Loading...
PC Agenda Packet 01-14-14Table of Contents Agenda 2 Draft minutes of December 10, 2013 Draft Minutes 12-10-2013 4 Review of 2014/2015 Work Program Staff Report 17 1- Adopted 2013/2014 City Council Work Program 21 Director's Report Director's Report 35 1 AGENDA CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Community Hall Tuesday, January 14, 2014 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subject: Draft minutes of December 10, 2013 Recommended Action: approve or modify draft minutes Page: 4 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 2. Subject: Review of 2014 Work Program Recommended Action: discuss Work Program prior to submittal to Council Page: 17 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Commissioners 2 Tuesday, January 14, 2014 Page -2 Economic Development Committee Meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3. Subject: Director's Report Recommended Action: accept report Page: 35 ADJOURNMENT If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Department after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours. For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777-3308 or planning@cupertino.org. 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. December 10, 2013 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 2013 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Don Sun. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Don Sun Vice Chairperson: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Margaret Gong (arrived after roll call) Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Alan Takahashi Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Assistant Planner: Simon Vuong Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes of the October 2, 2013, Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Takahashi, and carried 4-0-0 to approve the October 2, 2013 Planning Commission minutes as presented (Com. Gong absent when vote taken) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None Com. Gong arrived during Study Session. STUDY SESSION: 2. MCA-2013-01 Municipal Code Amendment to the Protected Tree Ordinance. (EA-2013-02) Study Session to discuss potential revisions to Municipal Code City of Cupertino Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees to make recommendations to the City Council. Tentative City Council date: 01-21-2014 4 Cupertino Planning Commission December 10, 2013 2 Simon Vuong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: • Said the purpose of the Study Session is to receive direction on amendments to the Municipal Code Chapter 14.18 Protected Tree Ordinance, as requested by City Council. In March 2013 the City Council amended the Tree Ordinance to remove references to public trees and reduce the penalty for illegally removing a tree from a misdemeanor to infraction. A report was also prepared streamlining the tree removal process in residential zones for smaller trees, but still requiring tree replacements; also to review the size of specimen trees and ensure they are native, encourage retention of specimen trees regardless of size and consider whether greater penalties would be required for illegal removal of trees. Staff prepared a draft ordinance as shown in the staff report, Page 10; key features include retention of specimen trees on the list; current tree removal process, which remain in place for mature or large trees. Tree removal applications for trees not mature would not need an arborist report for removal, only mitigation in the form of replacements or an in-lieu fee. • Staff recommends specimen tree size of 12 inches circumference; and will retain larger protected trees on approved landscaping plans, separate from the residential properties. The city consulting arborist recommends the approach adopted by adjacent cities requiring large fees for penalties. A new process may be put in place for property owners in residential zones who desire to voluntarily plant trees allowing property owners to register the trees at time of planting and record on the home deed. The trees are not subject to tree removal permits or mitigation requirements if removed. • Comments regarding the proposed changes to the ordinance from a community meeting held in October 2013 are listed on Page 12 of the staff report. Staff prepared a spectrum of five alternatives for review shown on Page 12 and 13. • He discussed the fee structure for illegal tree removal which is currently $3,128 per tree illegally removed. The City’s consulting arborists suggest that a penalty producing more replacement trees be instituted as implemented by other surrounding communities. Staff is seeking the Planning Commission’s preference on the fee schedule; options include a flat retroactive fine or a formula similar to that of street trees. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide additional directions on the amendments for staff review and forward to City Council. • Staff answered Commissioners’ questions regarding tree removal and replanting, and fees. Chair Sun opened the public hearing. Yvonne Hampton, Cupertino resident: • Discussed a large oak tree in their back yard which they did not plant and have spent vast amounts of money over the years to take care of and treat tree disease; it is a nuisance in that it blocks the sun and sheds leaves constantly, making the yard non-usable for the family. She expressed opposition to having to take care of a tree which they did not plant and do not want in their yard, and stated that homeowners should have the right to remove a tree on their property. When planted in the front of their home, the large trees eventually crack concrete and eventually the roots may uproot pipes in their yard which is a hazard for the homeowner as well as a major expense to repair. Roy Hampton, Cupertino resident: • Reinforced the concerns of his wife who spoke previously, and expressed frustration that homeowners were expected to carry the burden of expenses related to the upkeep and care of trees planted by the city on their property. He said that the Oak tree on their property was diseased and dangerous and two arborists deemed that they could do nothing further with the tree. When he asked the city to remove the diseased tree he had to pay to remove the tree as well as pay the city not to plant another tree. He questioned why the private citizens were burdened with the expenses of the tree, when they did not plant the tree, did not want the tree and it interfered with enjoying the comfort of their home and yard. Other residents have been plagued with problems resulting from the tree 5 Cupertino Planning Commission December 10, 2013 3 roots breaking up concrete, growing under their homes and destroying pipes. The city does not cover the expenses from the hazards created by the unwanted trees. He estimated their cost of having the tree removed and the fee paid for not replanting a tree was $3,000, as well as other costs for other arborists. Fenton Hill, 20915 McClellan Rd., Cupertino: • Said that his 22,000 sq. ft. lot was covered with vegetation; at least 25 large trees that are 50 to 70 ft. tall, 17 medium trees. There is a dead tree about 50 to 60 feet tall that needs to be removed and he will have to pay the city $2,000 to have it removed; as well as pay the city to replace the tree which he or his neighbors do not want as they have a backyard pool. He was opposed to paying an in-lieu fee or having to pay the city approximately $3,000 to $4,000 to replant a tree he does not want on his property. It is an unfair expectation for property owners. Lynn Faust, Cupertino resident: • Read the following text into record: “I am resident of a planned unit development Rancho Deep Cliff in Cupertino, and also a multi-year member of our