Climate Action Plan Draft
Survey
SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT
11 April 2022 - 17 May 2022
PROJECT NAME:
Climate Action Plan Update - CAP 2.0
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
1 of
26 Q1
How do you feel about these proposed changes?
3 (2.8%)
3 (2.8%)
6 (5.6%)
6 (5.6%)
11 (10.2%)
11 (10.2%)
45 (41.7%)
45 (41.7%)
43 (39.8%)
43 (39.8%)
Very Unhappy Unhappy Neutral Happy Very Happy
Question options
Optional question
(108 response(s), 1 skipped)
Question type:
Emoji Question
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
2 of
26 Screen Name Redacted
4/20/2022 09:04 PM
Proposal is too vague.
Would like to see more specific initiatives and
metrics to success.
Screen Name Redacted
4/20/2022 11:23 PM
We will lose the battle unless aggressive actions are taken.
There will
be more fires and drought, and every species on earth are affected.
Everyone should be thinking going EV as soon as possible. Everyone should take out their large lawns but dont put in rubbery fake grasses which is just as bad an issue.
Screen Name Redacted
4/21/2022 12:12 PM
I'm happy that Cupertino is becoming a Carbon-neutral city. But at the same time, I think we need to be careful. While renewable energy is important, a majority of our city still relies on fossil fuels. We need to start by making renewable energy more simple/convenient and cheaper so its accessible to all citizens. Furthermore, not all citizens will want to change their source of energy, so the transition in mindset (especially for adults) will take some time. I am confident, however, that the youth is able to encourage the change towards renewable energy, as we have many organizations and youth platforms to spread awareness.
Overall, I am very excited about this project and
the benefits it will bring to Cupertino. The question is how easy will it be to make this big change in lifestyle
Screen Name Redacted
4/21/2022 12:35 PM
Environmental action should in my pov be the #1 priority right now. I want as many resources as possible to be spent toward these goals.
Screen Name Redacted
4/21/2022 12:43 PM
Climate action at the microscopic city level is a waste of city revenue and resources.
Screen Name Redacted
4/21/2022 02:47 PM
I like a lot of what I read. Just to keep it short, am happy to see top- level focus on transportation and buildings, in line with our emissions profile; however, I am strongly opposed to the following policies:
Measure 3.5 (ABAG Power partnership and Nat'l Gas Alts): I understand working with our natural gas alternative, but having worked in energy capacity market consulting for bit, and based on just following general industry / science reporting, my understanding is that RNG is not a fuel we should pursue, or even entertain as an option (it really seems applicable to "[uses] that low-carbon alternatives: https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/renewable-natural-gas- Q2
Why do you feel that way? Please add as much detail as you would like, you can include page numbers, specific measures, or actions in your response.
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
3 of
26 climate-strategy.pdf, and insufficient as a wide-spread alternative:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-
environment/2020/2/14/21131109/california-natural-gas-renewable- socalgas ). We should also be suspect of RNG given alternative motives from the gas industry as a whole:
https://www.degreespod.com/episodes/episode-15
Fundamentally,
we should not consider "paying a premium" for natural gas alternatives if those alternatives (as is the case with RNG) 1) continue to have emissions associated (even if the utility claims it is less, which is unclear at this point), and 2) continues to reinforce reliance on soon to be stranded assets (gas infrastructure). It would be more effective to support natural gas utility transformation (like into the thermal utility solution described below), or just omit this policy entirely from our Action Plan. I think the value here is questionable at best, and it would be more productive to strike it out entirely than end pursuing something just because it is a written feature in our plan.
Thermal Utility Solution: https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-audrey- schulman-and?s=r
Measure TR 1.7 - "Require new multi-family
developments to install a car share or provide ebikes/e-scooters for tenants." This is a well-intentioned policy that should be removed or changed to favor mass transit options (not including Via, which is fundamentally not a high-capacity transit solution).
This policy is
extremely flawed. I think believe this is a fundamentally bad policy, as a requirement instills an arbitrary condition that doesn't recognize the inherently lower GHG profiles of multi-family developments, and arbitrarily chooses a mobility solution while also chilling the developments of more sustainable developments (multi over single- family).
Building codes should creating conditions for outcomes, rather than mandating specific solutions (e.g. same benefits / arguments to removing single-family zoning, height restrictions, parking minimums, etc.) . Additionally, tt isn't clear which providers, if any of e-bikes and scooters will be around in the future (no scooter companies are currently profitable). I also don't know why it only applies to multi-family developments, rather than just a residential requirement as a whole. Plus this is yet another cost-requirement for developers of multi-family projects, which fundamentally have lower carbon emission profiles than single-family homes. I strongly recommend removing this policy entirely. If you feel very strongly about it, I would change the recommendation to make it a requirement for all residential
buildings, but even then I don't know
why you would do that either. Another alternative would to be to replace the e-bike / e-scooter requirement, and instead tie-in to Transit-Oriented Development standards or the density bonus program.
