Written Communications (Updated 10-22-21)From:Connie Cunningham
To:City of Cupertino Sustainability Commission
Cc:Cunningham Connie; Anna Weber; Gary Latshaw; Vignesh Swaminathan; Meera Ramanathan; Ram Mohan
Subject:Sustainability Commission October 21, 2021: Agenda Item 2 CAP update
Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 6:25:42 PM
Attachments:Group letter on Palo Alto Tree Ordinance Oct 2021.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Subject: Agenda Item 2, Climate Action Plan Update draft measures. Recommended Action: Recommend
draft Climate Action Plan Update measures to the City Council and provide any feedback
Dear Chair Swaminathan and Sustainability Commissioners:
Topic: Protecting Biodiversity
My name is Connie Cunningham, I am a Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society SCVAS member and a 34-
year Cupertino resident. I am very excited about the CAP 2.0 program. I support the various aspects of the
program which combine to make our city safer from climate change.
I have two reasons for writing today. One is to explain the reason why we need to add Protecting
Biodiversity specifically to our Climate Action Plan 2.0. The second is to provide suggested language to
add to the Draft CAP 2.0 plan to make that addition. I, also, have a few questions under Comment 6 to help
the public understand the goals for carbon sequestration.
Reason for writing #1: WHY add “protecting biodiversity":
In the attached letter of October 15, four environmental groups express support for enhanced protections for
trees in Palo Alto, a nearby city with a similar environment. It is a powerful, science-supported, description
of the need for maintaining biodiversity in the face of climate change.
It begins, "Hoesung Lee, chair of the IPCC*, recently pointed out that the new IPCC report was an
"important step" in the collaboration between scientific fields focusing on climate and those focused on
biodiversity, stating 'Climate change and biodiversity loss combine to threaten society -- often magnifying
and accelerating each other’.” It continues to describe the “importance of cities in providing habitat for
wildlife, especially for birds and beneficial insects….” *Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, https://www.ipcc.ch
My questions and comments today focus on Carbon Sequestration (protecting biodiversity), both in the
Staff Report, and in Attachment A, Draft CAP Update Measures and Actions: Measures CS-1 and CS-2.
Comment 1: Please review Cupertino’s Tree Protection Ordinance, if you have not already. A Tree
Protection Ordinance is the most critical implementation document for the Urban Forest Management Plan
(UFMP) because it addresses, directly and objectively, tree protection and replacement on both private and
public lands.
Comment 2: 80% of trees planted should be native trees, especially oak trees. Fruit trees are good choices.
Comment 3: Grasslands provide carbon sequestration in the roots of the grasses that is as good or better
than trees. Therefore, it is important to plant trees that complement existing grasslands.
Reason for writing #2: Suggested language in Comments 5a and 5b.
Our City's planned target of 2030 for planting 24,000 trees is aggressive - only 10 years. It will have a huge
impact in a short time. Therefore, it needs to require native tree species to support and regenerate quality
habitat for our wildlife and biodiverse ecosystem.
Comment 4: In the December 1, 2020 Sustainability Commission presentation of Climate Action Plan 2.0
to the City Council Study Session the wording for Resilience and Adaptation was:
1. Climate Action Plan 2.0: Draft Goals and Vision
6d Resilience and Adaptation: Establish climate adaptation measures such as green
infrastructure and protecting biodiversity that keeps Cupertino residents and businesses safe,
productive, and happy while climate risks accelerate. (underlining is mine)
I was at a 2020 Sustainability Commission meeting prior to this presentation, when the words
“protecting biodiversity” were recommended for inclusion in the plan.
Comment 5: In today’s Staff Report, the words “protecting biodiversity” are not included. Nor are the
words included in Attachment A.
Comment 5a: I urge you to add the words “protecting biodiversity” to the Staff report under
Background. Then add them again under “themes”. You could make one more bullet under “themes” that
moves parts of your last bullet and adds “protect biodiversity”. See example below.
-Increase tree coverage, preserve natural spaces and protect biodiversity.
Table 1 in the Staff Report, under the Topic of Carbon Sequestration: please add the words “protect
biodiversity to the Measure. Sample below.