Landscape Committee which spends a lot of time and money annually caring for and preserving our trees, a wonderful asset to our community. In recent weeks we spent about 6 hours with a couple of tree service companies assessing the health of our trees and getting bids for work in 2014 since our tree canopy was, and continues to be, one of the major drawing cards for buyers looking to purchase in our development. We feel it is worth the time and effort and expense to maintain it; it adds a significant amount of real estate value to our homes. Guests who visit will often comment about the rather drastic change from driving up nearby sections of Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Canyon Rd. and then driving down into our complex finding a peaceful tree-filled oasis. I grew up in Willow Glen in the late 50s and rode a school bus to Mtn. View thru orchard filled Cupertino; I had plenty of time to admire the scenery along the way; it also made a lasting impression on me at the time that this small town had so much arboreal beauty. While growth and development have certainly displaced most of our local orchards, the city has maintained its goals and strong standards in supporting policies that create the beauty and accompanying environmental benefits including wildlife habitat that trees can provide. Last month I read an article about Apple’s landscape plans for their new campus and their arborist monthly stating the goal of bringing California back to Cupertino. The article went on to describe the goals for an ecologically rich area for employees to dine alfresco in an area Apple called the Glade. Their stated goal by 2016 is to have an 80% landscape; currently the plot has about 4500 trees and by that time it will be more like 7,000. I am not sure where the water is coming from but they will certainly have accomplished their goal of creating a visual buffer from prying eyes, as well as the accompanying environmental benefit. We are definitely now a fast moving society and often an impatient one, but the concept of heritage trees should not give in to slapdash mentality but instead remain a thoughtful researched approach. I believe that criteria to be considered for removal should include such items as the condition of the tree with respect to disease, eminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with public utilities. Consideration should also be given to the effect that tree removal would have on shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty and property values of the general area. I would even suggest your strong consideration be given to public notification when a tree removal permit is issued (sounds like you are already doing that). I understand that neighboring cities such as Mtn. View and Los Altos Hills have similar policies. Palo Alto 17 years ago established what is now a non-profit group called Canopy; they might also serve as a resource to our city as we rethink our protected tree ordinance; we certainly know how high the property values are in that city and how they view their trees as a very precious resource. I strongly believe that as a city we have been able to keep and nurture our healthy tree population and the beauty it provides, as least in part to our city’s strong, protected tree ordinance. I would hate to see any significant relaxation in those policies. Thank you for your consideration.” 6 Cupertino Planning Commission December 10, 2013 4 Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she was frustrated at the number of times the tree ordinance had been reopened since 2000 and said the present study was the sixth time. She expressed concern that the Bay Laurel tree was under attack; it was put on the list four years ago by arborists, Planning Commission and City Council and it is a native tree, the largest Bay Laurel in California is at Rancho San Antonio Park and is over 400 years old. She said it was important to keep the Bay Laurel on the list and predicted that in three years the oak trees could be removed from the endangered list. Said that it was important to distinguish between small lot vs. large lot. She was concerned that so much time and money has been spent rehashing the ordinance repeatedly, and hoped that each time they go through the process, it will get locked down tighter and protect the trees. Dave McLeroy, Cupertino resident: • Labeled himself as a tree hugger who enjoyed walking the hiking trails; and said he was pleased that the tree ordinance was being worked on. Said he had many years experience with his firm managing tens of thousands of trees for major companies and homeowners’ associations in northern California, and the presentation did not contain any alarming information. He expressed concern about a Deodar Cedar tree in his front yard that causes problems by dropping an alarming amount of sap on cars parked around his property, which distresses the neighbors also. He encouraged the city to provide some relief to the homeowners who cannot afford to pay to remove and replace the problem trees. He said it was an outrage to charge $500 for an arborist to come and look at one tree; his main issue today is for the city to be sensitive to the situational aspect of tree management; some people have a small lot and they cannot afford to replant a 36 inch box tree to replace one that is removed. He asked for consideration of some architectural changes to mitigate the sap dripping and suggested a carport over the area or some structure that would catch the sap so it wouldn’t drop on the ground, with the result of people tracking the sap drippings on their property and into their house. He said he did not want to remove the tree and was seeking ways to solve the problem. He asked staff to consider ways to mitigate the problems the residents were faced with. Chair Sun closed the public hearing. Staff answered Commissioners’ questions regarding the tree ordinance: Com. Brophy: • Asked if a specimen tree above the minimum size needed to be removed because it was dead, diseased or pulling up the sidewalk, is the property owner responsible for providing a replacement? Aarti Shrivastava: • Said once the tree is above that size, the tree could be removed under those conditions, but it has to be mitigated. The property owner has the option of paying into an in-lieu fee fund which is used toward planting of street trees in the rest of the city. The idea is to replace the bio mass that is removed in some form, whether it is on their site or somewhere else in the city. The in-lieu fee is typically lower than the cost of planting a new tree. • If a large tree is removed and the property owner has to provide mitigation and they choose two trees, and they don’t have space to plant two, the owner might say they don’t want to plant two trees in their yard; it is usually the choice of the owner unless there is a cleared area where it can be planted, usually the owner gets to pick. The choice is not to not pay for an arborist because there are certain findings that have to be made in order to remove the tree and one of the findings is that the tree is diseased or there are other issues; that is why an arborist is needed. The findings don’t give a choice. Gary Chao: • Many times what people are told in the spirit of helping them save money, is that when there is a 7 Cupertino Planning Commission December 10, 2013 5 difficult situation or gray area, staff recommends they retain the city arborist to minimize any additional need of having their arborist come up with something that doesn’t really address the issue; having to later pay for the city arborist to again verify and provide clarity. Many people take on that option because they feel there is an efficiency gain; you don’t have to have two arborists; it is always an