CC 11-16-2021 Study Session Item No. 2 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update_Written CommunicationsCC 11-16-21
Study Session #2
Climate Action Plan
Update
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Giulianna Pendleton <giulianna@scvas.org>
Sent:Thursday, November 11, 2021 4:51 PM
To:City Council
Cc:Shani Kleinhaus; Matthew Dodder; Alice Kaufman; ldrruff psychology; Connie Cunningham
Subject:November 16th Agenda Study Session Item 2: Consider Climate Action Plan Update Draft Measures
Attachments:Joint Letter Cupertino CAP .pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
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,
Please find the attached joint comment letter from Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Green Foothills, and California
Native Plant Society regarding the Climate Action Plan Update draft measures.
Thank you,
Giulianna Pendleton
Environmental Advocacy Assistant
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
22221 McClellan Rd
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-656-7978
giulianna@scvas.org
2
Cyrah Caburian
From:Neela S <neela.nandu@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 12, 2021 10:34 AM
To:City Council
Subject:November 16th Agenda Item: CAP
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
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 Mayor Paul and Council Members,
My name is Neela Srinivasan and I am a resident/community member of Cupertino. I appreciate the City’s
work on updating our Climate Action Plan, especially for including a Tree Canopy Goal. We support the
goal of planting 24,000 trees in Cupertino within the CAP Measures and Actions and ask that 80% of the
planted trees and shrubs should be native to California. This will be a critical step forward in addressing
the synergistic and devastating impacts of climate change and loss of biodiversity.
Hoesung Lee, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (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". More trees also help people: improved
moods and mental health, reduce impact of extreme heat, and increase quality of life!
The importance of cities in providing habitat for wildlife, especially for birds and beneficial insects, has
been widely recognized. Cities around the globe are encouraged to adopt biodiversity and “rewilding”
priorities to address our global biodiversity crisis. For these reasons we are asking the CAP Measures to
include 80% native trees within the Tree Canopy Goal.
Thank you,
Neela Srinivasan
3
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peg Albrets <pegmomrn@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 12, 2021 1:46 PM
To:City Council
Subject:November 16th Agenda Item: CAP
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
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 Mayor Paul and Council Members,
My name is Peg Albrets and I am a resident/community member of Cupertino. I appreciate the City’s work
on updating our Climate Action Plan, especially for including a Tree Canopy Goal. We support the goal of
planting 24,000 trees in Cupertino within the CAP Measures and Actions and ask that 80% of the planted
trees and shrubs should be native to California. This will be a critical step forward in addressing the
synergistic and devastating impacts of climate change and loss of biodiversity.
Hoesung Lee, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (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". More trees also help people: improved
moods and mental health, reduce impact of extreme heat, and increase quality of life!
The importance of cities in providing habitat for wildlife, especially for birds and beneficial insects, has
been widely recognized. Cities around the globe are encouraged to adopt biodiversity and “rewilding”
priorities to address our global biodiversity crisis. For these reasons we are asking the CAP Measures to
include 80% native trees within the Tree Canopy Goal.
Thank you,
Peg
4
Cyrah Caburian
From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, November 13, 2021 10:28 AM
To:City Council
Cc:Cunningham Connie; Gilee Corral; City Clerk
Subject:November 16, 2021 Special Study Session, Agenda Item 2: CAP Update
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
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 Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilmembers:
Subject: November 16, 2021 Special Study Session, Agenda Item 2: CAP Update:
Please add the metric of 80% native trees to the metric for the tree canopy in CAP 2.0 Draft Measures
Quote: "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". * Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I thank the Staff for their excellent report on CAP 2.0 for November 16, 2021. I am very pleased that the comments
requesting “protecting biodiversity” made by people attending the October 21, 2021 Sustainability Commission
meeting were included. I am, also, pleased that the Sustainability Commissioners were supportive, and that the
consultant confirmed that biodiversity and resiliency can be addressed in the adaptation and resiliency section. I
am heartened, too, to read that the CAP 2.0 Plan is focused upon equity among all areas of Cupertino.
I urge the Council to make the following changes to the Draft Measures to include protecting biodiversity. This will
significantly strengthen the Climate Action Plan 2.0 goals because biodiversity and climate change are
interconnected.
I. In the Staff Report on 5, I urge you to change the Carbon Sequestration GHG Reduction Measure to read (red
highlights are the recommended wording):
Double the urban tree canopy by 2030, with 80% native trees, to absorb more carbon from the air and provide
resiliency benefits.