Double the urban tree canopy by 2030 and protect biodiversity, to absorb more carbon from the air and
increase resilience.
Comment 5b: In Attachment A, Draft Climate Action Plan Update Measures and Actions, Measure CS-1,
under Studies and Plan, does not state this goal.
I urge you to add to Table 1 the wording for “protecting biodiversity” in the language of Measures CS-1 and
CS-2. Samples below:
CS-1 Studies and Plans: Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) based on the completed tree
canopy assessment that identifies the framework and strategy for planting 24,000 new trees and protecting
biodiversity by 2030.
CS-2 Study options to manage…to sequester more carbon and protect biodiversity.
Comment 6: The questions below address the plans for trees in this report.
Question 1: Will the 24,000 trees be planted within Cupertino’s city boundaries?
Question 2: Since there are 1,983 acres of additional plantable space: What types of spaces are
included? For instance, planting trees along bike paths, walking trails, streets and public spaces is important.
Question 3: Are these 24,000 trees in addition to the existing tree canopy?
Question 4: How many trees are in the existing tree canopy?
Question 5: Will the public have access to the existing tree canopy assessment and map?
Question 6: What are the plans to protect biodiversity when selecting these 24,000 trees?
I applaud the efforts of the Sustainability Commission and the City of Cupertino to become a carbon-
neutral city by 2040. Carbon Sequestration, including protecting biodiversity, is a new topic in the
California goals, so needs to be highlighted more than once to be sure that readers understand the new
message and its importance to climate change.
Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society member, and 34-year Cupertino resident
October 15, 2021
To: Palo Alto Mayor and Council
Re:Item 13:Consideration of Policy and Services Committee Recommendations to Council on
the Updates to Title 8 of Municipal Code (Tree Protection),Expanding the Role of the Parks &
Recreation Commission, and Elevating the Position of Urban Forester.
Dear Mayor DuBois and Councilmembers,
Hoesung Lee,chair of the IPCC,recently pointed out that the new IPCC report was an "important
step"in the collaboration between scientific fields focusing on climate and those focused on
biodiversity,stating "Climate change and biodiversity loss combine to threaten society --often
magnifying and accelerating each other".Last week,the UN Biodiversity Conference convened
governments from around the world to create a new set of goals for nature over the next
decade.The framework sets out an ambitious plan to implement broad-based action to bring
about a transformation in society’s relationship with biodiversity and to ensure that,by 2050,the
shared vision of living in harmony with nature is fulfilled.
The importance of cities in providing habitat for wildlife,especially for birds and beneficial
insects,has been widely recognized (UNEP151,IUCN2,and IPBES3.See also recent
3https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/inline/files/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymake
rs.pdf
2 https://iucnurbanalliance.org/cities-and-biodiversity-the-issues/
1 https://www.unep.org/events/conference/un-biodiversity-conference-cop-15
publications from SFEI4 and Bay Nature5)as cities around the globe are encouraged to adopt
biodiversity and “rewilding”priorities to address our global biodiversity crisis6.Cities are
considering the integration of nature-based solutions (NBS)as a strategy in urban planning to
strengthen urban resilience and to slow down the decline of biodiversity.Rewilding areas in
cities has become a powerful strategy to bring back butterflies, insects, birds, and wildlife.
In Silicon Valley communities,development pressures and drought conditions have resulted in
the loss of trees and canopy,with an associated toll on the myriad health,wellness,habitat,
climate and air quality benefits that trees and canopy provide.We are therefore pleased to see
Palo Alto take a step forward in protecting its trees and canopy.
1.We are supportive of the Policy and Services Committee Recommendations to Council
on the Updates to Title 8 of Municipal Code (Tree Protection),Expanding the Role of the Parks
&Recreation Commission,and Elevating the Position of Urban Forester.The Updates to Title 8
of Municipal Code should better protect native trees and large trees in Palo Alto.