I believe TR 4.7 and 4.8 need adjustment. I think that while disincentive policies through built environment changes (parking min removal, max policies, denser buildings, no-car zones) are effective, the extra taxes create burdens (even if rebated - which, you have to consider there is a delay from the rebate during tax season, vs. daily Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
4 of
26 expenditures - most people to not budget on a yearly basis), chilling effects on mobility alternatives (I'd rather have someone take ride- share than own their own car), and logistical difficulties (does Cupertino have the staff capacity to enforce a city-specific tax on TNCs, or the exemption loop-hole for services that reduce VMTs?).
For both of these measures, we should remove tax policies from consideration.
Screen Name Redacted
4/21/2022 04:38 PM
I agree with the multi-factorial plan as I think there is greater chance of success
Screen Name Redacted
4/21/2022 06:35 PM
One of the best ways of efficiently becoming carbon neutral is to reduce miles driven. This is most effective when there is dense mixed-use urban development when people can conveniently walk, bike, and take public transit everywhere instead of driving, even with EVs. This eliminates fossil fuels and reduces the need for expensive batteries that use Lithium and other harmful chemicals and consume large amounts of power to charge. This will reduce the need for so much renewable energy and infrastructure to recharge bulky EVs and save on road ware and maintenance.
Resources such as power and
water MUST be used sparingly, just as waste production must be curbed. Currently, the recycling of EV batteries is too expensive to do, so they end up as part of our waste. The more we start using EVs, the greater the problem.
Another advantage of dense buildings is that
they present far less outer walls, roofs, and floors area vs. volume of structure to the loss of heat and cooling energy. So they use far less energy to maintain at a comfortable temperature year-round. This reduces the burden of renewable energy needed to live comfortably.
So we Must incorporate wise energy efficiency buildings and planning in our General Plan with a strategy towards highly efficient overall energy use as a matter of policy for a green future.
The only question
that remains is, does Cupertino have the political will to reduce the waste of energy as part of the city’s General Plan? Energy wasted through unwise city planning is synonymous with increasing trash and reducing recycling or wasting water.
Screen Name Redacted
4/21/2022 08:52 PM
I feel government must take action, it is the most effective way to a healthier planet.
Screen Name Redacted
4/23/2022 10:24 AM
Long-term planning is a key feature of stable
government, and is the
only path to a sustainable, livable future. Table 14 is a great list, it will be good to see widespread road diets (esp. DeAnza Blvd).
Bike/Pedestrian oriented communities are happier, safer places to be.
I like the equity considerations in Table 16. It's critical to get Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
5 of
26 widespread EV charging in non-single-family-home locations, to help low-income residents get off of fuel-based options, which can and should become expensive. It's heartening to not see hydrogen anywhere in the plan. Hydrogen continues to look like a fossil fuel industry delay tactic, and green hydrogen will, for the foreseeable future, be expensive and in short supply.
Screen Name Redacted
4/23/2022 11:46 AM
It is a plan and a goal people can follow realistically for a long term sustainability. Not very difficult to follow.
Screen Name Redacted
4/23/2022 12:19 PM
Because animals and humans ca live happily
Screen Name Redacted
4/23/2022 12:41 PM
I have felt for a while now that current attitudes around addressing climate change have not gone far enough and we need much more aggressive measures to effectively address climate change.
Screen Name Redacted
4/23/2022 02:00 PM
Proposals
Screen Name Redacted
4/23/2022 02:22 PM
I love it all. Going carbon neutral will be such a great and necessary change to help our planet!
Screen Name Redacted
4/24/2022 10:34 PM
Overall, great job on the plan! I think it can and needs to be more ambitious though.
General comment: The CAP and climate policies in
general are limited in that they focus on Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
Scope 1 = direct emissions like from a car, 2 = indirect emissions produced for electricity. (Not a criticism of the City, but just noting a limitation we should consider.) Scope 3 emissions (embodied emissions, i.e. the GHGs emitted to create a solar panel / wind turbine that provides said renewable energy) must be considered as well. So, it’s not enough for us to electrify and shift to renewable energy. We need to also reduce our energy and material
consumption OVERALL in order to meaningfully address the climate crisis.
Generally, strong support for all of the measures regarding targeted outreach and consideration of communities of concern (low- income, immigrant, ESL, BIPOC, etc).
Specific comments based on
measure / action: - TR 1.3: Include Silicon Valley Bike Coalition.
