PC Staff Report (2019-11-26)ITEM NO. 1
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙ November 26, 2019
PLN2019-144/196
Liberty, O.
Public Hearing to consider the appeal of Ortal Liberty of denial of an
Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2019-144) and
a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2019-196) to allow construction of a 2-story
3,600 square-foot single-family residence and removal of two (2) protected
Deodar Cedar trees located in the front yard, on property located at 505
Sunnybrook Drive in the R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District, subject to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan (STANP).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission take the following action:
1.Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), denying the appeal and upholding the
Community Development Director’s denial of an Administrative Site and Architectural
Review Permit (PLN2019-144) and Tree Removal Permit (PLN2019-196) and directing
the applicant to redesign the proposed single-family residence to preserve the Deodar
Cedar trees and inset the rear balcony.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this project is Statutorily Exempt
under Section 15270(a) of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
PROJECT DATA
Zoning Designation: R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential)
General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential (less than 6units/gr. acre)
Net Lot Area: 8,000 square-feet
Density: 4.4 units/gr. acre 6 units/gr. acre. (Max. Allowed)
Building Height: 25 feet 28 feet (Max. Allowed)
Building Square Footage:
First Floor Living: 1,664 square feet
Second Floor Living: 1,519 square feet
Garage: 417 square feet
3,600 square feet
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): .45 (3,600 sq. ft.) .45 (3,600 sq. ft.) (Max. Allowed)
Building (Lot) Coverage: 32% (2,579 sq. ft.) 40% (3,200 sq. ft.) (Max. Allowed)
Parking: 2 spaces (covered) 2 spaces (Min. Required)
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of November 26, 2019 Page 2 of 5
PLN2019-144/196 ~ 505 Sunnybrook Drive
Building Coverage Areas:
First Floor: 1,664 square feet
Garage: 417 square feet
Covered Porches: 68 square feet
Second-Floor Deck: 430 square feet
2,579 square feet (Total Building Coverage)
Setbacks Proposed Required
Front (south) 25 feet 20 feet
Garage 25 feet 25 feet
1st-Story Side (west) 5 feet 5 feet or ½ wall height
2nd-Story Side (west) 10 feet 5 feet or ½ wall height
1st-Story Side (east) 5 feet 5 feet or ½ wall height
2nd-Story Side (east) 10 feet 5 feet or ½ wall height
Rear (south): 45 feet 20 feet
DISCUSSION
Project Site: The project site is a single-family residential parcel located on the north side of
Sunnybrook Drive, east of Kenneth Avenue, within the San Tomas Area (reference Attachment
2 – Location Map). The 8,000 square-foot lot is improved with a single-family residence
constructed in 1953 (reference Attachment 3 – Site Photographs).
San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan: As noted, the project site is located within the City’s San
Tomas Area. Construction of new homes and additions to existing homes are reviewed either by
the Planning Commission or the Community Development Director pursuant to the San Tomas
Area Neighborhood Plan (STANP). The STANP was created to maintain the unique, semi-rural
attributes of the broader neighborhood. This is achieved through application of design guidelines
that are intended to protect and reinforce the desirable characteristics of the San Tomas Area.
Application Request: The application proposes construction of a 3,600 square-foot two-story
single-family home and removal of two Deodar Cedar trees located in the front yard (reference
Attachment 4 – Project Plans). The proposed residence is shown in a transitional design style
featuring hipped and gabled roof forms, composition roofing, and stucco walls, along with white
body color with black accents (reference Attachment 5 – Color/Material Sheet).
Administrative Action: The Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit application
was submitted on July 31, 2019. After review by staff, the application was deemed "incomplete"
on August 20, 2019. At that time, staff identified various required technical corrections and
suggested design changes, and also directed the applicant to shift the location of the proposed
house so that it would not interfere with the two protected Deodar Cedar trees located in the front
yard. The applicant submitted revised plans on October 8, 2019 after several rounds of
discussion with staff.