2.The Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP)seeks to preserve canopy (no net loss)and to
promote and expand the population of native trees,oaks in particular,in Palo Alto.A Tree
Protection Ordinance is the most critical implementation document for the UFMP
because it addresses,directly and objectively,tree protection and replacement on both
private and public lands.In a world where loss of biodiversity threatens the biological fabric of
life on earth,we must use every opportunity to protect trees and to regenerate and enhance
local biodiversity for all native species.We can “expand the pie”by planting tree species that
provide multiple benefits such as habitat value and supporting biodiversity,so that the adverse
effects of densification and drought are countered by the enrichment of habitat on public and
private land in Palo Alto.
3.We are concerned with the 15-year canopy replacement goal as a stand alone
requirement,since it is guaranteed to incentivize the planting of non-native,fast growing
trees instead of slow growing native tree species (or other slow growing and habitat
enhancing trees such as fruit trees).Our experience from similar requirements in nearby
communities shows that a 15-year canopy replacement requirement encourages the
planting of only a few species of trees,primarily non-native,that may never achieve their
label size or provide the expected canopy benefits.Most of these trees provide little
habitat value.The Tree Ordinance could instead provide a list of acceptable replacement
tree species,primarily native trees,that support biodiversity in addition to all the benefits
that trees provide.This will contribute to regeneration of Palo Alto’s ecological resilience
for the benefit of residents, property owners, and the planet.
6 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/5/2932/htm
5 https://baynature.org/2021/02/18/what-a-city-can-do-for-nature/
4 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/71/2/148/6102678
a.Where space allows,we support tree replacement that selects native tree
species that grow to a similar size.Native oaks trees (Valley Oak,Coast Live
Oak,Blue Oak,Black oak)should be the preferred replacements for large
canopy trees (of any species)that must be removed.Redwoods could be
replaced with an Incense Cedar which has a similar form and stature,but is a low
water use species.
b.In cases where replacement tree selection is bounded by attributes which do not
allow similar size replacements,we suggest that Palo Alto provide a tree species
replacement list that provides residents and property owners with a list of native
tree species and fruit trees that can be used to mitigate the loss of trees.This list
can be expanded to include a few non-native trees of high habitat value for birds
and insects.Trees with little habitat or biodiversity value (Ginkgo,for example)
should be specifically discouraged.
While this ordinance does not stop residents from planting non native ornamental trees,we
expect that over time,this mitigation framework should allow Palo Alto to lead the region in
re-oaking7 and rewilding the city,to regenerate an ecologically resilient community and to
support birds,butterflies,beneficial insects,and other wildlife.This approach should also help
advance and implement the Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Natural Environment
element), the Urban Forest Master Plan, and the City’s Climate Action Plan.
Like Noah,who built an ark to bring all species to a sustainable future,so we should be
responsible to promote biodiversity and habitat for wildlife in our future.
Respectfully,
Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Karem Maki, Forest Protection Committee Chair,
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Linda Ruthruff, Conservation Chair
California Native Plant Society Santa Clara Valley Chapter
Alice Kaufman, Legislative Advocacy Director
Green Foothills
7 https://www.sfei.org/projects/re-oaking
From:Gary Latshaw
To:Gilee Corral; Andre Duurvoort; Victoria Morin; Vignesh Swaminathan
Subject:Updated and Refined Notes
Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 6:51:54 PM
Attachments:Informal Notes for Cupertino CAP.docx
Gilee - I have edited these and added references so I have no objections to them becoming part
of the public record. So please send them to the other commissioners. There is a lot of
discussion in progress about the Santa Clara CAP.
Gary
Gary Latshaw
Sustainability Commissioner
glatshaw@cupertino.org
Personal Comments regarding Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan 2.0
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D., glatshaw@gmail.com
Preamble:
The context of the CAP must consider both State Laws/Regulations and the most recent
scientific evidence on climate change. What scientist have learned in the last few years, since
much of the State Laws/Regulations were written, is that damaging climate events are
happening quicker than expected. This unfortunate conclusion is demonstrated by this graph
which is from a IPCC report i. As shown graphically and called out in the caption, the analysis of
when “large-scale discontinuities” might become a high risk is now at much lower
temperatures. This might be NOW.
A recent analysis by Canada ii on their forest fires reveals that Canada’s managed forests now
emit more CO2 than the absorb. According to the Canadian report, the flood of CO2 coming out
of them [forests] reached record levels, at nearly a quarter billion tons of CO2 in a single year.