Biking and transportation is not siloed by city, so we need partners who also understand the regional context - TR 1.6: repainting is insufficient. Need to make it clear that barriers or separated bike lanes are better and what will make the bike lanes feel safe for everybody, not just confident cyclists - TR 17: Support! Vancouver Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
6 of
26 has a good model where there are local street bikeways that are parallel to major automobile roads. Cupertino’s street network is a bit limiting since it isn’t really in a grid fashion though, so this would need to be adjusted. But can definitely be implemented in certain situations - TR-2: 29% public transit mode share is not nearly enough and is watered down from 35% by 2030 and 40% by 2040. Public
transportation needs to be prioritized over vehicle electrification, because EVs are overall more inefficient compared to mass transportation. Where possible, we should degrow our energy consumption (overall, regardless of whether it is renewable or not) when it comes to transportation, because increased EV usage will displace whatever gains we make with electrification. - TR-2 general comment: There needs to be an explicit naming that smarter development is necessary to incentivize use of public transportation.
We need more housing built near transit corridors so that more people want to use transit. We cannot divorce housing policy from climate policy. They are interconnected. - TR-2 general comment:
make it City policy to support road diets as well as dedicated transit lanes where applicable (thinking of Stevens Creek BRT) - TR 2.3:
This should be planned in coordination with VTA. The on-demand community shuttle should primarily be a first and last mile solution rather than a replacement for mass transportation options like bus, light rail, train. - TR 2.5-2.8: misnumbered as 1.5-2.8 - TR 2.6: There should be an option for employers to create a joint TDM program. A larger program may be more efficient than having many smaller programs. Employers could potentially partner together based on location (maybe by block or commercial corridor).
- TR 2.7: This
should be adjusted to be more flexible and less prescriptive. Perhaps we can require multi-family developments to implement policies or infrastructure that discourage SOV and encourage transit / active transportation and reduce automobile VMT. Transform has the GreenTRIP certification which could be a helpful guide. Measure TR- 3: Just a caution that when we advocate for electrification of passenger vehicles we don’t rely on that as our primary strategy for transportation. If we electrify AND increase the number of cars on our roads that still not good for climate. (Attachment A, Action 3: The policy doesn’t seem consistent with the goals set of 35% by 2030 and 100% by 2040. If we really want to reach those numbers, we should set the charger number higher, like 35 or 50%, or at least include some provision for building owners to increase their EV charger spaces in the future. Additionally, if we are to reduce the number of parking spaces overall anyway, it wouldn’t be as difficult to reach a higher percentage.) TR 4 general comment: The City of Cupertino should consider some sort of policy to study the impacts of delivery and courier vehicles (i.e. Amazon, DoorDash). I’m not sure if they would be included within the City analysis of transportation mode share but they incur significant mileage and use a ton of energy to delivery packages. Perhaps a policy limiting what days private Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
7 of
26 delivery services are allowed to deliver, or limiting door deliveries. TR
4.4: This policy should be more aggressive. The city should consider the a removal of off-street parking requirements in general for single family homes. In most neighborhoods there is already ample curbside parking space available to accommodate every household’s vehicle. It shouldn’t be tied to whether a location is close to frequent transit. Or if there is a parking requirement, it should be scaled based on the number of bedrooms or some other indicator of household size. TR
4.6: If the City wants to be serious about shifting us away from SOVs, we need to be bold with our language and commitments. Do not simply “consider” parking maximums and charging for public parking space. They need to be implemented! The City should not subsidize free parking. See: The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup.
TR 4.8: This policy should also include commercial delivery companies like Amazon that incur significant vehicle miles travelled and emissions within our city. Additionally, I would oppose the inclusion of tax exceptions, because we should ultimately be encouraging people to use public shared transportation. TNCs and private transportation services are in direct competition with and siphon users away from public transportation.
(Measure T-5,
Attachment A) - Require commercial delivery companies like Amazon to electrify their fleet and/or impose a penalty on companies that do not electrify their fleet. - Action 4: Strongly oppose incentives and tax breaks for companies! These companies already make billions of dollars, they don’t need financial incentives and can easily afford electrification. Amazon is one of the richest companies in the world, are you kidding me? Measure W-2 - W 2.3: Strong support for this! - W 2.8: Beyond take-back programs, is there a way for a city like Cupertino to disincentivize companies from practicing planned obsolescence or making products extremely difficult to repair? Apple is notorious for making it difficult for people to repair their products. - W 2.9: The City could implement a reusable takeout container / cup program for food service providers. Much like certain cafes and boba shops have reusable cup discounts, the City can incentivize people to bring their own containers to take food to-go. - W 2.10: Strongly support pop-ups or setting up institutions for repairing materials. And additional idea would be to create a tool library or similar (de- commodified, non-market-based) shared economy practices.
