1 Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0
Stakeholder Engagement Workshop #3 Summary
May 2 & 3, 2022 | 3:00 – 5:00 pm | Zoom
Contents
Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 Meeting Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 Agenda Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 3 CAP 2.0 Overview and Q&A ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 3 Question & Answer ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 Discussion of CAP Mitigation Measures and Actions ................................ ................................ ........................ 3 Cleaning the Air – Renewable Energy and Electrification ................................ ................................ .............. 4 Question & Answer & Chat Comments................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4 Connecting Communities – Transportation, Land Use ................................ ................................ .................. 7 Question & Answer & Chat Comments................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 7 Getting to Zero Waste ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 9 Question & Answer & Chat Comments................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 9 Working with Nature ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 Question & Answer & Chat Comments................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 9 Adaptation and Resilience ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 10 Question & Answer & Chat Comments................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 Conclusion & Next Steps ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 10 Question & Answer & Chat Comments................................ ................................ ................................ ... 11 Demographic Polling ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 11
Background
Cupertino is currently near the end of its Climate Action Plan update planning process. To date, the City has conducted a greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis, identified ambitious climate action goals, and engaged with community and stakeholder groups to help develop and refine mitigation measures and actions.
The purpose of this meeting is to continue fostering and nurturing relationships with key partners and stakeholders—especially those who provide critical perspectives (e.g., community-based organizations,
2 marginalized communities, faith-based organizations)—and to create space for their voices in the process and leverage their expertise.
Meeting Objectives
• Review the draft Climate Action Plan and its associated mitigation measures and actions. • Gather ideas, priorities, and concerns on the proposed mitigation measures and actions.
Agenda Overview
Time Item
15 min Introduction
15 min CAP Overview Presentation and Q&A
75 min Discussion of CAP Mitigation Measures and
Actions
10 min Conclusion and Next Steps
Participants
Workshop Participants
Name Affiliation
Lisa Talbott Recology Cupertino - Waste Zero Specialist Michael Strahs Kimco Realty/Cupertino Village Shopping Center Shyam “Sean” Panchal First Maganson Holdings, Inc.
Ursula Syrova City of Cupertino (Environmental Programs) Amy Dao BAAQMD
Dashiell Leeds Sierra Club
Jennifer Shearin Resident of Cupertino, Walk-Bike Cupertino Board Member Emily Alvarez Program Manager for StopWaste
Micqi Scott Future Cupertino resident
Rick Kitson Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Rebecca Tolentino Apple Inc.
Hoi Poon Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action Parent
Gwyn Azar Student Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
Priya Vytla Apple Inc.
Alan Leventhal Muwekma Ohlone Tribal Archaeologist and Ethnohistorian
Project Staff
Name Affiliation
Andre Duurvoort City of Cupertino
Victoria Morin City of Cupertino
Rina Horie City of Cupertino
Karen Chen City of Cupertino
Mike Chang Cascadia Consulting Group
3 Introduction
City staff and the consultant team provided a brief introduction of the CAP project team and welcomed all the participants to the stakeholder meeting. City staff provided an overview of the meeting’s agenda and goals.
As an icebreaker at the beginning of the workshop, participants were asked to share their name, organization, and favorite summer activity in the Zoom chat. Below are the answers to the favorite summer activity icebreaker question.
• Open water swimming
• Family trip to Montana
• Sitting on our back porch with the fans on with our puppies • High Sierra hiking/swimming in rivers and lakes
• Ride my bike to our local library!
• Summer camping
• Road bike, mountain bike, motorcycle, and camping!
• Trips to the ocean—but just to walk and enjoy, not swim • Hiking, going to the beach, and outdoor parks
CAP 2.0 Overview and Q&A
City staff presented an overview of the CAP 2.0, the climate action planning process, the City’s progress so far, and how previous feedback has been integrated. City staff reminded participants of the emissions reduction targets and the largest emissions sources and reviewed the five sectors addressed in the CAP 2.0.
Question & Answer
Question Answer
Was there input to this plan from organizations
that are focused on equity? I can see that
eliminating any use of natural gas will be very
expensive for those living in apartments or rental
homes (40% of Cupertino) that cannot use solar
power, as they are at the mercy of their landlords
and PG&E.
Andre will address this question during Energy Section
in the presentation.