That’s more than Canada’s once biggest climate pollution source – the oil and gas sector-
emitted in a single year.
California’s wildfires may have caused the forests to be net emitter in 2020iii.
Thus, it is likely that one of the carbon “sinks” had now turned into an “emitter.”
The IPCC report as well as the “Getting to Neutral” report by Lawrence Livermore National
Labsiv (prepared for the state of California) call for Carbon Dioxide Removal as a necessary
development to get to a carbon-neutral position.
See Appendix for Particular Concerns about Natural Gas/Methane.
Personal Comments regarding Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan 2.0
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D., glatshaw@gmail.com
Specific comments about the formation of the CAP:
1. Natural Gas. I think the goal should be to ban its use by 2030. Natural Gas is primarily
methane, and methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. It’s 20-year global warming is
about 85 times that of CO2 for equal mass injections. I have included the latest IPCC
report on these figures. I noticed that the previous CAP used the 100-year figure, which
is smaller and hides the true cost of methane emissions. Because society must react
within the decade, the 20-year figure is more appropriate. Please note that a simple
linear model between these values would provide a 100 factor for 10-years.
a. To achieve such a goal, the City would require more control over heating
methods-i.e. require electrification for heating – and ban natural gas. I think we
should spell out the limitations the City has and make a clear statement how
some other agency such as the PUC must act.
b. Achieving reductions in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings will
require upfront investments. While the city can promote existing programs
promoted by SVCE and others, it should work with PGE, who appears to favor
removal of NG appliances, to find solutions.
2. Electric Chargers – We will clearly need to make chargers available to more people. One
problem is the lack of access to chargers in apartment buildings. Assuming the price of
electric vehicles is comparable or lower than gas cars within the decade, having access
to chargers will be important for apartment dwellers who are usually (in Cupertino)
lower income earners. So getting charges more readily available is an equity issue.
3. Municipal Buildings, Vehicle, and Equipments – The City must lead by example and
convert or replace all its heating, vehicles, and equipments with electric ones. The
sooner this is accomplished the better, I would make 2027 (five years after the plan has
been produced) to achieve this goal. The City needs to ban natural gas and
diesel/gasoline usage.
Personal Comments regarding Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan 2.0
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D., glatshaw@gmail.com
Page 7-125 of IPCC_AR6_Full_Report
4.Adaptation –The accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have caused serious
changes in the climate already. Thus, Cupertino, to protect its residents must invest in
facilities to address extreme climate events. This should include:
a. Facility to address extreme heat waves. This is particularly relevant to the
environmental justice community. This could be addressed by examining and
perhaps modifying existing facilities. The facilities should provide for cooling,
b. water, and perhaps shelter during the night. Climate-change induced heating
produces warm nights making the need for air conditioning more pronounced.
c. Actions to address long-term particulate pollution from forest fires should be
developed. Perhaps the facilities for heat waves could be double-purposed. The
two threats (heat and pollution) are likely to occur together heat and pollution.
Personal Comments regarding Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan 2.0
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D., glatshaw@gmail.com
d. Medical facilities should have plans to address those affected by heat and
polluted air.
e. Water shortages are also a likely result of climate change. For example, the Lake
Mead is lower than it has been in nearly a century. The Federal Government has
reduced water supplies to several states. Phoenix has been in drought conditions
since 1994. Emergency measures should be developed to reduce water
demands.
f. An analysis should be done to determine the threat to the City from wildfires.
Appendix: Climate and Health Degradation from Natural Gas/Methane
Implication of Natural Gas to the Climate Change
The climate pollutant characteristics of natural gas are often unrecognized because of false
advertisements that natural gas is “clean power.” Natural gas is primarily methane. Chemicals
are added to make the gas very smelly, so it is easily detected. The following graph is from the
most recent (2021) IPCC report v:
As seen in the figure, both Carbon Dioxide and Methane are the major climate pollutants. Their
error bars overlap indicating that methane might possibly be a more powerful climate pollutant
than carbon dioxide. The IPCC Report calls for carbon dioxide removal as well as the
discontinued use of methane and other hydrocarbons. It is unnecessary to remove methane
from the atmosphere as it will rapidly (10 years) decay by itself whereas carbon dioxide will last
Appendix: Climate and Health Degradation from Natural Gas/Methane
for centuries. But we must ELIMINATE METHANE EMISSIONS and allow the natural decay
mechanisms to reduce its atmospheric concentrations.