Measure WW-1 - WW-1 What about banning lawns and other water intensive yet unnecessary plants? May be unpopular but would be an easy win. - Could potentially also ban individual-use bottled water.
This wouldn’t affect water consumption as measured within the City, but would help address the negative impacts of bottled water companies.
Measure CS-1 - The City should also make sure that their understanding of carbon sequestration via afforestation (planting trees) is nuanced. We need to ensure that the trees are not cut down or it’s pointless. And also, carbon isn’t simply stored by the trees but a big part of it is the soil itself. - CS 2.3 and 2.4: Strong support Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
8 of
26 Screen Name Redacted
4/28/2022 01:00 PM
I think a Climate Action plan is important for everyone and not only us but our future generations.
you can see that we already have issues
like droughts / fires / the weather in general. just imagine what it will be like in the future if we don't do something now.
Screen Name Redacted
4/28/2022 10:24 AM
It is good that you are using a multi-pronged approach to the Climate Action Plan, and that the goals recognize nature as a key element.
Screen Name Redacted
4/30/2022 11:32 AM
2022-4-30 Survey Comments for CAP 2.0, Connie Cunningham, Resident, SCVAS Audubon Society member I have read the
document and am encouraged to see the steps taken toward protecting biodiversity.
I agree with your sentence on page 43 that
"There is no Planet B."
I am pleased to see the creation of an Urban
Forest Management Plan. CS-1 Increase carbon sequestration through tree planting by developing and implementing an Urban Forest Management Plan
Supportive CS-2 Leverage the carbon
sequestration potential of open space and carbon removal Supportive
I am very pleased to see that three of the CS-1 actions are all included in Phase 1.
See my comments on the two other actions
under CS-1 that are not Phase 1.
It is clear that everyone
understands that each tree planted now can begin its work immediately.
It was good to see that Cupertino has a Tree Division
with a Tree Plotter Inventory electronic tool.
It appears that the
knowledge therein will be extremely helpful in identifying places to plant.
Meridians, street trees, parks and so forth.
Since we have
Lawrence Mitty Park coming on board, and an upgrade to Memorial Park, there are two new places to plant native trees, shrubs and grasses in the City in addition to other city properties.
Please
expedite all possible actions CS 1.4 and CS 1.5 at the beginning of Phase 2, which is 2023. CS 1.4 Review the Tree Protection Ordinance and ensure that trees are protected with future updates to the General Plan. Ensure any trees that may be removed to accommodate new housing are replaced with at least a 2:1 ratio.
Key
Pillar: Structural Change Timing: Phase 2 Cost: Low-Medium CS 1.5
Establish a program for obtaining grant funding for development of UFMP and tree planting.
Key Pillar: Funding Timing: Phase 2 Cost:
Medium
Added thought:
It would also be good for Cupertino to set up
a program to assist residents in planting native trees on privately owned properties, by offering them at low cost and perhaps offering to have volunteers plant them for seniors.
There is a program like this
in San Jose although it does not focus on native trees at this time.
Our program needs to focus on native trees for preserving biodiversity.
Here is more information if you would like to read further https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eap.2149 It
was absolutely splendid to see the following in the earlier pages of Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
9 of
26 the CAP 2.0 Plan, too. Page 12 Guiding Principles
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.
Pg 52
Key Pillars
Structural Change’ Studies and
Plans Funding Equity—this keeps the City focused on people in the City who might not benefit from these changes Engagement Partnerships :
Please continue to work with
Santa Clara Valley
Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and others who have provided comment at the Sustainability Commission and City Council.
Pg 54
Co-Benefits of GHG Reduction Measures
1. Climate Change
Resilience
o
Planting trees for carbon sequestration and increasing
tree canopy cover can help keep streets and neighborhoods cooler.40 Actions can also enhance community cohesion.... 2.
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services
•
More healthy, biodiverse, and
functional ecosystems.
•
Actions that improve the health of local
ecosystems can also result in a variety of public benefits including reducing pollutants in local creeks and runoff to the bay, providing species habitat which supports a more biodiverse landscape, improving water and air quality, reducing local flood risk, and providing recreation benefits for the community enjoyment.
PG 63:
I
am pleased to see the BE 2.9 and BE 2.10 for working with the BMR rental and housing in Cupertino.
like the partnerships for
encouraging use of alternative forms of transportation.
Screen Name Redacted
4/30/2022 11:35 AM
Specific details missing
Screen Name Redacted
4/30/2022 11:36 AM
Love all the goals and ideals but still don’t know if I understand the policies and specific action yet.
