why 707? Better to tear down the building behind it facing University Avenue which has: plenty of space, plenty of room for access and parking, and is definitely an unattractive building that needs to go. But I forgot, that building houses the developers. I’m all in favor of increased housing as it is badly needed, but honestly, is 24 scrunched together, near million dollar houses really going to help what’s needed? I trust this commission will do the right thing and tell the developers to leave 707, it’s beautiful architecture and lush, mature trees, alone. Remember the Alhambra (theater)!

  • Default_avatar
    Naomi E 10 months ago

    I support the appeals! I strongly oppose the proposed building project at 707 Commons Drive.

    Hello Zachary and City of Sacramento Planning & Design Commissioners,

    I have read the design and zoning appeal letters (attached) related to the Z22–079 project. I strongly oppose the redevelopment project at 707 Commons Drive. I ask that the Planning and Design Commission reconsider the 11-06-23 decision of the directors.

    In addition, I disagree with the decision of the staff in the 11-06-23 staff report to effectively not nominate the building at 707 Commons Drive for consideration as a historic landmark. I request that the Preservation Commission read the preservation appeal letter attached to the appeals and nominate the building for consideration as a historic landmark.

    The 707 Commons Drive building should be designated a historical landmark. The appeals letters detail the importance of the historical landmark designation as well as the importance of the preservation of these protected trees at 707 Commons Drive

    I feel strongly that there are no justifiable reasons to remove protected trees that are nearly a century old (some older than a century). These trees are majestic and irreplaceable and include redwoods and other protected trees. HUNDREDS (or more) people benefit DAILY from the presence of these trees in our community. Any replacement plan is insufficient; there is no way to replace protected trees (including redwoods that are already endangered by climate change) that have been growing for a century.

    On a hot summer day, the shade provided by the canopy of these trees results in lower temperatures. I can feel the difference in air temperature as I walk under the shade of these magnificent trees when it's scorching hot. These old trees MUST NOT BE CUT; they are essential in reducing the impacts of climate change in our city.

    The appeals letters detail the importance of the historical landmark designation as well as the importance of the preservation of these trees at 707 Commons Drive.

    Thank you for considering and supporting the thousands of current residents in my Campus Commons neigborhood by revoking approval for the Contemporary Commons project at 707 Commons Drive.

  • Default_avatar
    Erin Laine 10 months ago

    I support this appeal. I feel Contemporary Commons is a terrible fit for this neighborhood as currently designed. There is minimal set-back, and terrible tandem-style garage parking which will result in a lot of on-street parking. The removal of mature healthy trees is a shame. The new buildings do not include much outdoor space, resulting in the residents walking over to Campus Commons and using their private grounds for dog walking, and their playgrounds for the new residents' children. All of Campus Commons including the current building at 707 Commons Dr, should be designated a historic district.

  • Default_avatar
    MK Hickox 10 months ago

    RE: Z22-079 Application for Redevelopment of 707 Commons Drive
    DATE: 01/10/2024

    Comments Regarding the Denial of Historical Preservation

    1) Please reconsider the decision to deny preservation status for 707 Commons Drive, which was one of the first buildings designed and built by architect Charles Warren Callister for the then new Campus Commons development in Sacramento, because this design and masterpiece of integration with the residential housing which faces 3 sides of 707 Commons Drive will be lost forever for future generations, plus one of the largest redwood trees in Sacramento which was measured as having a circumference at the base of over 180” that included the entire base of this majestic sequoia redwood tree which is twinned—you can only see the 2 in 1 redwood tree from the side, not in front if viewing from Commons Drive.

    2) Please reconsider the decision to approve the new development because you are destroying the PUD (planning guidelines) that were in place back in the late 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s for this building, and Villages 1 and 2 but these guidelines have been disregarded in 2023/24 regarding the proposed six buildings each containing 4 townhouse units on a 1.1 acre site. The Z22-079 development violates the planning codes that have been in place that provided oversight for the entire area, including the nearby office buildings across the street on University Ave, see 400 and 425 University all of which have 35 to 40 ft setbacks from the street, plenty of treescaping and of course those buildings are built on berms, so they’re above street level.

    3) Currently there is a very unattractive chain link fence surrounding 707 Commons Drive, it is clear that the developer and the City of Sacramento will demolish, destroy, level and build six extremely unattractive 3 story buildings which will tower above the adjacent 2 story high residential houses located across the street, and on either side of 707 Commons Drive.

    4) Here are some new photos I took in November taken at dusk before the fence was constructed that again show the integration of 707 Commons Drive with the neighborhood and the uniqueness of the 707 Commons Drive building. Please see that the windows on the 2nd floor when the light is turned on shows how unique and one of a kind this building is. Don’t forget about the lovely trellis behind the 707 Commons Drive building that faces the 350 University parking lot.