Sustainability Commission Draft CAP 2.0
Attachment A: Draft Climate Action Plan Update Measures and Actions:
II. Page 9 of Attachment A, Measure CS-1.
I urge adding a metric as follows:
CS‐1: Increase carbon sequestration by planting 24,000 new trees throughout the community by 2030 and, of these,
plant 80% native trees to protect bioversity
Also, regarding Measure CS-2 "Studies and Plans:
III. I urge adding the following words: “and protect biodiversity.” at the end of the sentence so it reads as follows:
5
CS-2 Studies and Plans: Study options to manage Cupertino's open spaces, parklands, and fields to sequester more
carbon and protect biodiversity.
___
Cupertino has many avenues for successfully reaching this 80% goal. Here are just a few thoughts.
1. Cupertino has roads with medians that could include native trees.
2. Cupertino has an exciting new park in process: Lawrence-Mitty Park. Design of that park could include native
trees.
3. Cupertino can ensure that native trees are included in all areas of the city, with special attention for parcels and
census block groups that do not currently have trees. Equity is key to ensuring that Cupertino is a livable city for
everyone. Plantable space information can be overlaid with land use and zoning information. Much of land with
areas suitable for planting are privately owned.
4. Cupertino citizens are very interested in gardens, nature and wildlife. Educating them on the critical need for
native trees will create valuable partners for the city.
I urge the Council to add the metric of 80% native trees to CAP 2.0.
Best regards,
Connie Cunningham
34 year resident
Audubon Member
6
Cyrah Caburian
From:Mary Vanatta <vanattam@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, November 13, 2021 8:59 AM
To:City Council
Subject:Agenda Item for Meeting on 11/16/21: CAP
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
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 Mayor Paul and members of the Cupertino City Council,
I am a resident of Cupertino ‐ I moved here in 2013, and one of my favorite things about the city is how filled with
beautiful trees it is! I am very excited to hear that the city has the goal, as part of its Climate Action Plan, of planting
24,000 trees in Cupertino by 2030. I think that it is very important that the city plant native trees and shrubs, so I ask
that 80% of the planted trees and shrubs be native to California.
I am a member of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, which is also making this request. SCVAS has made it clear
that planting native trees is critical to address the synergistic and devastating impacts of climate change and loss of
biodiversity.
Again, I applaud the city for their goal of improving our tree canopy ‐ the importance of cities in providing habitat for
wildlife, especially for birds and beneficial insects, has been widely recognized. Please do consider this request that 80%
of these trees/shrubs be native to California.
Thank you,
Mary Vanatta
10445 Merriman Road
Cupertino
7
Cyrah Caburian
From:Sean Hughes <jxseanhughes@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 15, 2021 9:09 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Comments re: Study Session Subject 2 on 11/16/21
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
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 would like to submit the following comments pertaining to the second Study Session subject:
Regarding Topic 2, the CAP update draft measures
At a high-level, I hope that the council places more emphasis and energy in the areas of highest impact - by
the staff report findings, these areas are increased transit use, commercial ZEV (zero-emission vehicle)
adoption, and residential electrification building targets.*
I hope that the council endorses many of the recommendations, has the ambition to pursue the more
“aggressive” policies, and focuses on actions with the most measurable impacts - namely shifting land-use
policy and adjusting building ordinances to pursue a more sustainable future with more transit, less car use,
and electrified homes.
*This is based off Table 1, “Draft Climate Action Plan Update Measures” within the Staff Report for the CAP
Update Study Session on 11/16/2021, graphic provided below
8
Measure BE-1:
“Define equity metrics for ordinance enforcement based on feedback from local low-income
communities
of color and structure the ordinance and permitting compliance program to meet these metrics.”
Hope to see follow-up and attention on this item so that it is not an empty commitment. Especially hope to see
partnership with community organizations or partnerships in implementing any potential ordinance.
“Adopt an electrification ordinance for existing residential buildings by 2023 to
be implemented through the building permit process which bans expansion of
natural gas infrastructure and requires replacement of HVAC systems, hot
water heaters, and other appliances to be all-electric at time of replacement,
9
major renovation, and time of sale.”
“Require [subgroup(s) of residential building owners] to electrify their natural gas appliances
by 2025”
Highly recommend both of these actions, assuming there are no loop-holes for owners doing renovations or
“flipping” of properties (presumably covered under the definitions of “replacement'' or “time of sale”). I also
hope that any requirement here is paired with educational campaigns highlighting recent science on the health
effects of indoor gas appliances (see here, here, & here).