Screen Name Redacted
4/30/2022 11:37 AM
There are not as many specific details about the proposal. Where does the funding come from? Is There equality in the plan? Screen Name Redacted
4/30/2022 02:09 PM
We need to do something right now and the city of Cupertino needs to take the lead.
Screen Name Redacted
5/02/2022 04:44 PM
The Climate Action Plan is a start and list good initiatives to improve the environment in the future.
I would like to see more transportation
options for the Cupertino residents such as buses, trains, carpools options as well. Global Warming is effecting our weather by increasing the heat in California. Although adding bikes and scooters is an excellent option, at times it's too hot to ride a bike or scooter. So adding transportation options where people can escape the triple digit Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
10 of
26 heat is an option to consider.
Screen Name Redacted
5/04/2022 02:30 PM
Many new owners in Cupertino remodel their front yards and remove the trees and don't replace them.
Don't think I saw anything about
dealing with that in the Nature section. There were a couple comments about Seniors, but I'm not sure this plan is giving enough thought to them.
For examples, most of your current Seniors will not
be buying electric cars or using bicycles.
Screen Name Redacted
5/05/2022 12:02 PM
Overall this is a well developed plan. I believe you need to add an action under BE-2 that shows you are partnering with PG&E to support what efforts they are doing to ensure the reliability of our power grid since all these homes are going to be reliant on electricity for their energy.
Screen Name Redacted
5/05/2022 12:50 PM
I worry that the cost of implementing all these plans will be passed on to tax payers. As i live in a condo, who will pay for adding charging stations to my building?
Screen Name Redacted
5/05/2022 12:52 PM
I want to leave an environment suitable to sustain life beyond my time here.
Screen Name Redacted
5/05/2022 12:54 PM
This topic is over my knowledge level as a standard resident Screen Name Redacted
5/05/2022 12:57 PM
This change has to take place over time. I have had solar water since 1979 and solar electricity since 2008. I have gas heat and has stove.
All electric is putting all the eggs in one basket.
Screen Name Redacted
5/05/2022 12:58 PM
I support green initiatives. Thank you for working on this Screen Name Redacted
5/05/2022 12:59 PM
Save our resources and re-educating other about conserving resources is so important for our future
Screen Name Redacted
5/05/2022 01:01 PM
I support anything to better the environment (fossil fuel reduction, zero waste, save water, etc)
Screen Name Redacted
I am not conceived about the SB 35/Vallco project. 2 million square Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
11 of
26 5/05/2022 01:04 PM
feet of the office will have a drastic impact on the water supply. In case of a major fire, how to get water to the top floor of these tall buildings.
Screen Name Redacted
5/05/2022 01:05 PM
These are great ideas!
Screen Name Redacted
5/05/2022 05:58 PM
I am happy to see the strong focus of equity throughout the CAP. It would be helpful to have more information on how the City will make information about CAP implementation accessible to the public—I hope that residents will be made aware of about all of the efforts Cupertino is making to reduce greenhouse gas emissions locally.
I
am excited to see the City identifying solutions to ending natural gas usage in existing buildings, and I hope that the benefits of electrified homes can be extended to renters without exacerbating housing affordability.
The consumption-based GHG study is very interesting,
and I am glad to see Cupertino considering community emissions beyond what is traditionally captured in a GHG inventory.
I wonder if
the City can also partner with SVCE to provide items that will help vulnerable residents be more resilient to climate impacts, such as portable batteries to power medical devices, air filters, or cooling systems. Maybe these needs could be identified and addressed through block groups.
I am also curious if there are studies
quantifying the cost of climate inaction. This could perhaps contextualize and justify the costs of implementing the measures proposed in the CAP.
Screen Name Redacted
5/06/2022 02:06 AM
I feel that way because instead of making the place we live in sustainable, like having mixed-use neighborhoods, walkable cities, sustainable transportation, the plan only consists of the decision to replace gasoline fueled cars with electric cars to solve the issue of transportation. While electric cars are not bad in of itself, it is bad when it is the only option to get around Cupertino. Building cars and the infrastructure for all types of car causes a lot of pollution and uses up a lot of resources in general compared to public transportation and other more sustainable options. Car dependency is a problem in general, and should be avoided in order to mitigate climate change.
Screen Name Redacted
5/07/2022 12:30 AM
I am in favor of the items presented in the plan, but believe that the timeline is a bit long. Cities such as San Jose and Mountain View have shifted/are shifting to a 2030 carbon neutrality goal, to reflect the greater scientific consensus that we're nearly out of time before worse conditions occur.
For TR-1, I'd like to see more specificity on
how funding measures are pursued, as bike/ped projects have a tendency to be dormant in search of funding (while highway projects Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
12 of
26 manage to find money somehow) or stuck under constant community engagement.
