CAP Mitigation Measures and Actions Polls
For each of the following measures, we asked the following questions:
1. What challenges or barriers do you see for yourself that will prevent you from making this change? For your family? For your neighbors?
347
CC 08-16-2022
347 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 5 2. What would be needed for you to make this change?
3. What are the equity considerations? Who would benefit? Who would be harmed? Measure 1. Half of Cupertino buildings are completely electric What challenges
or barriers do you
see for yourself
that will prevent
you from making
this change? For
your family? For
your neighbors?
(24 responses)
Theme: Costs to retrofit are too expensive which creates equity issues. § Upfront cost of heat pump system and installation
§ High cost of retrofitting older home to be energy efficient, especially considering with high cost of electricity associated with operation of heat pump § Cost is intimidating and possibly prohibitive
§ The overall costs of making such changes
§ It is way to expensive to run all-electric compared to gas. Electricity is very expensive in CA.
The current electric grid is not robust enough for this change (brownouts, blackouts, etc.) This would be a regressive “tax”
§ Gas is economical. Electric is a monopoly and a risk to put all eggs in one basket § Reasonable cost for solar power storage systems
§ Costs of retrofit. Inability to increase insulation to adequate level in 1060 house. Being stiffed by contractors. Operating costs will be 2-5 times higher than gas § For my family, largely monetary, as well as out home isn’t well equipped (what my parents say, it’s an older home) as well as perceptions that gas appliances are better/more reliable § We had to replace our gas water heater last year, it was cheaper to replace it with a gas one.
We did not have the power outlets set up for an electric water heater, and it would have costed more to operate
§ Home is all electric, no gas. The equity concern I see is that electricity is more expensive than gas, which I’m okay with because I plan to install solar soon. I think it will be a challenge for my family/neighbors to redo their heating and kitchens to accommodate Theme: Renters have limited agency to transition to electric. § For me, I’m a renter so I don’t have too much to say on this; for my family: Finding contractors with experience and expertise in electrification work, trust that this is a worthy ROI; for neighbors 0 finance issues, even with heat pump waivers, we should provide or partner with orgs to provide financing mechanisms / tools § Incentivize landlords to install electric appliances
§ 40% are owned by landlords, need to incentivize landlords. no return on rental units I own Theme: Need for better education on electrification and list of resources. § When asked to make changes, it would be good to have recommendations on what to change to. Right now, it seems you must do a lot of research and then there is always a cost factor
§ The City should streamline the permitting process since. Lack of education of relatives who don’t know about electrification could also be a barrier to adoption § I don't understand how much more I'll be paying to heat my house with a heat pump as compared to natural gas.
348
CC 08-16-2022
348 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 6 Theme: Installation and enforcement of building electrification is a challenge. § Can’t get anyone to install it
§ It’ll be hard to enforce this
Other comments
§ A mandate for appliance electrification when appliances fail is an essential measure to reduce GHGs. Menlo Park and Half Moon Bay are useful examples for equity programs that are paired with these programs (both cities are exploring these programs). § I think that instead of 50% all electric we should be targeting 95% on Heat Pumps. This is because gas furnaces are the primary users of natural gas. § Love everything about this, though I wish the goal was 100%! § How can we encourage more residents to start using solar energy - any incentives or schemes to make solar installations attractive?
What would be
needed for you to
make this
change?
(15 responses)
Theme: Need for better education and a list of resources/City approved list of contractors.
§ City-approved list of contractors and set pricing for the changes that need to be made (i.e., converting gas range to electric)
§ A variety of resources and / or a city or local gov’t program I can direct my landlord to in order to make this change happen
§ List of reputable contractors who can retrofit homes/rebates § City to provide education for folks to determine how to make a 1960 house up to date for all electric at reasonable cost
§ City partnering with companies, step by step instructions/options to make the change § Knowing what appliances are reliable and whose installation rates are fair Theme: Desire for lower costs, financial incentives and streamlined permitting processes.