option available to the public. Aarti Shrivastava: • The findings are health, safety, property damage; after going through the findings if there is good reason to remove the tree, they can remove it as long as it is mitigated. They actually go through all those issues. Said staff is seeking direction; there is a spectrum of options, one recent one relative to middle tier, says they can create where you don’t have to go through an arborist report and findings for each tree; it also addresses the size of the site and number of trees on a site. An arborist may be needed to go out and document, but you don’t have to go through a whole health and safety issue; you can remove as many trees as long as it is mitigated. Below 10 inches mitigation is not needed; anything above 10 inches has two processes; if it is between 10 and 24 they will not evaluate the health; it can be removed as long as it is mitigated; if above 24 inches, you have to go through the process. Said it was starting to push some of the limits; they talked to the environmental consultant who pointed out that trees have many benefits, they have environmental issues, and if they get rid of the process, they will have significant environmental issues on a cumulative basis throughout the city. She said staff is trying to find a balance between the existing ordinance and an option that states for certain group of trees there is no noticing or wait period. Said there are other options the Planning Commission might want to give direction on. Com. Brophy: • The issue of environmental issues has been raised and in one of the earlier reports there was mention that at certain levels, environmental review might be required; and it was even suggested at one level there might be an environmental report. He said he was puzzled about what the thought was. Overall in looking at all the trees in Cupertino on home lots, street trees, park trees and trees in the hills, it averages out to 25 trees per household in Cupertino., which equals 20,000 dwelling units, or 500,000 trees. The number of trees for which there are tree permits for each year are in the order 100 to 150 per year. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they have to count the actual number of trees; the permits are 80 to 100. They look cumulatively beyond. Com. Brophy: • Referred to Page 38 of the staff report and noted that the number of protected trees over a four year period averaged over 300 per year; and said if it is less than one tree in 1,000 he was confused how it would constitute an environmental impact. The amount of bio mass that exists under any regime from no tree ordinance to the most restrictive is basically going to be unchanged by the process. He questioned the talk about environmental impact review. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they rely on their environmental consultant’s expertise on air quality issues, sustainability issues, and greenhouse gas issues. Com. Brophy: • Said he was certain the environmental consultant was knowledgeable but he felt the numbers didn’t work out under any regime from the most strict to the most lenient that there is a significant environmental issue. 8 Cupertino Planning Commission December 10, 2013 6 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they had to account for more than one year and the probability of what could happen; it is a question of a risk management relative to how the risk is calculated; have all the options been studied; and for that a program environmental impact review would be appropriate if the process is made less lenient. It would also allow subsequent tree removals to actually be done in a more streamlined way environmentally because you have accounted for all of the impacts up front with this project as opposed to doing it tree by tree if the goal is to streamline the process for individual homeowners. Simon Vuong: • Noted that the $500 is a base deposit; typically the arborist charges less, whatever is remaining is refunded to the applicant. The typical rate could be $250 or $300 in some cases it is more; however it is conveyed to the applicant prior and they are told $500 which is a round number; the applicants are told it could be less. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said it sometimes it depends on the number of trees and the application being reviewed. They don’t differentiate between lot size, but look at the tree type and size; findings cannot be created on someone’s income. There is the opportunity for people to apply for hardship waiver for fees but usually a lien is put on their property and people don’t like liens on their property. It is a choice. Simon Vuong: • Reviewed the option shown; Tier 2 the criteria more restrictive of the two, so (a) less than 10% of specimen trees or (b) up to three specimen trees; if the individual had 30 specimen trees that were in the 10 to 24 inch range, they can remove three by either criteria or if they had ten trees, they could remove one. The permit costs for the first three removed is $175, second and subsequent trees are $85 as well as other environmental and noticing fees approximately $500 to $600 in addition to those fees excluding replacements and arborist fees. Aarti Shrivastava: • The retroactive tree removal permit gets to a better sense of what the cost recovery is based on staff time for the tree removals, but there is an incentive given to approval of permits for people to apply for the tree removal vs. removing illegally. • With the additional option, staff is looking at keeping the 10 but by giving a second tier that would not require noticing or individual assessment of each tree. Presently anything over 10 inches requires the standard permit process, noticing, arborist review of the tree condition and going through the findings. In this case staff says they will create a new tier where the 10 to 24 inch group does not have to go through noticing and it will not have to go through individual arborist’s assessment of each tree; you can remove it as long as you mitigate it but once you go beyond the 10% or beyond three trees, you get into tier 3 and anything over 24 inches will keep the current process. • Said that if a property owner does not want to plant the replacement tree on his property, he can pay the in-lieu fee which will go into a tree planting fund to be used to plant more street trees or trees on public land as opposed to private property. Chair Sun: • Referred to Mr. Hill’s concern about the financial burden placed on homeowners, particularly those on a fixed income, relative to tree removal and replacement, and said a solution was needed for the special situation. How does the city handle the residents who have special situations; when they remove the trees it is a financial burden; the situation needs some consideration on how to balance 9 Cupertino Planning Commission December 10, 2013 7 the consideration? Aarti Shrivastava: • Explained that a property owner could apply for a hardship waiver if they are not able to pay to have the tree replaced or the in-lieu fee. The city would collect the money when the house is sold. Removal of a 14 inch Oak tree would cost between $900 and $1,000. The special consideration would be the hardship waiver. Simon Vuong: • The role of the arborist is to determine whether or not there are findings to remove the tree; if there is a claim that the tree is unhealthy and diseased, if there wasn’t a finding to remove that tree, the city would not be able to support it. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said she noted in writing speaker Foust’s recommendations; the condition whether the tree is falling, structure, all are findings already; health, safety, property value and damage are all currently findings and if the tree is affecting any of those that warrants its removal, then staff would approve the removal of the tree. Relative to general property values in the area, the city typically doesn’t want to get involved where it affects the actual property. For example sometimes people go to staff and say it is a beautiful tree but they are having insurance problems because it is going over the house; and when the arborist confirms it staff says they can remove it. The criteria is built into the findings. Com. Brophy: • Said he had served on the Commission for six years and noted it was the first time in his service that the tree ordinance was under study. Other than reviewing tree planting plans for commercial projects, the Planning Commission does not deal with tree issues as they are handled as administrative matters. He indicated that there have been unsolicited complaints about how the city does business from a planning perspective in dealing with tree removals from residential areas. There is a perception that the process is bureaucratic and that the various fees the city charges are a form of extraction; a form of hidden taxation. He said he was interested in trying to minimize the burden on residential areas and still maintain some of what they want to accomplish. He agreed with staff that the voluntary planting issue was a non-starter that seems unduly complicated and should best be forgotten. • He addressed the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Hampton and Mr. Hill, dealing with the question of dead, dangerous or diseased trees or trees that are uprooting sidewalks because the city has legal liability for uprooting sidewalks. Said he felt that any specimen tree in those categories should be allowed for removal without fee and without the requirement to replace it. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that a fee is not charged if the tree is dead. Staff may feel the need to call in an arborist to ascertain if the tree is still alive. Com. Brophy: • To the extent that staff can make an initial judgment on any of those issues, being dead, diseased, dangerous, or an uprooted sidewalk, staff can at first glance do that which would eliminate the need for the arborist. He suggested that trees in that category not generate the need for a replacement tree, there on site or as a contribution to the city. • Relative to Mr. McLeroy’s concern about the issue of the dripping cedar trees, they are trees that they would like to keep, and hopefully a solution can be found. If trimming the tree could not solve the problem, in that case a replacement tree or a contribution to the city might be reasonable. That is a different category than the previous one of trees that are a danger or liability to the city. • Relative to the 10 inch or 12 inch issue, it is an arbitrary number and the arborist’s decision. Said he 10 Cupertino Planning Commission December 10, 2013 8 did not support making people pay for a replacement tree on city land; the city plants trees every year in the normal course of maintaining parks and there is a sense of something unethical about the process. • In the case if diseased trees, most people want large trees; where the trees need to be removed, there should not be a burden on the homeowner to replace it either on or offsite. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they could remove the option although most people would prefer to have it; they are told they can mitigate it on their own property but sometimes they do not want to do that. There is usually a finding about property value and damage and they look at what it is; if it is a house or a sidewalk, they look at that; they already have findings that evaluate those. Com. Brophy: • Said that he had the right to trim the branches of a neighbor’s tree if they are leaning over his property line; tree branches can be trimmed. If the tree is leaning over, it is a different scenario. Said he did not consider trimming trees every three years as dangerous. If the branch is hanging over his roof he or someone else can trim them. If the tree is leaning over his roof, then it’s a source of danger. Said he was interested in removing the requirement to replace those categories of trees when a tree has to be removed, as Palo Alto does. Problem with a tree fund is that Parks and Rec does their planting plans with a budget. If a tree needs to removed he did not agree there should be mitigation either on or offsite; if the tree is being removed for the aesthetic preferences of the property owner, or if it is a specimen tree above 10 inches. Colleen Winchester, Asst. City Attorney: • Clarified Com. Brophy would have the right to trim the neighbor’s tree, but he would need a permit or permission from the owner. The other concern is if the tree is trimmed too much, it might kill the tree, which is a whole other legal quagmire. It is generally a matter of good neighbor policy. Aarti Shrivastava: • There is usually a finding about property value and damage and staff will look at what it is; if it is a house, definitely; sidewalk is also looked at. Said they already have findings that evaluate those. Colleen Winchester: • The question is when is environmental review triggered and they are talking about the environmental review in this particular circumstance for the entire ordinance and the goal is with the environmental review to try to minimize the concern that you need environmental review on an individual basis and that is where it is triggered; a replacement tree is how you get back to zero. Those are the kinds of questions the environmental consultant needs to examine. Com. Brophy: • Pointed out that in a city of a half million trees, it was bizarre to have to plant a tree in Memorial Park because an oak tree on McClellan Rd was removed. There is no environmental impact removing one tree in a city of 500,000 trees. If a tree is being removed for aesthetic preferences of the property owner, he said he did not see the need for mitigation either onsite or offsite. Com. Gong: • Said the point made is the one tree that is removed but not mitigated and not being replaced now could in five years be 1500 trees and there is no mitigation; so it is speaking of the cumulative effect. Colleen Winchester: • Said it is part of what the environmental consultant is looking at and is all part of a package in dealing 11 Cupertino Planning Commission December 10, 2013 9 with the proposed ordinance amendments. Aarti Shrivastava: • An arborist appealing another arborist’s finding is rare; there are times they can resolve it themselves by talking. They are professionals and understand the profession; there might be some differences of opinion, usually they confer and things get resolved. • Said the city did not have a private resident inventory of public or private trees; Public Works is doing a review of street trees. Without the inventory, there is no way of knowing the effect of adding another tier; perhaps all trees are under 10 inches. Said that environmentally they understand that it might have to be a program EIR in order to give that level of flexibility, but the mitigation is still required. The in-lieu fee is what is determined by Public Works about what it takes to buy and plant a tree. The cost of a tree removal permit is lower than it costs in staff time for processing. Com. Brophy: • Said that they did not include planned residential communities because traditionally they have a landscape plan approved at the time the project is built. Notwithstanding that, is there any reason why they cannot go ahead and handle tree removals on residential planned communities in the same way as with the residential zones. There have been some comments from people who are on HOA boards complaining about trees growing, things