For TR-2, it'd like to see the Via shuttle to eventually be incorporated within VTA, to reduce overhead and ensure greater fiscal reliability.
Screen Name Redacted
5/07/2022 08:09 AM
I am pleased with the climate action plan. However, cities like Menlo Park and San Jose are planning to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030.
I am sure that our city can do that as well.
Screen Name Redacted
5/09/2022 07:15 PM
I am definitely very glad to see the city that I grew up in take these measures to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040, exceeding state goals. The main reason I did not select "Very Happy" is because I'm not too sure about the mass behavioral changes that would need to happen to support some of these actions. For example, getting everyone to switch to electric cars and stoves can much more difficult than simply installing solar panels; I know my parents much prefer cooking on a gas stove. Still, I love seeing these proposed changes and definitely hope Cupertino can take on a leading role in reaching carbon neutrality!
Screen Name Redacted
5/10/2022 10:37 AM
You are accepting bad science as your starting point.
Keep housing
and commercial natural gas options for cost effectiveness and redundancy when electric power fails.
I also do not believe your low
GHG numbers associated with electric power.
You seem to burden
individuals and businesses with recycling improvements, when the only way to recycle more is to establish proper recycling facilities and make it far easier on the individuals and businesses.
Screen Name Redacted
5/10/2022 05:08 PM
I am very concerned about some parts of this document. I am very concerned about the measure tr-4 bike/ped section. This is table TR
4.1 limiting parking in construction, TR 4.4, TR 4.5, TR 4.6, TR 4.9.
This is talking about getting rid of parking minimums. This sounds like that bill where they are trying to get rid of parking minimums across the state by lena gonzalez. They should not be trying to limit parking for houses or office or shopping centers in this sustainability document. I am worried the public does not know this wording is in here. Also, TR2.4 Table 15 talks about having some sort of high capacity transportation on stevens creek blvd. The public has said they don't want that. Maybe more buses, but no fixed bus rape transit or bart or underground tunes on stevens creek blvd. Also, they should not take gas heating or services away from houses. All electric in houses is very costly.
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
13 of
26 Screen Name Redacted
5/11/2022 03:39 PM
our climate is a top priority
Screen Name Redacted
5/13/2022 02:15 PM
This way we reduce emissions and place the environment safe Screen Name Redacted
5/13/2022 04:34 PM
Happy that the city is taking steps. Would be very happy if we can do more on using the food waste to generate energy and reuse water from kitchen to irrigate the backyard plants etc. The soil quality is deteriorating so we need to take action there as well.
Screen Name Redacted
5/13/2022 04:45 PM
I appreciate the energy being devoted to educating our community.
Screen Name Redacted
5/13/2022 09:05 PM
There are some good actions, but more can be done.
Screen Name Redacted
5/14/2022 12:32 PM
Be more aware.
Screen Name Redacted
5/14/2022 05:15 PM
2. The encouragement of the use of alternate transportation does not make substantive changes to the current policies. On pages 74-77, it
lists a variety of items to encourage alternative transportation usage.
Unfortunately, these are all suggestions and subject to other priorities by the City Council and by Cupertino city staff. In other local cities, such as Fremont, they have made it municipal code that when a street has any kind of repair or change made to it, the street must then be evaluated for how it can be improved toward making it a ‘Complete Street’, in other words, safe and easily usable for all modes of transport. This is what should be in Cupertino’s plan.
Screen Name Redacted
5/14/2022 05:13 PM
Maybe there are just too many words in the plan. It’s hard to see what are the direct actions. Also I think we need to BAN plastic take out containers and cutlery like other communities have done. Marin county just banned them as well as many other communities in the Bay Area. Use of plastic must stop and it won’t happen without government action.
Screen Name Redacted
5/14/2022 05:25 PM
Two reasons: 1) Measure BE 2.4 presents an undue burden on renters throughout Cupertino--all renters, not just BMR housing renters (almost 40% of Cupertino residents are renters). Rental homes and apartments will not have the same access to solar panels (mostly free electricity) that single-family homeowners do, and Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
14 of
26 electrical appliances are much more expensive to run. With PG&E's delivery issues, including regular brownouts and blackouts, this ordinance means that renters will need to not only pay much more for power, but also will be more likely to have periods without heat, hot water, and be unable to cook any food. 2) In contrast, there are no specific municipal code measures in this document that truly encourage using alternative transportation, though transportation is a significantly higher contributor to greeenhouse gases. On pages 74- 77,
the plan lists a variety of items to encourage alternative transportation usage. Unfortunately, these are all suggestions and subject to other priorities by the City Council and by Cupertino city staff. In other local cities, such as Fremont, they have made it municipal code that when a street has any kind of repair or change made to it, the street must then be evaluated for how it can be improved toward making it a ‘Complete Street’, in other words, safe and easily usable for all modes of transport. This is what should be in Cupertino’s plan to actively make steps toward encouragement of alternative transportation.