§ Monetary incentives, consultations, streamlines resources/information § We need electricity to be cheaper than gas, and we need incentives to replace our gas water heater and gas stove. Our gas stove is still working well, and we don’t feel the need to replace it
§ Streamlined City permitting process. Effective rebates and cost assistance for low-income renters. (Consider a fully funded low-income program for folks on bill assistance). Education for contractors and residents. Ensuring that pricing Is fair. Partnerships with other jurisdictions and organizations involved in electrification. Clear communication to City residents that Cupertino will be transitioning away from gas § Ongoing financial payments to cover the extra cost of running these appliances, plus improvements to the current electrical grid. I don’t know how Cupertino would fix the grid § Reducing cost by the city contracting with vendors for bargain lower pricing 349
CC 08-16-2022
349 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 7 § Increasing electrical service (increased panel size, etc.) to cover electric appliances, furnace, etc., can be very expensive. How will you pay for that and not force the property owner to pay for something they don’t want or want to pay for? Have you done any studies on those costs for homeowners who are ‘maxed out’ on their panel? PG&E will tell you a five-digit number in a lot of cases.
Other themes
§ Plant more trees, cities with trees are much cooler as compared with ones with less trees § My circuit breaker panel is maxed out. It has to be replaced. § Data about a set of homes that made the change, and what the costs and benefits were.
What are the
equity
considerations?
Who would
benefit? Who
would be
harmed?
(15 responses)
Theme: Transition to electric introduces a huge cost burden, particularly to low-income community members.
§ Renters are typically lower income; they will be helped if they pay lower electric bill when solar is installed on a rental building
§ Upfront costs and time costs of renovations. Outreach and education around the benefits, particularly for health
§ Lower-income folks might not be able to afford retrofits, and renters might not be able to convince their landlords
§ Equity for low-income residents to implement such all electric housing § These changes would be a huge burden on lower-income residents and renters in Cupertino (renters have no choice in what landlords choose for appliances). Running all-electric is much more expensive. The benefits would largely accrue to wealthy long-term homeowners § City can provide grants or provide loans/installment plants for low-income homeowners § Electricity is more expensive and less reliable than gas (especially during brownout times).
However, if less people are using gas, will PG&E be on the § Increasing the cost to electrically retrofit a house or apartment adds costs passed onto the consumer. You are going to increase the cost for housing for tenants and owners. Who is going to pay for that when a senior homeowner can’t afford that, and a new resident must pay the extra cost to live in Cupertino?
§ Landlord will have to increase rents – how to we offset that? How can we focus out State to get serious about reducing the delivery cost of electricity? § Hook to maintain gas lines. It would be a tragedy if half of Cupertino is all electric, but San Bruno-type event happens anyways
§ Grants, loans
§ Equity for low-income renters to implement such electric housing Offset increased rents by landlords
Theme: Many will benefit from climate action.
§ Everyone will benefit when global warming stops increasing 350
CC 08-16-2022
350 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 8 § Lower income residents will greatly benefit from improved indoor air quality. Low-income homeowners could potentially be harmed if there are no equity programs to support them (both financially and with education)
Theme: Corporations should take responsibility.
§ Corporations should take such projects
§ Corps should take on such projects
Other themes
§ Consultation about the highest impact change I can make.
Measure 2. Most of your everyday trips are by public transport, walking, biking, scootering, or wheelchair. Shift away from single-occupancy passenger vehicles What challenges
or barriers do you
see for yourself
that will prevent
you from making
this change? For
your family? For
your neighbors?
(11 responses)
Theme: Congestion fee is inequitable for commuters.
§ Can’t control when we get off work. it will be during peak hours and that is not equitable § For those who commute in, there are negative equity implications with a congestion fee § Charging a fee for vehicles during peak congestion seems hard to implement. § Negative connotations around fee for congestion – can’t control work hours; seems inequitable.