happen, people want to change it and they have to go through the staff process. Aarti Shrivastava: • Usually they go through a permit and a planned development permit; a change to the permit requires a modification; sometimes they might have as many as 400 trees they want to remove. Instead of charging for each tree, there is a much lower cost in the $3,000 range; there is a charge for a tree management plan where they can go in and get an arborist to work out a phased removal so the fees for tree removal are lower, but it still requires an arborist. If the question is why can’t they go ahead and remove those 400 trees without an arborist or mitigating, it would be hard to meet those findings. • For two or three trees, it is $175 plus $80 for each tree for the permit; the arborist is required to do a review unless the tree is dead, diseased or has obvious structural damage. It doesn’t matter if it is a non-specimen tree; it is part of the landscape plan approved, because they don’t only require specimen trees to be planted as part of a landscape plan; a number of residents are very involved in many of the projects and very often notice to adjacent property owners is given; it is a public process. Com. Gong: • Asked if in a planned residential HOA situation, if they have their own arborist and they go through the whole plan, do they still need to hire the city arborist or is it one or the other. Aarti Shrivastava: • The city arborist at that point will do a peer review which is not too costly; they will ensure that everything is in the right place and the right analysis has been done; they may question one tree or another, so they can chose to go either way. The city arborist doesn’t do the same level of analysis as theirs; it is a choice either way if they go with the city arborist. Com. Lee: • Said she felt it was absurd not to be able to cut down trees if on one’s private property. She requested further discussion of Alternative 4 which is protection of the heritage trees; they protect privacy trees, planned development trees but no more specimen trees. The different tiers are confusing. She also requested consideration of an incentive fee based program to plant trees; similar to the discussion of a voluntary tree planting. The idea is burdensome for staff and hard to carry out. She said she supported Com. Takahashi’s preliminary discussion about some type of rebate program or fee 12 Cupertino Planning Commission December 10, 2013 10 reduction if one goes above and beyond and plants a tree in their yard. Said she would be open to discussion about creating ideas to forward to City Council for a voluntary program, or incentive to plant trees. Trees contribute to the beauty of Cupertino and home values; they should be protected but can be burdensome. She said she did not support having specimen trees. Com. Takahashi: • This is typical conflict between private property ownership and environmental protection which shows up in many places; for us it shows up in the tree ordinance. Said he supported the possibility of trying to strike some balance between private ownership and preservation because while Com. Brophy’s argument just one tree for one person, you could say it doesn’t make a difference but again if everybody has that mindset and cuts down one tree, it is a large percentage and you can’t look at it that way. After looking at what was presented, the option presented tonight with regard to further tiering and allowing more flexibility of the property owner, takes a extra step in giving the property owner more flexibility and some cost mitigation with regard to Tier 2 whichrepresents a good percentage of trees that are going to be on most smaller lots. Whether or not it is 10 or 12 inches not certain if that makes much difference. Said with regard to the fee structure, he was having difficulty from the standpoint of how the costs and what costs should the property owner be paying because it clearly can be a significant cost that a private property owner is shocked by. The residents are going to pay depending on the size of the tree $1,000 to $2,000 just to have the tree cut down and the other fees; it seems like they can be onerous. In terms of mitigation he does not feel it is a good thing, if removing a tree, to have some level of incentive to replace that tree whether or not it is on their property. It would be interesting to know if that is done from the standpoint of is the city planting more trees than people have requested to mitigate; because otherwise it is fraudulent. It is a difficult challenging topic. • Said he preferred the latest presented alternative which provided the most flexibility; getting more feedback with regard to what is going to be the environmental impact, i.e., do they have to actually redo an Environmental Impact Report or is it moderate enough where that is not the case, which was presented in one of the other options as far as a middle ground. Com. Gong: • Said she too found it interesting that property owners could not plant or remove trees without a permit, and she understood ‘remove a tree/replace a tree’. Com. Takahashi raised an interesting point about the statistics; when the funds have been given to plant a tree, if in fact the tree is planted or multiple trees are planted; it would be good information for the community to know that it is being done. Agreed with attorney’s point of cumulative effect. • Said she understood the one tree removal; it is one tree, but long term it is one tree for every household, it is cumulative and that can be an issue without any mitigation. Not knowing the distribution of trees which would be onerous to survey, the 10 to 24 does seem to cover most residential trees in our area and it is good to have that alternative. The fee to have a tree removed is $2000 to $2500, which is costly. She suggested reducing the permit fee to about $50 so that it is not such a financial burden on the homeowner. Com. Brophy: • Said he did not feel the argument held up to serious analysis that if they allowed one to cut down a tree, it would lead to everyone wanting to cut trees down. Trees are born, they grow and they die. People cut down trees without permits, but they also plant trees without calling city hall, and he did not feel there is a significant difference in the number of trees. • There were many trees before there was any ordinance, to suggest that the tree ordinance is the only thing standing between them and a barren wasteland doesn’t hold up to any kind of reflection. People in town take large trees seriously, such as oaks and other specimen trees mentioned and the city should try to provide some level of protection for them. 13 Cupertino Planning Commission December 10, 2013 11 • Said the framework suggested in the slides shown have merit, but he also would recommend for those trees that are essentially dangerous to the community there needs to be an adjustment to reflect those categories of trees mentioned. He noted that he would mention in his report of the Mayor’s meeting recently held, that the city is in negotiations in a lawsuit regarding a cracked sidewalk. • Said he supported the current tiered system; relative to the 10 or 12 inches he supported the arborist’s recommendation. Com. Gong: • Said she preferred the additional option; but agreed with Com. Brophy that if there is an impact to public land, sidewalks, walkways, anything involving the public, there should be an exemption of such or a mitigating factor whereas; if a resident is not able to financially remove the tree and it is causing public issue, the city should take care of it; it should be the city’s responsibility to maintain public safety. Chair Sun: • Said his choice for the tree ordinance is to protect the private property; whenever people have a tree planted in their back yard or as long as it didn’t encroach to the other people’s property, it is their right to maintain it as long as it doesn’t do public harm to the other people’s property. Relative to diseased or dying trees, before they seek a professional service, city staff has an obligation to go there and do the investigation; it is not a difficult job to do the evaluation unless they are confronted with extreme difficulty. A judgment should not be made and then hire a consultant and expect the resident to pay the fee or the city. He said he agreed with other commissioners about the mitigation; first to ask the owner to do the mitigation, but for the city there is the alternative instead of asking the property owner to pay the fee, pay the fee to the public to plant the tree, provide some incentive if they do the public planting they would receive a dollar amount, instead of punishing them for something that occurred on their private property. Said he agreed with Alternative 4. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that staff has sufficient input to be able to give the Council an indication of the Commissioners preferences and ideas. She summarized that two Commissioners supported Alternative 4, three for the additional option. Incentives were provided for voluntary tree planting and a variety of options for either no mitigations for dead or diseased or trees that have to be removed vs. the city taking care of trees that are affecting public property and sidewalks. The input will be forwarded to Council for further direction, and based on the direction received staff will submit a revised ordinance for review at a public hearing. The further away from mitigation and tree protection, the further they will get into EIRs and having some circumstances where they cannot mitigate environmental impacts. Staff will explore those with the environmental consultant and provide that information to the Council. Com. Lee: • Asked if the other three commissioners discussed the penalty; did they want to keep the flat penalty per tree or size and health because the City Council wants some direction on penalties and fees. Aarti Shrivastava: • If it is clear that a tree is dead or it is negatively affecting a structure, staff will go and look at it; no arborist report is prepared, no noticing is done, and no fees are charged. If the tree still has leaves, it is more difficult to determine its status and an arborist is consulted. There is still no charge in terms of staff time or noticing. The penalty is for people who remove trees without having a tree permit. Typically they are turned in by a neighbor. Is there a recommendation to keep it a flat fee or make it more complicated by requiring conditions, size, because it is hard to figure out what the size is once it is cut, unless it has been documented before; and it needs an arborist to determine what the fee is. 14 Cupertino Planning Commission December 10, 2013 12 Com. Brophy: • In general for fees or if looking at incentive structures, he said he felt it was important to have a simpler system over an intellectually justified one; the staff has to administer it and it has to be a case where people who are affected can understand it. Said he would rather be less creative and be more straight forward. Aarti Shrivastava: • Questioned if the recommendation was to keep the flat fee which is what staff is recommending in this case because it is a complicated issue, and they don’t want to complicate it more by having to hire an arborist just to figure out what the fee is. Com. Takahashi: • Said he agreed with Com. Brophy’s recommendation because the arborist would have to do an autopsy and determine it wasn’t a protected tree in the first place, and if there is going to be some subjective element to that, it will create contention. He asked staff if they could estimate how many specimen trees are removed without permit. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said it was difficult to ascertain because they would have gone through a retroactive tree removal permit. Relative to the issue of fees, the intermediate process discussed removes an additional fee; presently about $300 to $400 for noticing is taken in, and without noticing costs, it is reduced. The process determines the fees depending on how much it would cost to notice. Com. Gong: • Asked how often staff was called in annually to determine if a tree is dead; and when called out, how do they determine if the tree is indeed dead, or do they need to call in an arborist. Simon Vuong: • Staff will take a photo of the tree and make the determination if the tree is dead or just dormant. There are a few occurrences per month on average. If staff cannot make an accurate determination they will seek a consulting arborist’s advice. Com. Brophy: • One minor thing not covered; consideration is being given to add the Douglas Fir to the specimen tree list; he said it should be noted that the Douglas Fir doesn’t grow on the flat lands in its native form and before it is added to the list, although it is a nice tree in many ways, it demands a great deal of water to be kept alive and it encouraging planting of Douglas Firs on the flat lands may not be an environmentally sound decision. Chair Sun closed the study session. NEW BUSINESS 3. Cancellation of the December 24, 2013 Meeting MOTION: Motion by Com. Takahashi, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to cancel the December 24, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting 15 Cupertino Planning Commission December 10, 2013 13 Housing Commission: No meeting Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: • Com. Brophy reported that the Library Commission appointed a new poet laureate; there is a new librarian on board; there is a technology sub-group and looking at adding additional space to the community room; Library Foundation is looking at purchasing a new 3D printer. The Public Safety Commission: • Encouraging people to walk, carpool or bike to work. There are funds available for the program; a new app is available to get people enrolled; looking at putting defibrillators in various locations. Fine Arts Commission: • Submitted a catalog of images of public art approved for private and public projects as part of the GIS app and also a pdf version of the artworks on the city website. Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission: • Planning for next year; working on survey and campaign to encourage people to bike to work and working on getting Cupertino to be designated bike friendly, and encouraging children to ride more. Parks and Rec Commission: • New course offerings available REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Aarti Shrivastava: • Reported that the Planning Commission would be reviewing the General Plan Amendment in 2014 and plan to bring a report on alternatives being recommended by staff and a consultant based on the input. She reported on meetings held and presented a progress report on items staff is working on. Staff is also embarking on the housing element and expect to get the housing element certified by ATD by the end of January 2015. Recommendations for the 2014 work program will be discussed at the first meeting in January. Chair Sun thanked the Commissioners for a successful 2013. ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the January 2014 meeting. Respectfully Submitted: ________________________________ Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary 16 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: January 14, 2014 APPLICATION: Planning Commission work program for 2014/2015 RECOMMENDATION: Review and recommend that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission 2014-2015 work program BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission may consider adopting a draft work program each year, which is forwarded to the City Council for review and approval. The proposed work program is primarily based on the City Council’s adopted goals for 2013-2014 (Exhibit 1). Other projects may consist of potential private developments that may be seeking to go through development review process. DISCUSSION: The projects that are anticipated for the Planning Commission’s review in 2014/2015 include the projects listed below. 1. General Plan Amendment On March 7, 2013, the City Council authorized funding and scope of work for the General Plan Amendment process to include the following:  Increase the citywide development allocation  Review alternative land use and development standards for approximately seven (7) key opportunity sites The process will also produce the associated visioning and concept alternatives reports, and an economic and market study. The stakeholder outreach for the General Plan Amendment has begun. Two community workshops and one neighborhood meeting have been held in 2013 in addition to meetings with property owners of the opportunity sites. A workshop for the business community and another for neighborhood groups is scheduled for January 2013. In February 2014, the Planning Commission and City Council will have OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org 17 Planning Commission Work Program January 14, 2014 the opportunity to review the public/stakeholder input and the concept alternatives for each of the opportunity sites. Following direction from the Planning Commission and City Council, the consultant will draft the general plan amendments and environmental review of the project will be conducted. The formal Planning Commission and Council review and public hearings for considering adoption of the amendments are anticipated in fall of 2014. 2. General Plan Amendment to the Housing Element In conjunction with the General Plan Amendment project, updates to the Housing Element need to be made as required by State Law by December 31, 2014. Every jurisdiction is required to update its Housing Element to accommodate Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers allocated to it by the regional planning agency (Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)). The RHNA quantifies the housing allocation that each jurisdiction is required to plan for during specified planning periods. The City’s current Housing Element (2007-2014) was adopted in 2010. Since Senate Bill 375 was passed, State law requires that land use and transportation planning should be coordinated pursuant to which ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have prepared the Plan Bay Area (2013-2040), an integrated long-range transportation and land-use/housing plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. It includes the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan, which the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) updates every four years, and the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG’s) demographic and economic forecast, which is updated every two years. The Plan includes the new RHNA allocations for 2014-2022. ABAG and the MTC have approved the final RHNA in July 2013. Cities have approximately one year (December 31, 2014) to complete their Housing Elements and get them certified by the State Housing & Community Development Department (HCD). Stakeholder interviews have already been conducted and additional public outreach will be conducted in Winter/Spring 2014. Environmental review for the project is planned to be done in conjunction with the environmental review of the General Plan Amendment project. It is anticipated that the updated Housing Element will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval prior to sending it to the HCD in Fall 2014 in conjunction with or shortly after the General Plan Amendment hearings. 3. Tree Ordinance Amendment (Chapter 14.18) On March 19, 2013, the City Council approved minor amendments to the tree ordinance to clarify references to public trees and to reduce the tree ordinance violation penalty from a misdemeanor to an infraction. The Council also authorized staff to explore further amendments to Chapter 19.48 to streamline the process and to eliminate any disincentives for people to plant specimen and/or desirable trees. The scope of the tree ordinance amendment will include but not be limited to the review of the following: • Specimen tree list • Size thresholds for specimen trees 18 Planning Commission Work Program January 14, 2014 • Tree replacement strategies and voluntary plantings • Tree removal process for planned residential developments • Streamlined process for tree removal for non-mature specimen trees in R1/R2/A/A1 and RHS properties • Effective approach to review unpermitted tree removals Staff will initiate the environmental review for the project after receiving additional input from the City Council in March 2014. The Planning Commission is anticipated to review and consider the tree ordinance amendments in fall of this year. 4. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment On April 25, 2013, the City Council directed staff, as part of their 2013/2014 work program, to review language in the Heart of the City Specific Plan pertaining to the street side setback requirements for commercial projects. Staff anticipates going back to the City Council for specific direction on any additional issues to be included in the amendments in late Fall 2014. 5. Updates to the Below Market Housing Manual and Nexus study The City Council’s work program includes a nexus study to establish an affordable housing impact fee for rental units to comply with the Palmer/Sixth Street Properties v. City of Los Angeles court ruling. The study will review the residential below market rate (BMR) housing mitigation policy and fees. As part of the process, the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Mitigation/Impact Fee Manual and mitigation fees for residential development will be updated. City staff is exploring the possibility of entering into a joint nexus study in collaboration with a few other cities in Santa Clara County that have not completed their nexus study in order to achieve some cost savings. Once additional details are available, staff will present options for the Planning Commission and Council’s consideration. 6. Prepare a Climate Action Plan As part of their 2013/2014 work program, the City Council has directed staff to develop a Climate Action Plan (CAP) for the City in order to address regulatory requirements being enforced by the State Attorney’s Office pertaining to environmental analysis on climate change and greenhouse gas standards. Responses to the Request for Proposal for community engagement and environmental review on the project have been received. A consultant will be shortly selected with Council approval. The public hearings to review the draft CAP is anticipated in Summer/Fall 2014. 