Discussion of CAP Mitigation Measures and Actions
After the initial presentation by City staff, the meeting focused on proposed mitigation measures and actions in each of the five CAP focus areas. City staff presented on mitigation measures and actions and then asked participants, “What questions do you have?” and “What other considerations or changes would you like to see to increase your support?” Meeting participants shared questions and comments verbally and in the Zoom chat. At the end of each focus area section, participants were asked to respond to a Zoom poll, which asked, “On a scale of 1–5, how supportive are you of these measures and actions?”
4 Cleaning the Air – Renewable Energy and Electrification Question & Answer & Chat Comments
Question/Comment Answer
What considerations have been given to the lack
of reliable infrastructure that PG&E has in our
state? Especially in the summer, the entire state is
subject to power cuts and brownouts. Will we be
exacerbating this issue as we are increasing the
load?
PG&E came to a few of our public meetings and let us
know that there’s no immediate issues with electric
capacity in Cupertino, but we are still subject to public safety power shutoffs. This remains a challenge. The
CAP 2.0 does not have a clear answer, but it says that
before we adopt ordinance, we will perform public
outreach to study these actions prior to developing an
ordinance. We do not want to require someone to
electrify their AC unless we’re confident they’ll be
able to use their appliances. All electric homes are
safer, but how do we support this infrastructure? We
don’t have clear answers, but we’ll seek those
answers out.
By requiring new buildings to be "All Electric", are
we including exceptions for commercial
restaurants, who need gas service for cooking
certain cuisines where electric and induction
heating sources aren't suitable replacements?
The existing ordinance provides exemptions for
essential services and institutions like hospitals and
emergency services. Another exemption is available
for certain types of cuisine. The burden is on the
applicant (the person who is building out new
building) to communicate when there is no feasible
alternative. This is built into our ordinance today.
Are the Energy Measures evaluated based on
their economic costs?
Yes, we are including economic evaluations with each
measure.
Also, does this mean if a home is renovated, then
will that home need to be modified to be
electrical-only?
With Measure BE-2, we think the rule will be based on
some kind of point in time or milestone in a building’s lifespan. Some examples we’ve seen in neighboring
jurisdictions is the development of a rule that requires you to electrify that appliance when it dies or to set a date (by this date, we’re going to have all appliances
in the building to be electric); or encourage by
promoting/incentivizing electrification. Later this
summer, we have a budget request to conduct the
study and creating our approach for electrifying
existing buildings. As these progress from adoption to
implementation, that’s how we would proceed. We
will get into the details, ask the public what works for them, and we’ll put that together as a proposal for
City Council.
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, excited to see
the measures, one thing I’d love to see is explicit
When we get into the details of creating that
ordinance, we will develop that specific framework
5 Question/Comment Answer
mention potentially adding renter protection
ordinances (exists in SJ draft plan); framework for
equity probably has that but should be explicitly
written that those programs are on the table and
studied by the city. Otherwise, I need to digest
adjustments to GHG targets, some metrics have
changes from simple percentage to specific. I will
have more comments on that in the future.
(economic activity, disadvantaged communities, offset
those communities and comply with ordinances).
Regarding the GHG emissions – we did modify our
inventory (Appendices B and C). We came up with a
pathway to the goal (the goal is the same), but we
need to revise at around the 5 year mark, when the
technology is available to get us to that 2040 date.
This is a similar approach to other Cities such as San
Jose.
How would the city work with ABAG power to
encourage market development of natural gas
alternatives?
ABAG POWER is a unique publicly owned energy
purchasing organization. They are in a unique position
to take on this task and let us know if there are
market alternatives. We’d like to explore if biofuels or renewable natural gas are possible as a way to reduce
emissions while we also pursue electrification. . The
organization just released an RFP out for natural gas
alternatives that also help all 40 purchasing member
agencies comply with the California Short-Lived
Climate Pollutants Act, or SB 1383.
Model ordinances Andre, you’ll be looking at –
what’s going to be very important is models are
great, reality always wins. We’re very supportive
of the process, but must see where the models
come from and where they are adopted to the
extent possible. We want to see how the wheel is
moving along, not trying to invent the wheel.
San Jose, Menlo Park and 100 EU cities set goal
for 100% carbon neutral by 2030. Any reason why
Cupertino going for 2040, 10 years behind?