---
I applaud and very much agree with the need for the engagement and partnership goals highlighted within
Measure BE-1, in particular the need to work with local contractors and labor unions on the benefits and
technical requirements for electrification.
Measure BE-3
“Reduce Silicon Valley Clean Energy opt-out rates to 2% for residential and 10% for commercial
by 2030 and maintain through 2040”
How does this commercial target account for, if at all, buildings owned by companies that may be pursuing
their own renewable energy supply goals (such as a recent trend for tech companies pursuing 24/7 clean
energy goals)? Presumably, if it was verifiable, I would think that those buildings would not contribute to the
percentages, as they were already moving to clean energy supply anyways.
Measure T-1
“Conduct an analysis of the potential community impacts and benefits of implementing disincentive-
based
policies for driving single passenger vehicles, including a congestion charge program, limiting parking
options, increased local taxes (income tax, gasoline tax, or car registration tax), and Transportation
Network Company (TNC) user taxes”
It goes without saying but I hope the City treats these communications delicately, as tax-based policies will
likely generate a high political cost and negative feedback. I believe the council would be much more
successful in increasing transit by changing the built environment and laws governing such (land-use / zoning),
rather than pursuing highly visible demand-side tax policies.
“Ban cars in high-traffic zone(s) or
on individual roads in the City where other transit options are available by implementing
10
a congestion charge that applies to passenger cars and car-sharing services like Uber and
Lyft with exceptions for disabled drivers and residents of those areas.”
I applaud and strongly agree with the banning of cars in high-foot traffic zones (in particular developments like
the Oaks or all interior roads within Main Street are obvious candidates for closed streets and conversion to
permanent outdoor seating and walkways), but would like to express concern on this highly-specific congestion
charge scheme. This seems like it would be logistically and technically complicated (by targeting very specific
sections of the population) and may have equity considerations (punishing those who have to commute into
work in high-traffic areas, or just want to visit employment and city centers). Simply, it just doesn’t seem worth
the effort, when there is much “lower-hanging fruit” available (with arguably clearer benefits), in the form of
land-use policies, closing of streets in retail / shopping areas.
“Consistent with the intention of Senate Bill (SB) 10, allow developers to build housing without
off-street parking if they are close to frequent transit service.”
“Eliminate or severely limit parking options for single-passenger vehicles in commercial areas
of Cupertino.”
I would argue that neither of these measures are aggressive as they require the least amount of political will,
and bureaucratic capital, to implement. Both are simple changes to land-use policy with profound implications
and benefits to pedestrian safety, public health of residents, and nudges toward transit adoption.
Measure T-2
“Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15% of bicycle mode share by 2030
and 25% by 2040”
How would Measure T-2’s goal treat e-bike riders? I would argue for inclusion, even though adoption is very
earlier, Cupertino’s affluent resident-base and prevalence of food-delivery services (a demographic of worker
adopting e-bikes at an increasing pace) make it at least worth ensuring there is language that counts e-bike
riders as a “bicycle mode” of transportation.
Measure T-3
“Implement public and shared transit programs to achieve 35% of public transit mode share by 2030
and 40% by 2040 ”
11
For being projected as having one of the largest impacts in terms of GHG reductions, the concrete policy goals
- particularly those with tangible, measurable outcomes- is disappointing.
Some easy, tangible goals would be setting level-of-service goals related to connections to larger transit
interconnections. For example, it currently takes 37 minutes, or 30 minutes (assuming you get on the 55 bus,
which has 30 minute baseline frequencies every day of the week) to get to the closest CalTrain station
(Sunnyvale). 30 minute baseline frequencies are not viable for large parts of the community, in particular when
this frequency does not adjust for peak times during the weekday.
Partnerships with the VTA should focus on seeing what Cupertino can do to increase frequency and ensure
easier connection to other transit hubs. Bus-Rapid transit, or the dedication of particular bus-only lanes along
major streets seems like an easy way to improve service at the cost of just a little paint and enforcement.
Similarly, if we continue to use Via, we could have reduced fares, or a single Via vehicle dedicated only to
connections to and from the nearest CalTrain Station (Sunnyvale).
And of course, the city’s approach to land-use and development will greatly affect this largest piece of our
Climate Action Plan. I hope that the current - and future - Council can see that our climate goals are
fundamentally tied to our housing goals, in particular, our ability to build more, denser housing. To date,
Cupertino’s efforts do not reflect a serious stance on either housing or climate goals, and I hope to see this
change in the future.