7. Evaluate a “Teacher Housing” project with a non-profit developer The City Council has directed as part of their 2013/2014 work program to evaluate a Teacher Housing project with a non-profit developer. However, no such project has been 19 Planning Commission Work Program January 14, 2014 proposed by a non-profit developer. Should such an opportunity present itself in 2014/2015, staff will present the project for the Planning Commission’s review and recommendation. Potential Private Development Review The following is a list of some large projects that the Planning Commission may review in 2014/2015:  Parkside Trails project (Stevens Canyon Rd on the southwestern edge of the City)  Live work residential project (500’ north of the intersection of Foothill Blvd and Stevens Creek Blvd)  Apartment complex project (Foothill Blvd/Vista Knoll Blvd) (Terry Brown)  Cupertino Inn (N. De Anza Blvd/I-280) – after approval of the GPA  Prometheus Office Complex (Stevens Creek Blvd/Torre Ave) – after approval of the GPA  Vallco Redevelopment – after approval of the GPA Other Projects Any additional comments or projects suggested by the Planning Commission will be reported to the City Council for consideration based on Council priority and the availability of staff time as part of their 2014/2015 work program. While not all projects in the Work Program may be commenced in 2014/2015, projects may be rolled over to the Work Program for 2015/2016. Prepared by: Approved by: /s/Piu Ghosh /s/Gary Chao Piu Ghosh Gary Chao Senior Planner City Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1 – The adopted City Council 2013/2014 Work Program 20 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 1 of 14 CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS 1) Expand and integrate Block Leader Program with Neighborhood Watch and Disaster Preparedness. 2) Utilize Block Leader Program to provide “grass roots” notification to residents of potentially controversial community development and/or public works projects. 3) Explore and develop new on- line/mobile applications to better inform and engage the public on civic issues. a. Generalized City mobile portal similar to Rancho Cucamonga’s RC2GO b. On-line Interactive Budget Game 21 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 2 of 14 4) Develop a strategy for improving cell phone coverage (with PW). 5) Examine costs of extending video services via fiber to the Quinlan Center. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1) Streamline city web content for new businesses (Small Business Workshop follow-up). 2) “How to Start a Business in Cupertino” pamphlet (in multiple languages). 22 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 3 of 14 3) Seminars for new small businesses (held in multiple languages). 4) Increased coordination with the Chamber of Commerce. 5) Launch a “Shop Local” campaign. 6) Enhance business access to city services including GreenBiz and emergency preparedness. 23 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 4 of 14 ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES 1) Develop a Plan for financing and implementing solar generation at the Service Center and exploring a partnership with the Library District for solar installation on the Library Building (with PW). 2) Prepare a Climate Action Plan as required by State law. 3) Fully develop the utility costs accounting program. 24 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 5 of 14 4) Review procurement and fleet management policies for best environmental practices. 5) Expand “Growing Green Blocks” program to include sustainability and resilience activities. 25 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 6 of 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1) Consider a General Plan Amendment to increase commercial development allocations and associated development standards. a. Amend Zoning Code and Heart of the City Specific Plan to conform to General Plan Amendment and respond to City Council concerns 2) Consider an amendment to the General Plan Housing Element to accommodate the most recent ABAG housing allocation. 3) Implement “paperless” permit application system. 26 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 7 of 14 4) Update Below Market Rate Housing Manual and Nexus Study. 5) Evaluate a “Teacher Housing” project in partnership with a non- profit developer. 6) Revise Private Tree Ordinance (to streamline process and eliminate disincentives). 27 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 8 of 14 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1) Prepare Sidewalk Plan. a. Review ADA Transition Plan provisions b. Review Municipal Code provisions related to sidewalk improvements c. Consider Safe Routes to School and other funding sources 2) Implement programs to preserve and enhance pavement conditions throughout the City. 3) Continue to develop and implement measures and policies to comply with the new requirements of the City’s stormwater discharge permit. 28 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 9 of 14 4) Review Fleet Management policies. a. Update Managed Vehicle Replacement Program i. Consider complete lifecycle costs ii. Evaluate vehicle/equipment sharing with other agencies 5) Develop Civic Center Plan. a. Financing Plan b. Solar/alternative energy options c. Enlarge Library Story Room 6) Implement major CIP projects. a. Environmental Education Center b. Steven Creek Phase II c. Blackberry Farm Golf Course irrigation 7) Participate in Stevens Creek Trail planning process. 29 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 10 of 14 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPRTMENT 1) Prepare Blackberry Farm Master Plan (including Blue Pheasant Restaurant). 2) Resolve the Simms House issue since the lease is coming due, do we renew lease or demolish the house per the McClellan Preserve Master Plan. 3) Resolve the Sports Center leaning retaining wall issue. 4) Explore the potential for expanding Blackberry Farm operations. 30 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 11 of 14 5) Restart the Stocklmeir Task Force for discussion on a legacy farm project since creek restoration work and trail building will be done in 2013-2014. 6) Replace the recreation registration software with a cloud-based software version to be accessed at any City facility. 7) Install a splash pad at Blackberry Farm pool area. 31 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 12 of 14 AMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1) Restructure the budget process and document to increase transparency. 2) Negotiate long term (three year plus) contracts that are fair, financially sustainable and competitive in the local labor market. 3) Implement a back to work/modified duty policy. 32 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 13 of 14 4) Pursue legislation to correct our TEA/ERAF inequity allocations. 5) Negotiate a new agreement with the SCC Sheriff and assist in the task force to possibly relocate the Sheriff substation. 6) Replace the City’s obsolete financial software. 33 2013/2014 City Council Work Program Project Current Status Comments and Next Steps 2013/2014 Council Work Program (April 16, 2012) Page 14 of 14 7) Implement Virtual Desktop or Virtual Private Network software. 8) Implement a new Technology Plan. 34 Subject: Report of the Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 Citywide Joint Study Session: Housing Element Update As required by State law, the City has initiated a project to update the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan for the 2014-2022 planning period. State Law requires that each jurisdiction have a State certified Housing Element adopted by December 31, 2014. The Housing Element update must include, among other updates, the creation of housing opportunities within the City to accommodate a certain number of housing units by varying income levels determined by the state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. A Joint Study Session with the Planning Commission and the Housing Commission, to introduce the requirements of the Housing Element and to gather community feedback, is scheduled on Thursday, January 23, 2014, at 6:30 PM, in Cupertino City Hall in the EOC Room, 10300 Torre Avenue Upcoming Dates: Date Event Time Location Wednesday, Jan 29 State of the City Address 11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. Quinlan Community Center OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org 35