Natural Gas Leakage
Natural gas leaks around gas wells, storage tanks, and 3 million miles of underground piping. It
has been detected leaking in large amounts at the Permian Basin and other active drilling sites.
Its danger as an explosive material have been well demonstrated by the San Bruno Explosion
(2010) and the Northridge Massive Gas Release (2015). The release went on for months and
released almost 100 million tons of methane into the atmosphere.
Because of the perpetual leakage of 1-3%, its use is considered as harmful to the climate as the
combustion of coalvi. Quoting from Science: A new study finds that in the United States, such
leaks have nearly doubled the climate impact of natural gas, causing warming on par with
carbon dioxide (CO )-emitting coal plants for 2 decades.
Indoor Air Quality Degradation
The combustion of natural gas causes the formation of many poisonous chemicals vii. These
tables below are from pages 21 and 22 of the referenced UCLA Report. The impact to the
residents was dependent on the ventilation in the kitchen and the home in general.
These levels of pollutants contribute to Asthma and other respiratory ailments.
Appendix: Climate and Health Degradation from Natural Gas/Methane
The UCLA Report concludes on page 41:
The indoor air quality analysis for this report found that concentrations of CO and NO2 during
cooking events can exceed the levels set by national and California based ambient air quality
standards, occurring much more often for NO2 than CO. Under a cooking scenario where the
stove and oven are used simultaneously for an hour, acute exposures to NO2 from cooking with
gas appliances exceed the levels of national and California based ambient air quality thresholds
in more than 90% of modeled emission scenarios.
Outdoor Air Quality Degradation
Eventually the indoor combustion products leave the home or other building and contribute to
degradation of the outdoor air quality. This is a diagram from page 37 of the referenced UCLA
report:
To put these numbers in perspective, this is a chart from the California Resources Board that
demonstrates the total impact of fossil fuel usage in buildings:
Appendix: Climate and Health Degradation from Natural Gas/Methane
The slide is one of many used by the Chief Executive Officer, Jack Broadbent, of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District. It is from a presentation given on August 31, 2020. As seen in the
slide, burning natural gas produces pollutant concentrations comparable of that from Light-
duty passenger vehicles.
The UCLA Report concludes on page 41:
Regarding outdoor air quality, this report indicates that under a 2018 scenario where all
residential gas appliances were transitioned to electric, the reduction of secondary nitrate
PM2.5 (from NOX) and primary PM2.5 would result in 354 fewer deaths, and 596 and 304 fewer
cases of acute and chronic bronchitis, respectively. The reduction in associated negative health
effects is equivalent to approximately $3.5 billion in monetized health benefits for just one year.
i IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report
ii Saxifrage, Barry, Canada’s managed forests have turned into super-emitters, and 2018 set a record, Canada’s
National Observer, June 5th, 2020
iii The Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Contemporary Wildfire, Prescribed Fire, and Forest Management Activities
prepared by the California Air Resources Board December 2020 (Draft), on page I the graph shows 2020
preliminary estimate for wildfires emission at 110 MMT of CO2; on page 19 the graphic states that the typical
Gross Stock exchange is 26-36 MMT CO2/year. Thus, the combined forests and rangeland absorbed LESS CO2 than
the wildfires emitted.
iv Getting to Neutral – options for negative carbon emissions in California, prepared by Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory, LLNL-TR-796100
v IPCC Report – IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report
vi Cornwall, Warren, Natural Gas could warm the planet as much as coal in the short term, Science, June 21,2018
vii Effects of Residential Gas Appliances on Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality and Public Health in California, UCLA
Fielding School of Public Heath Sciences, April 2020
From:Connie Cunningham
To:City of Cupertino Sustainability Commission
Cc:Cunningham Connie; Anna Weber; Gary Latshaw; Vignesh Swaminathan; Meera Ramanathan; Ram Mohan
Subject:Re: Sustainability Commission October 21, 2021: Agenda Item 2 CAP update
Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 5:40:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Chair, Commissioners and City Staff,
Thank you for the time to speak at the Commission today, October 21. I was heartened to hear
the positive responses about protecting biodiversity.