Thank you. Menlo Park in SJ (difficult to aim
aggressive goals) and they’ve already passed 2030
carbon neutral. Why does Cupertino not go for
that? My household is achieving 100% carbon
neutral. We believe we’ll get CN in 2 years;
Cupertino families have resources. What I’ve
heard from students, neighbors are lack of EV
chargers, SVCE (program this year to address
issue). Why aren’t you aiming for a higher goal?
This is an important question because many cities and
companies are making bold climate action plans. The
difference between the Menlo Park plan and the
Cupertino CAP 2.0 is that ours is designed to meet the
stringent guidelines for CEQA qualification. That
means the Cupertino CAP 2.0 includes a detailed
calculation for each measure which shows how we
meet the target to reduce emissions. Aligning the CAP
with CEQA is one policy in Cupertino’s General Plan
that directs us to incorporate sustainability into all
future projects.
It is important to note that Cupertino is free to make
additional statements or proclamations such as
carbon-free by 2030. These statements serve an
6 Question/Comment Answer
important purpose as a signal, but they just will not
be usable for CEQA streamlining purposes.
Resources coming in from State, let’s tap into
those resources/funding.
We can justify this approach to any funding agency
(federal and state) and show them our numbers to get
funding for pilot programs. Therefore, it is important
we take a rigorous analysis. I will look at SJ’s
methodology and study.
Getting to carbon neutral by 2030 is unfortunately
not likely to be feasible. The useful life of hot
water heaters and HVAC are more than 10 years,
so unless we are able to stop all new installs today
they will still exist in 2030. I support being
aggressive but acknowledging the current state of
the market. Hopefully we will get there before
2040 but a lot has to change before we can get to
market saturation of electric appliances. Also
happy to see energy efficiency still acknowledged
in partnership with electrification as it is critical to do both.
Thank you for this comment. Energy efficiency must
remain the first policy step because it reduces
resource demand and cost of decarbonization.
It may not be known, but Cupertino is 40%
renters that do not have the ability to install solar
panels on their home. The vast majority live in
market-rate apartments and homes, and will bear
the burden of purchasing all their electricity at
market rates from PG&E.
Thank you for this comment. We designed these
measures to be responsive to the high number of
renters, elders, and others who may be at risk of
higher energy burden. This is an important
consideration of our Equity pillar .
7 As a follow-up, one person identified the following context for their “I do not support answer”:
▪ To follow up to that comment, I would support BE-1, BE-3, BE-4, and BE-5. I have great concerns about requiring replacement appliances to be electric and any changes made to an existing structure also require going completely to electricity.
Connecting Communities – Transportation, Land Use
Question & Answer & Chat Comments
Question/Comment Answer
How does slowing down traffic with slow streets
reduce emissions?
Without slow streets, many people won’t use bikes or
other “active” transportation. It’s just too dangerous.
Cities such as San Jose, Menlo Park, flagstaff AZ,
Ithaca NY have set the goal, we can look at cities
for best practices. Ithaca already working on
implementation, 2030 is 8 years away. Hoi P.,
additional comment: New EV models are already
cheaper than combustion with federal and state
rebates, and can go 300 miles. Hoi P., additional
Comment: Technology is already there and will
get better. Low income communities get extra
rebates, can buy used EV for free.
How can measure TR-1 have “teeth”? Right now,
whether any infrastructure projects out of the
city Bicycle and city Pedestrian Plans are at the
mercy of whether individual council members are
supportive. *whether they are implemented is at
the mercy of whether the individual council
members are supportive.
I don’t have a perfect answer, but I will acknowledge
that all these actions are subject to public feedback,
budget constraints, and whatever the City Council
identifies as priorities. The CAP raises it up to say it is a priority of the community, we have robust
calculations that it's an effective thing to do, and we have a good plan of action addressing multiple pillars
of action to get it implemented. None of this is
guaranteed unless we can make the case to City
Council when the project gets started. That’s the
normal public process we have to go through for all of
these. It won’t be easy, but we think that by putting it in the CAP and showing all of your support, when staff
bring it to the Sustainability Commission, the
Commission can reiterate that it’s an important action
item for the City to take. We rely on that feedback at
our milestones as well as your continued participation
at public hearings and at budget sessions.
Seattle, WA and Riverside, CA both recently
implemented an ordinance that any street that is
touched—even for minor repairs/maintenance—
must have a Complete Streets plan to allow for
safe and easy car, bike and pedestrian traffic.