Theme: Biking and walking can be dangerous and inconvenient. § Difficult to safely walk and bike in the business areas of Cupertino § Safety and access to bicycle and pedestrian corridors § The reason I don't use my bike more is that I can't carry shopping bags on my bike. § Safety around biking in business areas
Other themes
§ None
§ Already have made this change and have eliminated gasoline automobile § In Copenhagen they have 3 lanes: one for cars, one for buses, and one for bikes. Because there is only one lane for cars it is very slow, so everyone bikes or uses the bus.
What would be
needed for you to
make this
change?
(7 responses)
Theme: Desire for more accessible and improved bike, pedestrian, and public transit infrastructure and education.
§ Higher frequency for public transit services
§ We would need much better bike/ped infrastructure than we have right now to bike more.
Off-street trails and paths are desperately needed
§ Having longer operating hours for flexible public transit like the Via Shuttle § Education for kids and teens on rules of the road, higher frequency public transit, safer roads for biking
351
CC 08-16-2022
351 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 9 § Shaded bus stops would be nice to
Other themes
§ Why doesn’t Cupertino conform to the state’s standards so you can compare and be accountable?
§ Less traffic on streets where there is biking activities What are the
equity
considerations?
Who would
benefit? Who
would be
harmed?
(13 responses)
Theme: Older, disabled and those without access to cars will be negatively impacted. § Reducing SOV would harm older populations or those that are disabled. I know many older people in Cupertino who care about the environment but would not be able to replace driving with biking
§ Those without a car are disproportionately affected by public transit route closures or reductions
Theme: A congestion fee will negatively impact commuters, particularly those who are low-income.
§ Equity consideration- people who must drive home at a certain hour can’t miss peak congestion
§ Everyone would benefit from improved bike/ped infrastructure to increase biking and walking (health benefits, increased neighbor interaction, and reduction in GHG). A congestion charge wouldn’t really help anyone. There has to be the ability to bike and walk safely and easily first before we can mandate anything. § Congestion taxes will proportionally hurt those with lower incomes who rely on a car for multiple jobs, or just commuting into Cupertino for work or school unless they are given stipends or alternative options
§ Yes! Let's remove parking requirements! I have worries about the equity implications of congestion fees, though I support them in theory and for myself and residents. If you are considering that fee as a policy, would you include any policy exceptions or dividends for those who commute into our city for work; particularly services workers, or even students going to DeAnza?
§ Everyone would benefit from improved bike/ped infrastructure to increase biking and walking (health benefits, increased neighbor interaction, and reduction in GHG). A congestion charge wouldn’t really help anyone. There has to be the ability to bike and walk safely and easily first before we can mandate anything
§ I am athletic enough to bike 20-30 miles and potentially more on electric bikes. The hard part for me is that If I really wanted to be safe, I would have to stop at every red light which could be up to 3 minutes and stay within 14 miles per hour. Under certain conditions, I can easily get to 25 mph, but the roads are just not safe enough to bike that fast at many places.
Additionally, the thieves are very creative, and they find ways to steal bicycles with $100 locks, or they just remove the wheel or other parts.
352
CC 08-16-2022
352 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 10 Other themes
§ Paying for parking would not impact low-income people if all the parking fees were distributed to low-income people.
§ The answer to this question depends on how the solution is designed, paid for, and implemented.
§ Frankly I see many low-income folks already biking around. Charging for parking would really affect them
§ Those who believe in efforts would benefits. Those who don’t will be inconvenienced § Everyone who breathes will benefit
Measure 3. When you do drive, you use an electric vehicle.
What challenges
or barriers do you
see for yourself
that will prevent
you from making
this change? For
your family? For
your neighbors?