Screen Name Redacted
5/14/2022 05:53 PM
The city and state should do as much as possible to get people to use public transportation and facilitate carpooling.
Also make it safer for
people bike to work, school and shop.
We have made a little
progress and
need to do a lot more.
Screen Name Redacted
5/14/2022 08:32 PM
Make page 97 in table C-T-1as a part of municipal code not just suggestions.
Screen Name Redacted
5/15/2022 12:44 AM
Zero emmisions: incentives and rebates for ZEV, charging plugpoint installation in residence, electric bike purchase Zero waste:(ch 10) incentive like monthly garbage pickup instead of weekly pickup at reduced monthly fee or $x rebate (to promote waste
reduction/generation)
Screen Name Redacted
5/15/2022 12:48 AM
Will have to see how ciry moves towards the goals. Goals are easy to set hard to reach.
Screen Name Redacted
5/15/2022 09:03 AM
Transportation is an outsized portion of Cupertino’s Carbon footprint, both in its use and in the infrastructure like pavement. This plan does not provide any binding resolutions about disincentivizing car travel while encouraging other modes of transportation. Council will still be able to delay and obstruct sensible improvements to non-vehicle transportation infrastructure. This document should require the city to start building for a future with less dependence on cars, and not just Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
15 of
26 pay lip service to the concept.
Screen Name Redacted
5/15/2022 01:18 PM
Transportation seems like a great idea. May be the residents get two free rides a week for some crucial tasks. Water is missing in this list.
Work towards recycled water for lawns. I feel each house should be able to self sustain this. Water needs to be added to the green effort Screen Name Redacted
5/15/2022 10:15 PM
I have some significant problems
with Table 14 regarding alternative
modes of transportation on pages 74-77.
For one, Cupertino needs to
come into the 21st century and come of with a "Complete Streets" plan--the currrent bike and pedestrian plans are outdated and prioritize the same projects differently.
The plans needs to include the
impact of the significant development at the old Vallco site (The Rising) to reduce auto use--the bike/ped plans currently do not address this area.
The alternative transportation portion needs some
real teeth to more strongly encourage people to walk, bike and take mass transportation--it has none.
On page 30, the chart shows that
60% of greenhouse gas emissions are from on-road transportation.
This should be a priority to reduce this source--there are nothing but suggestions which I guarantee will never change the high usage of the auto in Cupertino.
The document should strongly recommend the
codification of street infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians---similar to the ADA requirements which are triggered when a building owner works on a building.
This has greatly improved the lives of
handicapped individuals.
This part of the document
needs some teeth
in this area.
The world is at 420 ppm for Co2.
We don't have much
time left
Screen Name Redacted
5/16/2022 05:48 PM
I think that this is a comprehensive plan and is a good start to addressing environmental issues. The plan emphasizes a shift towards electric cars. However, electrical cars are only beneficial if they are supplied with renewable energy in contrast to receiving electricity generated from fossil fuels. It might be beneficial to have a subsidy program tied to the purchase of electric cars for solar panels to allow cars to be supplied from renewables.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:45 AM
We are big on reduced consumption + waste
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:45 AM
Love the bike improvement
Screen Name Redacted
I like that it addresses many areas, such as transportation, waste, Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
16 of
26 5/17/2022 08:46 AM
energy, etc.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:47 AM
Neutral
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:47 AM
We need to help prevent climate change
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:48 AM
More effective shared transportation and cycle routes are a good sign.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:48 AM
We really need to get more into environmental conservancy & implement sustainable practices if we are to survive as a society in the upcoming decades
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:48 AM
Bike lanes and compost is very important
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:49 AM
Very good plan for the future of our kids
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:50 AM
We need to teach people to read water meters so they can monitor water use. Block leaders should be more involved.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:50 AM
more bike lanes + carpool, improve transport. There should be more recycling & public bins, and programs to teach kids to recycle. Staff should come to schools to teach about recycling.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:51 AM
I would like to see more emphasis on mass public transportation like buses and trains. More emphasis on genuine shared economy infrastructure like lending tool libraries, repair workshops, upscaling, etc.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:45 AM
Cupertino should lead the way for similar communities-- and can afford to experiment.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:53 AM
seems all doable right away. One suggestion: Farmers Market should use either paper bags or reusable bags.