You could use the following wording in your presentation on November 16:
Double the urban tree canopy by 2030 to absorb more carbon from the air and provide
resiliency benefits and protect biodiversity.
Best wishes on the Climate Action Plan 2.0. It is urgent, huge and necessary work.
Connie Cunningham
On Oct 20, 2021, at 6:25 PM, Connie Cunningham
<CunninghamConnieL@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Agenda Item 2, Climate Action Plan Update draft measures. Recommended Action:
Recommend draft Climate Action Plan Update measures to the City Council and provide any
feedback
Dear Chair Swaminathan and Sustainability Commissioners:
Topic: Protecting Biodiversity
My name is Connie Cunningham, I am a Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society SCVAS
member and a 34-year Cupertino resident. I am very excited about the CAP 2.0 program. I
support the various aspects of the program which combine to make our city safer from
climate change.
I have two reasons for writing today. One is to explain the reason why we need to add
Protecting Biodiversity specifically to our Climate Action Plan 2.0. The second is to provide
suggested language to add to the Draft CAP 2.0 plan to make that addition. I, also, have a few
questions under Comment 6 to help the public understand the goals for carbon sequestration.
Reason for writing #1: WHY add “protecting biodiversity":
In the attached letter of October 15, four environmental groups express support for enhanced
protections for trees in Palo Alto, a nearby city with a similar environment. It is a powerful,
science-supported, description of the need for maintaining biodiversity in the face of climate
change.
It begins, "Hoesung Lee, chair of the IPCC*, recently pointed out that the new IPCC report
was an "important step" in the collaboration between scientific fields focusing on climate and
those focused on biodiversity, stating 'Climate change and biodiversity loss combine to
threaten society -- often magnifying and accelerating each other’.” It continues to describe the
“importance of cities in providing habitat for wildlife, especially for birds and beneficial
insects….” *Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, https://www.ipcc.ch
My questions and comments today focus on Carbon Sequestration (protecting biodiversity),
both in the Staff Report, and in Attachment A, Draft CAP Update Measures and Actions:
Measures CS-1 and CS-2.
Comment 1: Please review Cupertino’s Tree Protection Ordinance, if you have not already.
A Tree Protection Ordinance is the most critical implementation document for the Urban
Forest Management Plan (UFMP) because it addresses, directly and objectively, tree
protection and replacement on both private and public lands.
Comment 2: 80% of trees planted should be native trees, especially oak trees. Fruit trees are
good choices.
Comment 3: Grasslands provide carbon sequestration in the roots of the grasses that is as
good or better than trees. Therefore, it is important to plant trees that complement existing
grasslands.
Reason for writing #2: Suggested language in Comments 5a and 5b.
Our City's planned target of 2030 for planting 24,000 trees is aggressive - only 10 years. It
will have a huge impact in a short time. Therefore, it needs to require native tree species to
support and regenerate quality habitat for our wildlife and biodiverse ecosystem.
Comment 4: In the December 1, 2020 Sustainability Commission presentation of Climate
Action Plan 2.0 to the City Council Study Session the wording for Resilience and Adaptation
was:
1. Climate Action Plan 2.0: Draft Goals and Vision
6d Resilience and Adaptation: Establish climate adaptation measures such as
green infrastructure and protecting biodiversity that keeps Cupertino residents
and businesses safe, productive, and happy while climate risks accelerate.
(underlining is mine)
I was at a 2020 Sustainability Commission meeting prior to this presentation, when
the words “protecting biodiversity” were recommended for inclusion in the plan.
Comment 5: In today’s Staff Report, the words “protecting biodiversity” are not included.
Nor are the words included in Attachment A.