(18 responses)
Theme: Electric vehicles are expensive, and range limited. § Can’t afford it. Need a car that will travel 600 miles on one charge. § Cost is the largest barrier, in terms of vehicle ownership. I do not think outreach is sufficient – the federal or state programs need to be improved, or else we’ll never drive down costs to a <30k amount
§ Current vehicle runs reliably, so there is no pressing need to switch § Current electric vehicles do not have the range for longer-distance trips, and the US doesn’t have the infrastructure yet for this. Switching will be expensive vs. buying a used car. I’m also not sold yet that the batteries—which go to a landfill—aren’t more a negative hit to the environment than gas
§ Can’t afford it – cost largest barriers
§ I have an EV, but I am scared to take it on road trips § Some people have to drive long distances and the feeling of “getting stuck” in areas that don’t have charging stations available
§ None, own and EV car and EV bike already. For many, the cost just has to come down for the cars and PGE rates need to come down—too high compared to rest of country Theme: Anxiety over lack of charging infrastructure.
§ Charging anxiety
§ Not enough EV charging stations and also people who hog whatever available charging stations for long periods of time
§ Not enough charging stations
Theme: No personal urgency to upgrade to EV.
§ I just bought a hybrid vehicle in 2019 and don’t see a need to upgrade/replace for many years. We do NOT need more chargers in shopping centers taking up parking spaces, people can charge at home.
353
CC 08-16-2022
353 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 11 § Current car is good, don’t need to upgrade
Other themes
§ What is the cost to the city for charging stations? (Such as the one at the library) § Outreach is not sufficient
§ Aren’t the batteries that go to landfills negative for environment? § No problem for me, a single-family homeowner. The city needs to provide more EV charging for apartment dwellers. Range is NOT a problem for local use. We need to realize that ALL need to change our cars if we are going to save the planet for us. THINK AHEAD! § Cost benefits for low user of vehicles
What would be
needed for you to
make this
change?
(16 responses)
Theme: Desire for more charging stations around the City. § Having more charging stations that work for all EVs, not just for one brand § More EV charging in multi-tenant complexes. Cheaper and more reliable electricity § Require all gas stations to have EV chargers
Theme: Support for more reliable and cost friendly EVs. § An EV charger at my complex, a longer-range vehicle, and it to be cost effective § Longer range batteries
§ A plug-in hybrid with 100 miles range on battery would be great § Lower costs
§ Longer-range vehicles. More infrastructure for charging (and quicker charging). Batteries that can be recycled. Lower cost electric vehicles.
§ Batteries that can be recycled
Theme: Want for convenient car sharing programs.
§ Convenient care share program
§ I don’t want to own a car, so a convenient car sharing program, alongside infrastructure and public transit improvements
Other themes
§ Possible trade in incentives
§ I’ve had an EV for years and believe they meet the needs for most Bay Area residents. § Gas stations in gas stations and MFDs
§ Nothing—already there
§ Already comply with small EV for local use. From other answers we see people are just not understanding the danger we are in
What are the
equity
considerations?
Who would
Theme: Challenge for apartment dwellers to charge EVs.
§ We would all benefit from improved air quality
§ Easy for people in single family homes to install chargers but not for apartment dwellers 354
CC 08-16-2022
354 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 12 benefit? Who
would be
harmed?
(13 responses)
§ Lower income people could benefit with subsidized charging § Need to better inform low-income folks about the current help and incentives for EV vehicles.
We need an ongoing public education program, maybe on city channel § Electric vehicles are more expensive than gas, especially compared to used vehicles. They do not last as long, as batteries need replacing after 10 years—this is very expensive to change.
This would a large burden on many families and lower-income residents, especially if they need a larger vehicle. Renters have trouble getting charging spots. Benefits are for homeowners.
§ Outside of cost, we are harmed by continuing to invest in car-centric infrastructure, albeit cleaner cars. This still doesn’t help safety concerns from accidents, and just alternatives to owning a car entirely
§ Need tiny one to two people electronic vehicle
§ Improve air quality would benefit all
§ An alternative to electric cars is high speed trains like Europe. This would be better for lowincome people. § Not easy for MFD to install chargers
§ Subsidized charging – would benefit low-income folks
§ I personally would enjoy driving piston engine manual transmission cars. A solution to this is alternative fuels like hydrogen methanol and ethanol. Additionally, if we share cars, it would be unclear who would be responsible for cleaning or maintenance. Our country has not standardized EV charger plugs and there are 4 types of plugs and not all work with every car.