    5) I ask you to please reconsider your decision for historical preservation status. These photos speak for themselves. (unfortunately cannot paste photos into e-comments but photos are available upon request.)

    Here is a view of the lovely ‘three sisters’ with intertwined root system displayed below:

    From this view, 707 Campus Commons almost looks like a church building, there is really something mystical about it at sunset:

    Here is the lovely twinned sequoia redwood tree in front of 707 Commons Drive which appears to be one of the largest surviving sequoia in the City of Sacramento if any others can be found to have a circumference larger than 180”.

    Lastly, here is one of the nearby office buildings at the corner of University and Campus Commons street: 425 University is diagonally across the street from 350 University (707 University used to be 350 University Ave) to show that they adhere to the setbacks and that those buildings are built atop berms as well, plus they adhere to the treescaping and landscaping which the proposed high density 3 story high buildings cannot adhere to. (actually they are 4 story high buildings if the roof is included, but only provide 3 floors of living space.) What happened to Sacramento being the ‘City of Trees’ mandate?

    Thank you for your consideration. Please reconsider your decision as 707 Commons Drive was a cornerstone building for the Campus Commons area where the original Campus Commons HQ builders were located for many years. This building can be repaired and turned into affordable work/live studios to provide more housing. it can be done!

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Kind regards,

    MK Hickox

    khickox@gmail.com

  • Default_avatar
    Karen Jacques 10 months ago

    I am a member of Trees 4 Sacramento and have signed the group letter we sent to you about this project. I am using e-comment to make additional personal comments about the removal of all these irreplaceable private protected trees on the project site without any meaningful effort to design the project in a way that could save more than just the one private protected tulip tree. These removals are a blow to everyone in Sacramento who cares about trees and especially to the adjacent Campus Commons neighborhood.

    Sacramento, like the rest of the world, is facing a rapidly worsening climate emergency. Rising temperatures risk a rapidly rising death toll. The Draft 2040 General Plan spells out the dangers of urban heat island effect and Sacramento should be doing everything possible to mitigate it, including protecting existing trees and planting new ones. Currently tree canopy coverage in Sacramento is estimated at a measly 19 percent. More than 80% of the canopy is on private property and we have a Tree Ordinance that has failed when it comes to protecting that canopy. I understand that Sacramento must increase housing density, but it must be done in a way that protects the existing tree canopy as much as possible while expanding it in areas that lack adequate canopy.

    The existing Tree Ordinance (Chapter 12.56), which is supposed to protect trees and optimize canopy clearly isn’t working and tree appeals have effectively become costly and futile. The Ordinance says developers have the right to remove trees if “use could not be made of the property unless the tree is removed” and ‘use’ seems to be defined as being able to build on every square foot of the property other than required property line set backs. Never, ever do developers need to make their units a little smaller (and, therefore more affordable) or build one or two fewer units or provide step backs, set backs and other design features to accommodate existing trees, nor are they required to provide adequate space for new trees (except, perhaps, for tiny “lollipop” trees). If projects like this keep getting approved and trees like the incredible private protected trees at this project site keep getting sacrificed, Sacramento’s already inadequate tree canopy will keep shrinking and urban heat island effect will keep growing. This project doesn’t even provide space for the replacement trees it claims it will plant and, even if it did, it would take decades to grow trees that provide the same level of benefit the existing trees provide.

    Sacramento needs to grow its' tree canopy not shrink it. The 2040 General Plan calls for 35 percent canopy coverage (which many tree advocates consider inadequate), but the approval of this project (which saves only one healthy private protected tree out of ten and none of the site's other trees) and projects like it are taking us in the opposite direction. I ask the Planning and Design Commission to take this issue seriously as you review the 2040 General Plan and the Climate Action and Adaption Plan. I ask you to advocate for changes to the city's inadequate Tree Ordinance and to other relevant city codes so that they function to protect trees wherever possible instead of making it easier and easier to remove them. With regard to the 707 Commons Project, I ask that you support Trees 4 Sacramento’s appeal to at least save the two irreplaceable coast redwoods and to assure that any replacement trees that are planted are trees that will actually have a chance of surviving.

  • Default_avatar
    Jacob Solorio 11 months ago

    I support denying this ridiculous appeal to 707 Commons Drive. This neighborhood is not some bastion of historical architecture as a minority of residents have depicted it, and this building is especially not a historic structure. It's a bland, mid-century office building that needs to go. I trust that this commission will do the right thing and approve more housing for our city.