Although the plans did improve the appearance of the front elevation which had been fairly flat
and unarticulated and reduced the size of the rear balcony, the applicant refused to alter the
placement of the proposed residence out of the rootzone of the two Cedar trees located in the
front yard. Since construction in proximity to the trees would irreparably damage them,
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of November 26, 2019 Page 3 of 5
PLN2019-144/196 ~ 505 Sunnybrook Drive
constituting a de-facto removal, the applicant was directed to submit for a Tree Removal Permit
so that the application could be fully considered (tree removals associated with a development
application must be considered concurrently to prevent piecemealing). The applicant also
provided an arborist report that found the trees in good condition with fair structure (some
damage due to overhead trimming by PG&E), an assessment confirmed by the City Arborist
(reference Attachment 6). The arborist report did recommend removal of the trees, however,
that recommendation pertained to potential damage to the existing house.
After review of the applicant’s project materials and required public noticing period, the
application was denied by the Community Development Director on November 12, 2019 due to
the inability to affirmatively establish the required findings. The Director determined that since
the project proposes a 45-foot rear setback when only 20-feet is necessary, the proposed home
could easily be placed out of the way of the Cedar trees allowing them to be preserved. As the
Commission is aware, the City has numerous policies and zoning provisions that require
preservation of trees so long as the City allows reasonable development of private property. Both
can occur here.
Moreover, Community Development Director found that maintaining the trees would be in
keeping with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance and other City policies that encourage the
retention of mature trees. Preservation would also improve the property’s appearance and
support the neighborhood character as encouraged by both the Zoning Code and General Plan.
Preservation of the trees in a situation where they can easily be saved also supports the City’s
status as a “Tree City” by the Arbor Day Foundation.
Lastly, the project proposes a balcony that would extend out from the rear building wall. The
STANP indicates that “second floor decks oriented toward the side and rear yards can be a
source of privacy invasion to the backyards of adjacent homes.” To address potential “privacy
invasion” the STANP encourages smaller balconies and the use of solid railing. The proposed
balcony does not incorporate solid railing, which itself does not sufficiently address privacy
impacts since 3 ½ foot high railing does not obstruct visibility. However, if the balcony were
inset into the second-floor, the visibility would be much more limited in keeping with the intent
of the STANP’s privacy policy.
Appeal Analysis: Following the Community Development Director's denial of the
Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2019-144) and a Tree Removal
Permit (PLN2019-196), the property owner submitted an appeal of the denial decision (reference
Attachment 7 – Appeal Letter).
The appellant largely contends that the conclusions of the arborist report (applicant-provided)
supports removal of the trees (and therefore, approval of the new home). Although the arborist
report does contend that the trees should be removed due to their proximity to the existing home
and because they have outgrown their planting areas, this conclusion is only applicable to the
existing house. Since the proposed project would result in a new house, the arborist’s reasoning
is simply not applicable. Moreover, the arborist also asserts that preservation would create an
“unusual hardship for the property owner and restricts the economic enjoyment of the property.”
Yet, as noted, the property has such a large rear setback (45-feet), the new house can easily be
moved deeper into the property away from the trees without requiring loss of square-footage or
redesign of the home.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of November 26, 2019 Page 4 of 5
PLN2019-144/196 ~ 505 Sunnybrook Drive
The appellant also notes the shifting of the house back would significantly reduce the size of the
home’s backyard. However, the proposed 45-foot deep, 2,800 square-foot backyard—plus 8-foot
deep 430 square-foot covered patio—is substantially larger than a standard 1,200 square-foot
yard commonly found in most R-1-6 zoned properties in the San Tomas Area. In total, the
proposed project would have a quantity of private open space that is more than 2 ½ times that of
comparably zoned properties. As such, a claim of hardship cannot be reasonably made since the
project site would not be worse off than similarly designed projects.
