Title
Third-Party Appeal of Contemporary Commons (Z22-079) (Noticed 05/17/2024)
End
FileID
File ID: 2024-00479
End
Location
Location: APNs 295-0402-015-0000, 707 Commons Drive, District 6, Represented by Councilmember Guerra
End
Recommendation
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.
End
Contact
Contact: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner, (916) 808-5584, zdahla@cityofsacramento.org; Karlo Felix, Senior Planner, (916) 808-7183, kfelix@cityofsacramento.org; Community Development Department
End
Presenter
Presenter: Zach Dahla, Associate Planner, (916) 808-5584, zdahla@cityofsacramento.org, Community Development Department
End
Applicant
Applicant: Katherine Bardis-Miry, Bardis & Miry Development, 10630 Mather Blvd, Mather, CA 95655
End
Appellant
Appellant: Carr Kunze (et al), 835 Commons Drive, Sacramento, CA 95825
End
Property Owner
Property Owner: Katherine Bardis-Miry (Managing Member), RBM Commons LLC, 10630 Mather Blvd, Mather, CA 95655
End
Attachments
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
End
Description/Analysis
IssueDetail
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
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 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-1.pdf?la=en>
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 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: 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. As part of the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement, the change in land use from “office” to “multi-unit dwelling” was reviewed and it was determined a “multi-unit dwelling” land use is allowed by right within the OB zone. As such, the project did not require a rezone or legislative change request. Because the change of land use was reviewed as part of the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement, this appeal issue is not relevant to the Tentative Map.
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. 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: 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 design and layout of the proposed development conflicting with the existing community and the Campus Commons PUD. Because the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement reviews and evaluates the physical design and layout of the development, this appeal issue cannot be considered as part of Council’s review of the Tentative Map. The Campus Commons PUD does not contain any restrictions on condominium developments or development standards applicable to a Tentative Map. In the absence of any relevant development standards, staff find the project consistent with the intent of the Campus Commons PUD and recommend approval of the Tentative Map.
9. The appellant asserts that staff improperly reviewed the project against the Citywide Design Guidelines.
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 design and layout of the proposed development being improperly reviewed against the Citywide Design Guidelines. Because the Site Plan and Design Review entitlement reviews and evaluates the physical design and layout of the development, this appeal issue is not relevant to the Tentative Map and cannot be considered as part of the Council’s review.
10. The appellant asserts the tree permit for the removal of 10 private-protected trees should be denied.
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 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.
End
Public/NeighborhoodOutreachComments
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 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>
End
PolicyConsiderations
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
End
EconomicImpacts
Economic Impacts: The construction of a 24-unit condominium development would not have significant economic impacts.
End
EnvironmentalConsiderations
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.
End
Sustainability
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.
End
Commission/Committee Action
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.
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>
End
RationaleforRecommendation
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.
End
FinancialConsiderations
Financial Considerations: Not applicable.
End
LocalBusinessEnterprise
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): No goods or services are being purchased under this report.
End