Why can’t we have that as part of our plan?
How were e-bikes and bike sharing considered in
developing plan measures?
We will be bringing this back to City Council. Several
years ago, “shared scooters and short term bike
rentals” were not what we wanted see in Cupertino,
8 Question/Comment Answer
Additional comments:
▪ Scooters would be great!
▪ I agree— would love more options for
rental!
but we want to re-visit that. We think micro-mobility
solutions will be an important part of this plan.
Public transit elements of the plan, TR-2 as it
relates to connecting to other cities throughout
the Bay, creating better more efficient network,
talking to someone at school about it (public
transit doesn’t work because it takes so long), the
bus would take too long. In relation to partnering
with nearby cities, regarding public transit
beyond Via Shuttle.
This is a massive challenge. We do say in the CAP that
we want to continue to partner with VTA (our
regional transit agency) as one of the partnership
actions we have. We want to move forward to try
things out. Via shuttle is a perfect example of that.
Once that’s established and serving folks, Measure
TR-2 talks about expanding upon those pilot
programs. We’re working with the City of San Jose to
get grants and expand services into San Jose with the
Via Shuttle. We see there is a need to continue
partnering with VTA, but also a need to try different
things through pilot programs.
I’m concerned that slow streets won’t be well
received by the community when it seems to boil
down at least in part to intentionally making
traffic worse to advantage alternative modes of
transportation. Complete Streets sounds better
than Slow Streets.
Thank you for this comment. We want to explore pilot
streets and see what the data tells us about how it
affects everyday life and commerce in the City.
9 Getting to Zero Waste
Question & Answer & Chat Comments
Question/Comment Answer
The headline language of W-2 seems to suggest
that recycling and composting should be reduced
which doesn’t seem to be what is intended.
We will amend this to make this clearer .
Working with Nature
Question & Answer & Chat Comments
Question/Comment Answer
Kudos to the City for doing an amazing job in this
area. I think something that can be done to speed
up effort is engage youths and partner with
school districts. I see parents and a lot of people
are interested in lawn conversions. I think if
there’s a way to set up – youth program where
the students can be engaged, perhaps work with
nonprofits and get them trained and send them
out for implementation. Educate residents
(retired folks) who want their lawn more
interesting, but they might not have the
knowledge. Add workshops for different groups.
People are already there on the subject matter.
There are fees with changes to landscaping, so
whether it is providing direct support to residents or
whole HOAs, we’re in the process of figuring out the
best way to accelerate that. We are finishing up the
pilot program now.
There are a lot of great ideas in this category.
Additional comments:
▪ Yes, the victory garden is an awesome
idea.
10 Adaptation and Resilience
Question & Answer & Chat Comments
No questions asked.
Conclusion & Next Steps
City and consultant staff reviewed key themes from the discussion and discussed next steps with public review and finalizing the CAP. Staff reviewed upcoming dates, including the close of the online survey, Sustainability Commission voting on CAP 2.0, City Council study session, and City Council adoption. At the end of the meeting, participants were given the choice to answer optional demographic questions.
11 Question & Answer & Chat Comments
Question Answer
How long does the survey take? Rick- The survey is only 2 questions about Climate Action. There are a few optional demographic
questions. The length of time depends on how much
detail you want to add in the open-ended question.
All questions are optional.
Demographic Polling
1. Which of the following best represents your race/ethnicity? Please select all that apply.
Race Number of Participants Percentage
White or Caucasian 5/9 56%
Other 3/9 33%
Asian or Asian American 1/9 11%
Latino, Latina, or Latinx 0/9 0%
Middle Eastern, North
African, or Arab American
0/9 0%
Black or African American 0/9 0%
Native American, American
Indian, or Alaska Native
0/9 0%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander
0/9 0%
Prefer not to say 0/9 0%
2. What is your gender identity?
Gender Identity Number of Participants Percentage
Man 4/9 44%
Woman 4/9 44%
Other 1/9 11%
Non-binary/non-conforming 0/24 0%
Prefer not to say 0/24 0%
3. What is your age?
Age Number of Participants Percentage
Under 18 1/9 11%
18–24 0/9 0%
25–34 2/9 22%
12 Age Number of Participants Percentage
35–44 1/9 11%
45–54 4/9 44%
55–64 0/9 0%
65–74 0/9 0%
75+ 0/9 0%
Prefer not to say 1/9 11%