Moreover, staff did suggest a compromise that could have minimized the extent the house would
need to be relocated. Although to fully move the house outside of the tree’s root zone would
require it to be shifted upwards of 15- to 20-feet, the applicant could have provided funds to the
City for preparation of an independent arborist report. This report could have provided
construction recommendations that may have allowed construction of the house to partially
encroach into the root zone in a manner that would minimize damage to the trees. Since the
appellant was unwilling to go through this process for economic reasons (i.e., continuing
mortgage payments), this avenue was never explored.
With regard to the new house next door that included removal of a similar Cedar tree, this tree
was only allowed to be removed once the house was under construction. It was only after
construction started that it became evident that the tree was closer to the house than had been
depicted on the project plans. By then the tree had endured substantial damage and the City had
no choice but to allow its removal. This outcome should not have happened and as a result staff
has become more diligent in ensuring construction does not occur within the rootzone of
protected trees.
Lastly, the appellant believes that the reduced size of the balcony sufficiently address privacy
concerns and does not believe that Community Development Director’s direction to inset it into
the building is necessary. However, last December, in response to community concerns about
privacy impacts with a new house on Kenneth Avenue located just down the street from the
subject property, the Community Development Director required redesign of the balconies in the
same manner. In keeping the City’s commitment to consistent decision-making, it is therefore,
appropriate to require the redesign of the proposed balcony.
Moreover, as compared to most balconies, which tend to be connected to master bedrooms, the
proposed balcony would be tied to a second-story family room. As opposed to a master bedroom,
a family room is a common gathering space in a household. This means that the balcony is likely
to get more use, which could heighted privacy impacts in a manner inconsistent with the
STANP.
In conclusion, staff recommends the denial of the appeal and upholding of the Community
Development Director’s denial. The motion should also direct the applicant to submit a new
application with a revised design that preserves the Cedar trees and insets the rear balcony.
Site and Architectural Review Committee: The Campbell Municipal Code requires that an appeal
of an administrative decision of the Community Development Director be heard directly by the
Planning Commission. As such, the Site and Architectural Review Committee did not review
this application.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of November 26, 2019 Page 5 of 5
PLN2019-144/196 ~ 505 Sunnybrook Drive
Attachments:
1.Draft Resolution
2.Location Map
3.Site Photographs
4.Project Plans
5.Color/Material Board
6.Arborist Report
7.Appeal Letter
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Paul Kermoyan, Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. 45__
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DENIAL OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT
(PLN2019-144) AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (PLN2019-196) TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 2-STORY 3,600 SQUARE-FOOT
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND REMOVAL OF TWO (2)
PROTECTED DEODAR CEDAR TREES LOCATED IN THE FRONT
YARD, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 505 SUNNYBROOK DRIVE IN
THE R-1-6 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT.
FILE NO.: PLN2019-144/196
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to file numbers PLN2019-
144/196:
1.The Project Site is zoned R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) on the City of Campbell
Zoning Map.
2.The Project Site is designated Low Density Residential (less than 6 units/gr. acre)
on the City of Campbell General Plan Land Use diagram.
3.The Project Site is located on Sunnybrook Drive east of Kenneth Street, within the
San Tomas Area, subject to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan.
4.The Proposed Project is an application for an Administrative Site and Architectural
Review Permit (PLN2019-144) to allow construction of a 2-story 3,600 square-foot
single-family residence and Tree Removal Permit (PLN2019-196) to allow removal
of two (2) protected Deodar Cedar trees located in the front yard
5.The Proposed Project would result in a building coverage of 32% and Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) of 0.45.
6.The proposed single-family residence would be placed within the rootzone of two
Deodar Cedar trees which would likely cause irreparable damage to the trees. As
such, the application includes an application for a Tree Removal Permit.
7.The applicant’s arborist report found that the Deodar Cedar trees are in good
condition with fair structure.
8.Removal of the Deodar Cedar trees would conflict with Campbell Municipal Code
(CMC) Section 21.42.040.B.4 and Section 21.26.030.K, which encourage the
retention of mature trees where possible.