Comment 5a: I urge you to add the words “protecting biodiversity” to the Staff report under
Background. Then add them again under “themes”. You could make one more bullet under
“themes” that moves parts of your last bullet and adds “protect biodiversity”. See example
below.
-Increase tree coverage, preserve natural spaces and protect biodiversity.
Table 1 in the Staff Report, under the Topic of Carbon Sequestration: please add the words
“protect biodiversity to the Measure. Sample below.
Double the urban tree canopy by 2030 and protect biodiversity, to absorb more carbon from
the air and increase resilience.
Comment 5b: In Attachment A, Draft Climate Action Plan Update Measures and Actions,
Measure CS-1, under Studies and Plan, does not state this goal.
I urge you to add to Table 1 the wording for “protecting biodiversity” in the language of
Measures CS-1 and CS-2. Samples below:
CS-1 Studies and Plans: Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) based on the
completed tree canopy assessment that identifies the framework and strategy for planting
24,000 new trees and protecting biodiversity by 2030.
CS-2 Study options to manage…to sequester more carbon and protect biodiversity.
Comment 6: The questions below address the plans for trees in this report.
Question 1: Will the 24,000 trees be planted within Cupertino’s city boundaries?
Question 2: Since there are 1,983 acres of additional plantable space: What types of
spaces are included? For instance, planting trees along bike paths, walking trails, streets and
public spaces is important.
Question 3: Are these 24,000 trees in addition to the existing tree canopy?
Question 4: How many trees are in the existing tree canopy?
Question 5: Will the public have access to the existing tree canopy assessment and
map?
Question 6: What are the plans to protect biodiversity when selecting these 24,000
trees?
I applaud the efforts of the Sustainability Commission and the City of Cupertino to become a
carbon-neutral city by 2040. Carbon Sequestration, including protecting biodiversity, is a
new topic in the California goals, so needs to be highlighted more than once to be sure that
readers understand the new message and its importance to climate change.
Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society member, and 34-year Cupertino
resident
<Group letter on Palo Alto Tree Ordinance Oct 2021.pdf>
From:Gwyn Azar
To:City of Cupertino Sustainability Commission
Subject:Re: Public comments for 10/21 meeting
Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 4:39:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I think I will be able to stay long enough at least to give my comment for the CAP update
myself.
Thanks,
Gwyn Azar
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 3:59 PM Gwyn Azar <> wrote:
Hello,
Here are my written comments for today's commission meeting in the case that I have to
leave before the agenda items come up.
Item 2: CAP 2.0
Good evening commission and staff, and thank you so much for your continued work on
this CAP update. My name is Gwyn Azar, I am here with Silicon Valley Youth Climate
Action’s Cupertino team, and I just wanted to restate our hope for a very ambitious and
strongly-worded Climate Action Plan. I would ask that you consider moving the draft goal
up further than 2040 ahead, as I think that given our position as a climate leader in the
area we can do more than 5 years ahead of the state goals, and in doing so spur
surrounding cities into more aggressive climate action. In looking over the proposed
reduction measures, I was glad to see sections on electrifying existing buildings. I think
that some possible ways to achieve these goals might be a burnout ordinance to replace
existing gas appliances upon their burnout or “end of flow” date, which would be a date
set for when the city would stop the flow of gas, and would provide incentive and urgency
for existing homes and businesses to be electrified. Thank you for your consideration and
work, and have a good evening.
Item 3: Single Use Plastics Ordinance
Good evening commission and staff, this is Gwyn Azar again from the Cupertino Youth
Climate Action Team, and I just wanted to say that it is great to see this ordinance on the
agenda, as it is something I remember advocating for pre-quarantine. I am excited to see
what the city will do with this ordinance and how it may help us transform the waste
produced by our city. I would love to see a single-use plastics free future for Cupertino,
although I know that it is complicated because of all the ways that these harmful materials
impact our lives. I’m sure the city will collaborate with local businesses to find the best
way to implement this ordinance and greatly reduce the amount of plastics we are putting
into our oceans and waterways, or leaving to sit in landfills. I look forward to following this
ordinance as it is discussed and researched. Thank you for your time and have a good
evening.
Thank you,
Gwyn Azar
Cupertino Youth Climate Action Team co-lead