Regards,
Sean Hughes
12
Cyrah Caburian
From:Lauren Sapudar
Sent:Tuesday, November 16, 2021 9:18 AM
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:FW: Comments re: Study Session Subject 2 on 11/16/21
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Good morning Mayor and Councilmembers (Bcc’d on this email),
Please see the below communication for tonight’s Study Session No. 2 on the CAP.
Regards,
Lauren Sapudar
Deputy City Clerk
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
From: Sean Hughes <jxseanhughes@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 8:58 AM
To: Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: Comments re: Study Session Subject 2 on 11/16/21
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,
Yes, I would like the comments to be included in the record, as well as forwarded to the Council.
Thank you,
Sean
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:17 AM Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org> wrote:
Good morning Mr. Hughes,
The City Clerk’s office is in receipt of this communication. Did you wish for it to be included as part of the public record
for tonight’s City Council meeting and as part of the study session CAP item? Also, I am not sure if the Council was
blind‐copied on this email or if you would like me to forward it?
13
Regards,
Lauren Sapudar
Deputy City Clerk
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
From: Sean Hughes <jxseanhughes@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:09 PM
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Comments re: Study Session Subject 2 on 11/16/21
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 would like to submit the following comments pertaining to the second Study Session subject:
Regarding Topic 2, the CAP update draft measures
At a high-level, I hope that the council places more emphasis and energy in the areas of highest impact - by
the staff report findings, these areas are increased transit use, commercial ZEV (zero-emission vehicle)
adoption, and residential electrification building targets.*
I hope that the council endorses many of the recommendations, has the ambition to pursue the more
“aggressive” policies, and focuses on actions with the most measurable impacts - namely shifting land-use
policy and adjusting building ordinances to pursue a more sustainable future with more transit, less car use,
and electrified homes.
14
*This is based off Table 1, “Draft Climate Action Plan Update Measures” within the Staff Report for the CAP
Update Study Session on 11/16/2021, graphic provided below
15
Measure BE-1:
“Define equity metrics for ordinance enforcement based on feedback from local low-income
communities
of color and structure the ordinance and permitting compliance program to meet these metrics.”
Hope to see follow-up and attention on this item so that it is not an empty commitment. Especially hope to see
partnership with community organizations or partnerships in implementing any potential ordinance.
“Adopt an electrification ordinance for existing residential buildings by 2023 to
be implemented through the building permit process which bans expansion of
natural gas infrastructure and requires replacement of HVAC systems, hot
water heaters, and other appliances to be all-electric at time of replacement,
major renovation, and time of sale.”
“Require [subgroup(s) of residential building owners] to electrify their natural gas appliances
by 2025”
Highly recommend both of these actions, assuming there are no loop-holes for owners doing renovations or
“flipping” of properties (presumably covered under the definitions of “replacement'' or “time of sale”). I also
hope that any requirement here is paired with educational campaigns highlighting recent science on the
health effects of indoor gas appliances (see here, here, & here).
---
I applaud and very much agree with the need for the engagement and partnership goals highlighted within
Measure BE-1, in particular the need to work with local contractors and labor unions on the benefits and
technical requirements for electrification.
Measure BE-3
16
“Reduce Silicon Valley Clean Energy opt-out rates to 2% for residential and 10% for commercial
by 2030 and maintain through 2040”
How does this commercial target account for, if at all, buildings owned by companies that may be pursuing
their own renewable energy supply goals (such as a recent trend for tech companies pursuing 24/7 clean
energy goals)? Presumably, if it was verifiable, I would think that those buildings would not contribute to the
percentages, as they were already moving to clean energy supply anyways.
Measure T-1
“Conduct an analysis of the potential community impacts and benefits of implementing disincentive-
based
policies for driving single passenger vehicles, including a congestion charge program, limiting parking
options, increased local taxes (income tax, gasoline tax, or car registration tax), and Transportation
Network Company (TNC) user taxes”
It goes without saying but I hope the City treats these communications delicately, as tax-based policies will
likely generate a high political cost and negative feedback. I believe the council would be much more
successful in increasing transit by changing the built environment and laws governing such (land-use /
zoning), rather than pursuing highly visible demand-side tax policies.
“Ban cars in high-traffic zone(s) or
on individual roads in the City where other transit options are available by implementing
a congestion charge that applies to passenger cars and car-sharing services like Uber and
Lyft with exceptions for disabled drivers and residents of those areas.”