Attachment 1
Planning Commission Resolution No. 45xx Page 2 of 3
PLN2019-144/196 ~ 505 Sunnybrook Drive – Appeal
9.General Plan Strategy LUT-17.1b also encourages preservation of existing trees:
Strategy LUT-17.1b: Landscaping: Ensure that new developments provide new tree planting,
shrubs, greenery and other landscaping materials, and preserve existing
trees and shrubs.
10.Since the project proposes a 45-foot rear setback, the proposed house can be
shifted backwards up to 25-feet to ensure that construction does not occur with the
rootzone and still comply with the 20-foot rear setback. As such, retention of the
trees does restrict the economic enjoyment of the property.
11.The Proposed Project also proposes a rear balcony that would present privacy
impacts to the side neighbors in a manner inconsistent with the San Tomas Area
Neighborhood Plan (STANP).
12.The rear balcony would connect to a second-story family room, which is a common
space in a household that would likely result in more use of the balcony, which
could heighted privacy impacts in a manner inconsistent with the STANP.
13.The location of the trees within the property’s front yard would create a relatively
large open space area if they were preserved.
14.Preservation of the trees improves the property’s appearance and supports the
neighborhood character
15.The Proposed Project does not enhance the City’s character because the City is a
recognized “Tree City” by the Arbor Day Foundation, due to its efforts to preserve
trees that in turn achieve a specific environmental character.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and
concludes that:
Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.42.050)
1.The project will not be consistent with the General Plan
2.The project will not aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area.
3.The project is not consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines.
Tree Removal Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.42.050)
4.The retention of the tree(s) would not restrict the economic enjoyment of the
property or creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting
the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly
zoned and situated properties, and the applicant has not demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to
preserve the tree(s)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 45xx Page 3 of 3
PLN2019-144/196 ~ 505 Sunnybrook Drive – Appeal
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
5.The project is Statutorily Exempt under Section 15270(a) of the California
Environment Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to projects which a public agency
rejects or disapproves.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission denies an appeal and
upholds the Community Development Director’s denial of an Administrative Site and
Architectural Review Permit (PLN2019-144) and Tree Removal Permit (PLN2019-196)
and directs the applicant to submit a new application with a revised design that
preserves the Cedar trees and insets the rear balcony, on property located at 505
Sunnybrook Drive.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of November, 2019, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED:
Andrew Rivlin, Chair
ATTEST:
Paul Kermoyan, Secretary
94 This map is based on GIS Information and reflects the most current
information at the time of this printing. The map is intended for reference
purposes only and the City and its staff is not responsible for errors.
Location Map
1,128Campbell IT, GIS Services
188
1:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet
1880
Scale
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
505 SUNNYBROOK DRIVEAPN#: 404 - 025 - 022VICINITY MAPSCALE: N.T.S.SITE
505 SUNNYBROOK DRIVEAPN#: 404 - 025 - 022
D-Square Studio - www.d-squarestudio.com
MATERIAL AND COLOR BOARD
505 SUNNYBROOK DRIVE
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
ROOFGAF TIMBERLINE LIFETIME ARCHITECTURAL
ROOFING SHINGLES
TIMBERLINE NATURAL SHADOW COLOR: CHARCOAL
OR EQUIVALENT
WALL MATERIAL
STUCCO ASSEMBLYDUNN-EDWARDS PAINTSWHITE DEW380
OR EQUIVALENT
WINDOWSJELDWEN
VINYL FRAMECOLOR: BLACK
FASCIA
DUNN-EDWARDS PAINTSBLACK TIE DE6357OR EQUIVALENT
GARAGE DOOR
CLOPAY WOOD CLASSIC COLLECTION
WHITE OR SIMILAR
ENTRY DOORCOLOR: BLACKWITH GLASS
Attachment 5
PREPARED FOR:
LU CONSTRUCTION
505 Sunnybrook Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
SEPTEMBER 27TH, 2019
P R E PA R E D BY:
R I C H A R D S M I T H , C E R T I F I E D A R B O R I S T
CERTIFIED ARBORIST NO. WE-8745A
B AY A R E A T R E E S P E C I A L I S T S
Attachment 6
Richard Smith-Bay Area Tree Specialists - 408-466-3469
541 W. Capitol Expwy PMB 287 San Jose, Ca 95136
2
Contents
SUMMARY ................................................................................ 3
PURPOSE AND USE OF THIS REPORT ............................. 3
ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 3
LIMITS OF THE ASSIGNMENT ........................................... 3
TREE INVENTORY ................................................................. 4
GPS .............................................................................................. 5
QUALIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 6
CERTFICATION OF PERFORMANCE ................................ 7
Richard Smith-Bay Area Tree Specialists - 408-466-3469
541 W. Capitol Expwy PMB 287 San Jose, Ca 95136
3
SUMMARY
I, Richard Smith, Certified Arborist No. WE-8745A and Certified Tree Risk Assessor No. 589 was called out to assess
trees located at 505 Sunnybrook Drive Campbell, CA for species type, size and health.