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
17 of
26 Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:54 AM
has a plan to get there
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:51 AM
Like to see efforts to reduce water usage, alternative transportation, and reduce fossil fuel usage
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:53 AM
Needs to be expanded, City Council has to be held responsible for the actions of the compete $ that funds them. Full disocclusion Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:55 AM
We do what we can to reduce, reuse, recycle, to do our part in keeping the planet safe. We have nature plants and use rinse water from our laundry in the garden. We hope this climate action plan will encourage everyone to protect everyone's lives and the environment.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:54 AM
I like composting, would like more green spaces.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:56 AM
Environment need to be saved. with the new proposal, hope we can save the earth.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:57 AM
Greener spaces. I am ready volunteer for planting seeds.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:56 AM
Compost is a good idea. The food can be recycles and used for plants to grow.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:55 AM
Plan is great but maybe too scattered, would prefer it more focused Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:57 AM
Would like to see accelerate planting new trees. Make it a priority! Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:58 AM
It is very important to save and preserve nature. I'm always up for increasing public transport that way we can reduce lot of pollution.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:58 AM
Incentives and disincentives are an effective approach. Helping share the cost of solar and electric vehicles is great too.
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
18 of
26 Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:58 AM
grey water, EV adoption
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 09:00 AM
More carpool lanes, bike lanes
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:59 AM
I would like more trees in my community
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:59 AM
Plastic free, compost bin in community.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 09:00 AM
Solar is a very cool in my opinion. Support clean energy Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 09:02 AM
Support climate action
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 09:04 AM
I hope we can make change faster. Good work but just hoping we can reach goals faster.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 09:05 AM
Will be interesting to learn about the plans for Memorial Park. No information has been provided and no consultation has happened as far as I know.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:57 AM
It's important to change minds & hearts of people to make a long term impact.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 09:08 AM
We do not need fossil fuel. we have corn ethanol fuel available which is sustainable and cleaner. Also hydrogen power technology. More recycling from garbage systems. Reduce fossil fuel plastics from being manufactured. Birds (seagulls) trained to pick up cigarette filters from rewarding with food important because of microfibers breaking down into the environment.
Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 08:46 AM
Avoid using plastic bags. Mandate cloth bags and reusables Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 09:11 AM
Pro conservation and anything that elevates the pressures on the environment
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
19 of
26 Screen Name Redacted
5/17/2022 09:12 AM
I think climate concerns are one of the most important things we need to address. I am happy to do what I can to help create a better world for all of us & the future.
Optional question
(98 response(s), 11 skipped)
Question type:
Essay Question
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
20 of
26 Q3
Would you be willing to provide your demographic information? 79 (76.0%)
79 (76.0%)
25 (24.0%)
25 (24.0%)
Yes No
Question options
Optional question
(104 response(s), 5 skipped)
Question type:
Radio Button Question
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
21 of
26 Q4
My relationship to Cupertino is... (select all that apply) I live in Cupertino I work in Cupertino I go to school in Cupertino I visit Cupertino Other (please specify) Question options
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
46 7
6 23
10 Optional question
(77 response(s), 32 skipped)
Question type:
Checkbox Question
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
22 of
26 Q5
Which of the following best represents your race/ethnicity? Asian - Asian Indian Asian - Chinese Asian - Other Hispanic or Latinx White or Caucasian Other (please specify) Black or African American Native American or Indian Question options
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
18 16
7 2
34 4
Optional question
(74 response(s), 35 skipped)
Question type:
Checkbox Question
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
23 of
26 Q6
What do you estimate your household income to be?
23 (31.5%)
23 (31.5%)
2 (2.7%)
2 (2.7%)
13 (17.8%)
13 (17.8%)
14 (19.2%)
14 (19.2%)
5 (6.8%)
5 (6.8%)
16 (21.9%)
16 (21.9%)
I prefer not to say Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $174,999 $175,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more Question options
Optional question
(73 response(s), 36 skipped)
Question type:
Radio Button Question
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
24 of
26 Q7
What is your age?
8 (10.5%)
8 (10.5%)
16 (21.1%)
16 (21.1%)
19 (25.0%)
19 (25.0%)
17 (22.4%)
17 (22.4%)
16 (21.1%)
16 (21.1%)
18 or under 19-35 36-50 51-64 65 or older
Question options
Optional question
(76 response(s), 33 skipped)
Question type:
Radio Button Question
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
25 of
26 Q8
Gender
33 (44.0%)
33 (44.0%)
38 (50.7%)
38 (50.7%)
2 (2.7%)
2 (2.7%)
2 (2.7%)
2 (2.7%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Male Female Non binary Prefer not to say Other (please specify) Question options
Optional question
(75 response(s), 34 skipped)
Question type:
Radio Button Question
Climate Action Plan Draft Survey
: Survey Report for
11 April 2022
to
17 May 2022
Page
26 of
26