I applaud and strongly agree with the banning of cars in high-foot traffic zones (in particular developments like
the Oaks or all interior roads within Main Street are obvious candidates for closed streets and conversion to
permanent outdoor seating and walkways), but would like to express concern on this highly-specific
congestion charge scheme. This seems like it would be logistically and technically complicated (by targeting
very specific sections of the population) and may have equity considerations (punishing those who have to
commute into work in high-traffic areas, or just want to visit employment and city centers). Simply, it just
doesn’t seem worth the effort, when there is much “lower-hanging fruit” available (with arguably clearer
benefits), in the form of land-use policies, closing of streets in retail / shopping areas.
17
“Consistent with the intention of Senate Bill (SB) 10, allow developers to build housing without
off-street parking if they are close to frequent transit service.”
“Eliminate or severely limit parking options for single-passenger vehicles in commercial areas
of Cupertino.”
I would argue that neither of these measures are aggressive as they require the least amount of political will,
and bureaucratic capital, to implement. Both are simple changes to land-use policy with profound implications
and benefits to pedestrian safety, public health of residents, and nudges toward transit adoption.
Measure T-2
“Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15% of bicycle mode share by 2030
and 25% by 2040”
How would Measure T-2’s goal treat e-bike riders? I would argue for inclusion, even though adoption is very
earlier, Cupertino’s affluent resident-base and prevalence of food-delivery services (a demographic of worker
adopting e-bikes at an increasing pace) make it at least worth ensuring there is language that counts e-bike
riders as a “bicycle mode” of transportation.
Measure T-3
“Implement public and shared transit programs to achieve 35% of public transit mode share by 2030
and 40% by 2040 ”
For being projected as having one of the largest impacts in terms of GHG reductions, the concrete policy
goals - particularly those with tangible, measurable outcomes- is disappointing.
18
Some easy, tangible goals would be setting level-of-service goals related to connections to larger transit
interconnections. For example, it currently takes 37 minutes, or 30 minutes (assuming you get on the 55 bus,
which has 30 minute baseline frequencies every day of the week) to get to the closest CalTrain station
(Sunnyvale). 30 minute baseline frequencies are not viable for large parts of the community, in particular
when this frequency does not adjust for peak times during the weekday.
Partnerships with the VTA should focus on seeing what Cupertino can do to increase frequency and ensure
easier connection to other transit hubs. Bus-Rapid transit, or the dedication of particular bus-only lanes along
major streets seems like an easy way to improve service at the cost of just a little paint and enforcement.
Similarly, if we continue to use Via, we could have reduced fares, or a single Via vehicle dedicated only to
connections to and from the nearest CalTrain Station (Sunnyvale).
And of course, the city’s approach to land-use and development will greatly affect this largest piece of our
Climate Action Plan. I hope that the current - and future - Council can see that our climate goals are
fundamentally tied to our housing goals, in particular, our ability to build more, denser housing. To date,
Cupertino’s efforts do not reflect a serious stance on either housing or climate goals, and I hope to see this
change in the future.
Regards,
Sean Hughes
19
Cyrah Caburian
From:Gary Latshaw <glatshaw@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 16, 2021 1:14 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Comments on Item 2: Climate Action Plan Update
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
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 Mayor, Council Members, City staff ‐
I am submitting these recommendations as a private citizen. These recommendations are independent of any
assessment by the Sustainability Commission. I comprise them based on my expertise in physics and study of
climate change. I have been giving presentations on climate change for about 15 years and I have been trained
by the Climate Reality Project. I am also a co‐founder of a group called securethefuture2100, which has
advised elected national representatives (such as Senators Feinstein and Harris, Representative Khanna and
others) on climate‐related issues.
I have observed over the last 15 that there has been a failure of the Climate Science Community to properly
assess how quickly the earth is undergoing massive changes (see appendix). Although the projected global
temperature increases have matched the Community’s consensus, the consequences of increased forest fires,
exceptional weather events causing flooding, freezing storms and unprecedented heat waves, loss of
biodiversity, and other disruptions have been much worse than previously anticipated. Billions of dollars are
being spent already to rebuild after these unprecedented events.
One of the misunderstood facets of controlling emissions was the excessive leakage of natural gas. While
under laboratory conditions natural gas combustion produces less carbon dioxide than coal or oil, the
significant gas leakage in its acquisition, processing, transportation, and combustion produces as much or
more atmospheric warming than a comparable amount of coal or oil. This is because the leaked gas has a very
high warming potential. The warming is almost hundred times that of carbon dioxide. The use of natural gas
for heating is comparable to that of coal based on the current infrastructure.