PURPOSE AND USE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is to provide tree inventory, GPS, condition of trees and recommendations.
ANALYSIS
The tree was measured at four and one half feet above grade (Diameter at Breast Height) (DBH)) with Ben Meadows
TM Diameter Tape, made in Germany.
LIMITS OF THE ASSIGNMENT
No aerial inspection, trenching or resistance drilling was performed.
No Biological tests were performed.
No tree risk assessments were performed.
Only a visual inspection from the ground was performed.
Richard Smith-Bay Area Tree Specialists - 408-466-3469
541 W. Capitol Expwy PMB 287 San Jose, Ca 95136
4
TREE INVENTORY
Tree #935 Deodora Cedar DBH 31", height 51', crown spread 27', health good, structure fair tree has history
of poor pruning practice's due to proximity to PG&E wires. This tree is recommended for removal due to close
proximity to home and utility interference. This tree has outgrown the area in which it was planted. Tree roots
cannot be pruned within the critical root zone therefore root pruning is not an option. This tree creates an
unusual hardship for the property owner and restricts the economic enjoyment of the property.
Recommendation is for removal and replacement with a small tree species.
Tree #936 Deodora Cedar DBH 30", height 55', crown spread 33', health good, structure fair due to poor
pruning practice's near PG&E wires. This tree is recommended for removal due to close proximity to home and
utility interference. This tree has outgrown the area in which it was planted. Tree roots cannot be pruned within
the critical root zone, therefore root pruning is not an option. This tree creates an unusual hardship for the
property owner and restricts the economic enjoyment of the property. Recommendation is for removal and
replacement with a small tree species.
Tree #937 Orange Tree DBH multi-trunk 24", height 18', crown spread 18', health fair structure, structure fair.
Tree #938 Mock Orange DBH multi-trunk 17 height 13', health fair, structure poor.
Tree #939 Ironwood neighbor's tree DBH multi-trunk DBH 16 height 26', crown spread 18', health good,
structure fair.
Tree number #940 Almond neighbor's tree, DBH multi-trunk 12", height 16', health poor,
structure fair.
Richard Smith-Bay Area Tree Specialists - 408-466-3469
541 W. Capitol Expwy PMB 287 San Jose, Ca 95136
5
GPS
Richard Smith-Bay Area Tree Specialists - 408-466-3469
541 W. Capitol Expwy PMB 287 San Jose, Ca 95136
6
QUALIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Any legal description provided to the arborist is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties
are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under
responsible ownership and competent management.
All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other
regulations.
Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the arborist cannot be responsible
for the accuracy of information provided by others.
The arborist shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations,
arbitrations, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arraignments are made, including
payment of an additional fee for such service.
This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the arborist, and the arborist fee
is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraised value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a
subsequent event.
Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to
scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of
information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is
only for coordination and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents
does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information.
Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of
inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation,
probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or
deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future.
Richard Smith-Bay Area Tree Specialists - 408-466-3469
541 W. Capitol Expwy PMB 287 San Jose, Ca 95136
7
CERTFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
I, Richard Smith, Certify:
That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have states my
findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of
Assignment;
That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report,
and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;
That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own;
That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to
commonly accepted Arboricultural practices;
That no one provided significant professional assistance to the arborist, except as indicated in the report.