A promising solution for range and charging time is the Solid State Battery that is being developed by some manufactures including Toyota. If this is successful, cost would be the only problem left to solve to adopt Electric vehicles. Car sharing would benefit people who cannot afford to take on the full cost of operating a car, or do not need a car every day. For people who drive frequently, having their own car will be easier. § If there was a price on carbon, and the fees collected were distributed to all citizens, then poor people would come out ahead because they don't use much carbon Measure 4. You are creating less waste in the landfill.
What challenges
or barriers do you
see for yourself
that will prevent
you from making
this change? For
your family? For
your neighbors?
(17 responses)
Theme: It’s hard to avoid packaged materials.
§ So challenging to purchase our favorite snacks in bulk. Everything is packaged in single servings. With the pandemic, we can’t bring our own drink containers to purchase our drink in
§ Hard to avoid single use plastics
§ Biggest problem is the wide use of plastic in consumer goods—hard to avoid § Overpackaged groceries
355
CC 08-16-2022
355 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 13 Theme: There are limited incentives to use reusable products and waste less. § There is no personal incentive to switch to a reusable product § There are no incentives for anyone to produce less waste § No incentives to produce less waste
Theme: Repair programs can be time inefficient.
§ Someone might not be able to wait for a repair clinic event to fix a phone § Might not be able to wait for repair clinic to use a phone Other themes
§ Need to know what can be recycled versus not
§ These ideas seem pretty doable for most residents, using our current waste collection system. They are also all ‘encouragement’ ideas, instead of negative (taking something away, or charging more)
§ As long as the city communicates these programs well, and provides guidance on waste disposal, I don’t see an issue with many of these programs. If it is not already a requirement, we could just consider a ban on single-use plastics for business (since it is harder to coerce private behavior)
§ These are all good ideas. Has anyone taken a look at up cycling items taken out of the waste stream, repairing them and selling them to help defer then § This is the elephant in the room, we all do our part and then large companies burn fossil or biofuels on a continuous basis wiping out all our reductions then they claim they are carbon neutral and hide behind privacy. This does not make sense, I would like to know when § Upcycling and taking items out of the waste stream
§ I'm sorry but it is very difficult to find anyone capable, and interested in, repairing stuff § None
What would be
needed for you to
make this
change?
(11 responses)
Theme: City action to reduce plastic packaging.
§ City action to prevent single use plastics at our city restaurants and shops § Packaging is an issue—everything comes in plastic containers or bags! § City action to prevent single use plastics
Theme: Better education on the waste stream and what is / isn’t recyclable. § It seems impossible to educate everyone about proper sorting when there are so many different products out there. Start with more education § More education on what can be recycled and how the items are recycles. Education should start at elementary schools so that the children can teach their parents § Ensuring consistent and proper waste receptacles for residents, requirements for businesses (compostable requirements), education for residents
§ Seems impossible to educate everyone about proper sorting 356
CC 08-16-2022
356 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 14 Theme: Restructure collection rates to be based on household waste generation. § Charge households based on the amount of waste they create. Mandate diaper collection services like Earthbaby for new parents and provide incentives. More composting classes and discounts on composters.
§ Charge households based on amount of waste they create Other themes
§ Require restaurants to use paper or aluminum clam shells only, compostable clamshells are not compostable
§ Products are not currently designed to be repairable. They used to be. We would have to insist that products are repairable.
What are the
equity
considerations?
Who would
benefit? Who
would be
harmed?
(11 responses)
Theme: Small restaurants and businesses that rely on single use material will experience higher costs and challenges.