The current IPCC assessment has concluded that it will be necessary to actually remove carbon dioxide and
perhaps methane (primary component of natural gas). Current technologies require about $1000/ton of CO2
for removal. The 2014 Cupertino CAP has assessed that municipal operations will release in 2020 about 2,000
MT/CO2. This then translates to a future cost to the next generation of about $2,000,000/year. These cost will
accrue until the buildings and equipments are electrified.
In view of the dire situation the future generation will face, I am making specific recommendations that are
focused on objectives that are achievable in a city such as ours.
1. The City must remodel or replace all its buildings, vehicles, and off‐road devices so they operate
only on electricity.
20
2. The City should target 2030 to eliminate all natural gas use within the City’s jurisdiction.
3. Enforce the Reach Codes for new buildings aggressively. I learned that some of the construction
since the Codes were passed did not meet the codes. This should be reversed based on the City’s
declaration of a Climate Emergency.
4. The Reach Codes should be revised to eliminate any use of natural gas by 2030.
These are specific and detailed recommended changes:
M‐1 Decarbonize 100% of municipal buildings by 2030 2026 and remaining facilities by 2045.
Comment: All Municipal buildings will be operated by zero‐emission electricity by 2026.
In particular, the City Hall will be renovated or replaced to achieve this objective. The City Hall and other
municipal buildings do not meet earthquake codes, so major renovations or replacements are in order in any
case.
Both the University of California and Stanford University have committed to transition to zero‐emission
buildings[i].
Comment: This is the costliest item and may require financing out of the normal expenditures. However, the
current interest rates are at all‐time lows so the City should act with dispatch on this item.
M‐5 Electrify or otherwise decarbonize the municipal fleet by 2040 2026.
Comment: There are currently comparable electric vehicles comparable to gas‐driven ones available on the
market. In the coming years there should be viable alternatives to all the vehicles. Electric vehicles are cheaper
to maintain and operate.
M‐6 Electrify or otherwise decarbonize all municipal off‐road equipment by 2040 2026.
Commemt: All municipal off‐road engines should be easily replaceable by 2026. Most of the gardening
equipment is already sold commercially.
The City should provide a quotative annual update to its progress on the CAP items. Such an update is not
necessarily tied directly to emissions but might specify the progress on some items. For example, a statement
like “New City Hall is 65% complete” would be appropriate.
The City should work with the CPUC and/or the legislature to obtain direct information and possibly control of
the commercial buildings. As of this writing the commercial sector can obtain electricity by direct access. This
does not allow visibility into the carbon emissions associated with the electricity.
Appendix
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[ii]. 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.
21
A recent analysis by Canada[iii] 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 2020[iv].
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 Labs[v] (prepared
for the state of California) call for Carbon Dioxide Removal as a necessary development to get to a carbon‐
neutral position.
[i] California Universities Are Transitioning to All‐Electric Buildings, Justin Gerdes, greentechmeida.com, September 2018
[ii] IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report
[iii] Saxifrage, Barry, Canada’s managed forests have turned into super‐emitters, and 2018 set a record, Canada’s National Observer,
June 5th, 2020
[iv] 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.
[v] Getting to Neutral – options for negative carbon emissions in California, prepared by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, LLNL-TR-
796100
‐‐
Fight for Renewable Energies! Save the global ecology; create jobs; eliminate dependence on foreign oil; reduce military
requirements
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.
408‐499‐3006
22
Cyrah Caburian
From:Eugene <elin12@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 16, 2021 2:06 PM
To:City Council
Subject:November 16th Agenda Item: CAP
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
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 Mayor Paul and Council Members,
My name is Eugene Lin and I am a longtime resident of Cupertino. I appreciate the City’s work on updating our Climate
Action Plan, especially for including a Tree Canopy Goal. We support the goal of planting 24,000 trees in Cupertino
within the CAP Measures and Actions and ask that 80% of the planted trees and shrubs should be native to California.
This will be a critical step forward in addressing the synergistic and devastating impacts of climate change and loss of
biodiversity.
Hoesung Lee, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (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". More trees also help people: improved moods and mental health, reduce impact of extreme
heat, and increase quality of life!
The importance of cities in providing habitat for wildlife, especially for birds and beneficial insects, has been widely
recognized. Cities around the globe are encouraged to adopt biodiversity and “rewilding” priorities to address our global
biodiversity crisis. For these reasons we are asking the CAP Measures to include 80% native trees within the Tree Canopy
Goal.
Thank you,
Eugene Lin