That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the
cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results,
or the occurrence of any other subsequent events;
I further certify that I am an I.S.A. Certified Arborist in good standing with The International Society of
Arboriculture. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 2004.
Richard Smith
I.S.A. Certified Arborist WE-8745A
Richard Smith-Bay Area Tree Specialists - 408-466-3469
541 W. Capitol Expwy PMB 287 San Jose, Ca 95136
8
Richard Smith-Bay Area Tree Specialists - 408-466-3469
541 W. Capitol Expwy PMB 287 San Jose, Ca 95136
10
Richard Smith-Bay Area Tree Specialists - 408-466-3469
541 W. Capitol Expwy PMB 287 San Jose, Ca 95136
12
Richard Smith-Bay Area Tree Specialists - 408-466-3469
541 W. Capitol Expwy PMB 287 San Jose, Ca 95136
14
Richard Smith-Bay Area Tree Specialists - 408-466-3469
541 W. Capitol Expwy PMB 287 San Jose, Ca 95136
15
Richard Smith-Bay Area Tree Specialists - 408-466-3469
541 W. Capitol Expwy PMB 287 San Jose, Ca 95136
18
ll/6/2019 Campbell Tree Removal Letter -Google Docs
NOV 1 3 2019 .
Dear City of Campbell,
My name is Ortal Liberty, my family are myself, husband and four little children.I recently
purchased a home located at 505 Sunnybrook Dr, Campbell, CA 95008. -This house was designed for a tear down completely and re build, something that will have a
benefit for us as a large family as well as for the neighborhood.
Our new house design showing the same distance from the sidewalk as the old house. 15' from
that we have 2 big trees that blocking the house specialty with the new two story house. . ...... .
City request us to hire an Arborist service in order to apply for these trees to be removed.
Arborist report mention the tree is Healthy BUT for the following reason they are definitely
recommend to remove the trees:
-The trees are interfering with the power lines
-structure fair tree has history of poor pruning practice's due to proximity to PG&E
wires.
-due to close proximity to home and utility interference.
-This tree creates an unusual hardship for the property owner and restricts the economic
enjoyment of the property.
-Lower the value of the property dramatically
After all-city denied that request and now asking to push the house back 15' more from the tree
root zone -total of 30' just from the trees meaning -50' from the sidewalk. They also mentioned
to us that if we were to submit an application to remove the tree without any new house plans to
be built they will most likely approve it right away.
Pushing that house 30' from the trees will obviously take a large area from our backyard and
will leave only much less space for my kids to play and for us to enjoy as a family together.
Another fact is that if we're planning to add a pool I ADU unit in the future -this will limit my
options.
Having my house sit so far back from the street will also look odd in the neighborhood as all the
homes on my street sit in a straight row.
The neighbor right on my left side also had the same tree and were allowed to remove it.
When we originally bought the house we had a dream that we can build the same house like our
neighbor on 540 Sunnybrook as well as 531 Sunnybrook Dr, but unfortunately the city keep
rejecting design plans with the reason that we are not compliant with the neighborhood. The
request to push the house back 50' from the sidewalk is definitely not compliance as well.
Second thing is that my house was first design with a large balcony on the second floor.The city
mention they will not approve that, and asked us to come back with wither two smaller balconies
on each side or a smaller one in the center. We changed it again and came back with a different
design showing a smaller balcony and now it looks like they are refusing it again and want us to
have it enclosed.
Attachment 7
11/6/2019 Campbell Tree Removal Letter -Google Docs
Any redesign changes have been very expensive to us, as well as Arborist report and time
consuming to get any feedback from the city. We also still paying high monthly mortgage and
monthly rental in a different house we are staying at currently .
Please take consideration into helping us solve this problem and please grant me the same
permission as my very next neighbor
Thank you for your time,
(In the photo its the niber tree)
a o-·---____ ,