§ Small restaurant owners, food trucks, etc. that rely on plastic takeout containers to provide their food to consumers likely to incur a higher cost when plastics are banned. Consumers should be understanding of this!
§ Small restaurants and food trucks that rely on plastics Theme: Residents who share waste bins will be punished if waste is sorted incorrectly. § People who share waste bins would be harmed if others sorted incorrectly. People who can’t afford higher trash bills would be harmed if prices increased § Those who share waste bins could be harmed if things are sorted incorrectly Other themes
§ None
§ Everyone benefits from creating less waste. Always good to learn to purchase what you need and will use to create less waste
§ This seems a net good. I can only think that maybe it would take a bit longer for people to sort more effectively and fix things themselves
§ I see overuse of large, bottled water containers by day workers. They think our tap water is not sate – if isn’t in their home country. Could we encourage the use of large water thermos jugs for contractors for employers?
§ If there are increased service fees due to these changes, then there would be issues for lower-income residents. But better wase management benefits the rest of the world, especially for areas like Indonesia (where much of our poor recycling and wase goes to be burned today)!
§ If disposing of stuff is too hard, people will throw it out the window. § Seems like a net good
357
CC 08-16-2022
357 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 15 2030 Vision
After discussing each of the four climate mitigation measures, the City reminded participants about what life will be like in 2030. Following this, we asked the following two questions to the participants.
Think about the
vision for “what
does 2030 look
like for
Cupertino”, what
are the barriers
you see as a
whole for this
type of collective
transition?
(8 responses)
§ Tech is not affordable enough
§ Aim to provide less waste not just divert
§ I don't see barriers. I think it would be a different lifestyle, but better. § Too expensive to operate all electric
§ like the vision just need more guidance and accessibility to resources § Perceived in convenience of lifestyle shift
§ Highly unlikely to happen for us as renters
§ Biking is easy and quick. It is very easy to go somewhere within a 50-mile radius without a car. There are no creative thieves stealing our bicycles. There are industry standards for everything making spare parts and repairs easy. Technology works in unison with us to improve our lives. Destinations in the city are easily accessible.
What is
missing/what
other ideas do
you have?
(5 responses)
§ Maximize water resources
§ Cupertino needs to pressure State and Fed govt representatives to help us make this change. § Alt fuel sources; banning Fuel Cell
§ We need to focus on the biggest contributors to global warming first. § One thing that is missing is that the city should be a place where we enjoy being outside.
Whenever I visit places like the Collins Elementary School Garden, I wish that the entire city was just as beautiful. Many cities are just covered in lawn and pavement, and it does not feel welcoming.
Questions and Answers throughout the webinar
Questions and answers have been edited for clarity and grammar.
Question Answer
Apple`s Bloom Energy Fuel Cells increased our
GHG usage significantly, are we considering not
permitting new natural gas fuel cell permits?
Hi Dino, this is an important consideration. We're working with Apple to make sure the emissions from those fuel cells are being accounted for correctly. They source the gas used from a biogenic source (landfill) that is considered carbon-neutral in their Sustainability report.
Hi Dino, right now our building code allows for gas used for generators and fuel cells, and for research and development or other uses with no electric alternative.
You mention more bike Lanes— where would
the funding come from?
A lot of actions implemented with Bike Pedestrian Plan; looking for alternative funding sources if we want to accelerate that master plan. Some of these ways are looking at fees for road use, different 358
CC 08-16-2022
358 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 16 Question Answer
road improvements. We also have the gas tax; looking at more actions like that. If we want to propose a particular action, a study and coordination is required; important to get those actions into the CAP to help determine priority of action and how to implement (coordinate, conduct study, etc).
Electricity demand: How does the City/large
utilities plan to meet that demand?
All electric proposed has been proposed statewide; easier to decarbonize at the big utility scale, but we’ll need to look at the consumer level too. There are issues of electric grid reliability but meeting needs/capacity is not an issue currently. One of the best solutions is a combination of big scale solar, thermal, and wind and combine that with big battery storage actions. Also focusing on more home energy actions – need both (large scale and at home) to be more resilient. We need all the above.
Waste: What is the most common type of
waste in the landfill? And how can we reduce
single use plastics?
Food waste. There is an active study in the city to help reduce plastic use. Can direct folks to that.
The number one item that could be diverted from the landfill is food waste. Cupertino residents, businesses, and apartments all have access to a green curbside waste bin. This material gets composted and reduces methane gas in the atmosphere.
How can we encourage more
biking/walking/public transit?
Bike Pedestrian Plan has a lot of great ideas for improving and increasing these alternative options. We’ll talk more about that shortly.
Do you have an estimate of the cost of the
electricity I will have to buy in 2030? 30cents
per KWh is just too high!
Hi John, we can acknowledge that energy prices are probably going to see increased volatility in the near future as our utilities adjust to a new mix of fuels, and as we deal with improving resiliency. Gas will not be immune to this volatility either, as we are seeing today in Europe. I will say looking to the past, Californians may have higher rates but also lower bills overall due to a good building energy code.
That trend may indicate some solutions to this difficult challenge.
Also, good news is that more renewables promise to lower this volatility over time as the fuel becomes "free."
Our REACH codes only affect new construction -
are there any actions to incentive the adoption
of heat pumps, electrification generally in
housing turnover (like re-sales, renovations,
etc.)? Similarly, are there programs aimed at
landlords in order to serve renters interested in
electrification for public safety / climate
reasons?
This is an important consideration. We would consider actions such as requiring retrofits at re-sale or major renovation. Addressing the landlord-tenant relationship is going to need some creative solutions and perhaps incentives for the property owner.
How can we encourage more residents to start
using solar energy - any incentives or schemes
to make solar installations attractive?
Yes, we are working with Silicon Valley Clean Energy to promote and support their programs to promote solar energy and battery storage. Check out their website:
https://www.svcleanenergy.org/clean-electricity/#solar-battery. 359
CC 08-16-2022
359 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 17 Question Answer
What can we do to encourage more "reuse"
among residents - like more frequent events
like the garage sale OR some new type of
events where people can exchange goods that
can be reused
Great question! We will talk about waste in just a minute. two big changes we are looking at include hosting fix it clinics/repair clinics to reuse electronics and appliances and reusable diapers. We are already working on reusable food ware ordinance.
Again, there is NO bike/ped plan as keeps being
stated. There are separate bike and ped plans,
of which the bike plan has expired.
Thanks for that clarification. Yes, they are separate plans and can be found here: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/publicworks/transportation-mobility/bicycle-and-pedestrian-travel.
Our lowest income and fixed income residents
cannot afford to switch to all electric vehicles,
electric appliances, etc. How do you plan to
help those folks who are most impacted
financially by these changes?
Thank you for raising this, Mark. Part of the Climate Action Plan update process will be creating actions to support low-income and vulnerable populations to make the switch.
This was not answered in the previous
workshop, but is there any consideration to tie
some of the CAP goals to tangible goals around
housing (say, a definitive number of unit
additions), in particular higher density and
more affordable housing? This seems
particularly relevant for reducing VMT, driving
electrification, and other sustainability goals
(esp. considering multi-family housing on
average has the lowest emissions of any
housing type, reducing indoor air pollution,
etc.)
Hi Sean, indeed dense infill housing has been shown to be particularly effective to reduce VMT. The Housing Element update is just kicking off and these CAP measures will be shared with that process.
Increasing electrical service (increased panel
size, etc.) to cover electric appliances, furnace,
etc., can be very expensive. How will you pay
for that and not force the property owner to
pay for something they don’t want or want to
pay for? Have you done any studies on those
costs for homeowners who are ‘maxed out’ on
their panel? PG&E will tell you a five-digit
number in a lot of cases.
Hi Mark, this is an important comment. We have studies locally looking at the challenges to cost as well as the current shortage of labor that makes this a difficult project for most homeowners today.
What we've found is that in new construction, there is cost savings.
But for retrofitting older homes, there needs to be more incentives, workforce training, and other things to stimulate the market. We've also seen ways that a typical 100A service can accommodate allelectric, but not every electrician is well-versed in the technology to do so.
Increasing the cost to electrically retrofit a
house or apartment adds costs passed onto the
consumer. You are going to increase the cost for
housing for tenants and owners. Who is going
to pay for that when a senior homeowner can’t
afford that, and a new resident has to pay the
extra cost to live in Cupertino?
Hi Mark, thank you for this comment. We want to promote policies that are cost-effective and lower the energy burden for tenants.
The initial cost of solar takes years to break
even. Who pays for that to benefit lower
income utility users?
Hi Mark, this is an important equity consideration. We like to promote some of the existing efforts from groups like Grid Alternatives, which uses donor money and volunteer labor to install solar and batteries for income-qualified customers.
360
CC 08-16-2022
360 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 18 Question Answer
Why do you need ‘sticks’ to implement your
plan. It should be entirely voluntary and agreed
to by most taxpayers/homeowners/property
owners.
Hi Mark, the Cupertino City Council would like us to bring them a plan that considers all options to reach a more aggressive target than the State of California has set.
Yes! Let's remove parking requirements! I have
worries about the equity implications of
congestion fees, though I support them in
theory and for myself and residents. If you are
considering that fee as a policy, would you
include any policy exceptions or dividends for
those who commute into our city for work;
particularly services workers, or even students
going to DeAnza?
Hi Sean, any policy exceptions to a congestion fee would be explored via a public process, as well as looking at other cities' best practices. Thank you for these examples to consider!
Be specific about the ‘donor money.’ Where
does that come from? Money isn’t free. The
same for volunteer labor. Who are the
‘volunteers.?
Hi Mark, in general we would like to encourage programs that benefit economic activity locally, show that our programs have a positive ROI, as well as seeking out grants from foundations, nonprofits, and the federal and State government to offset any general funds needed.
Unanswered questions § What prices are you expecting EV car purchasers to voluntarily pay for a new car and to discard their old vehicle?
§ Where does Cupertino have large events that would require an additional event wase management company?
§ Phones for Seniors can be $30 or less. A new microwave is $99 on Amazon. How would he staff time, location, and cost be comparable?
§ Has the city (in conjunction with other ABAG cities) done any studies on the grid load now versus doubling electric vehicles and all electric heating systems?
§ OK I will also call them! Can I count on you to follow through? Additional comments § Eliminate gas operated city vehicles § I don't think it is right to require all new cars to be electric when there is a possibility that there will be cars powered by carbon neutral fuels like Hydrogen, Ethanol, or Methanol
§ Incentivize landlords to install non natural gas appliances § Stop issuing permits for Bloom Energy Fuel Cells
§ There should be walk only zones like in Sunnyvale and Mountain View, starting with City center
§ Give specific repairable electronics.
361
CC 08-16-2022
361 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary 19 35-44
5%
65-74
15%
25-34
20%
75+
20%
55-64
15%
45-54
10%
Under 18
10%
Prefer not to say
5%
Age
Participant Demographics
20 (50%) of 40 participants responded to the demographic survey questions.
Race/Ethnicity
Most respondents (50%) were White or Caucasian.
Race/Ethnicity # %
Asian or Asian American 7 35%
White or Caucasian 10 50%
Asian of Asian American;
Latino, Latina, or Latinx
1 5%
White or Caucasian;
Asian or Asian American
1 5%
Prefer not to say 1 5%
Age
Majority of respondents (40%) were either 25-35 or over 75 years old.
Age # %
Under 18 2 10%
25-34 4 20%
35-44 1 5%
45-54 2 10%
55-64 3 15%
65-74 3 15%
75+ 4 20%
Prefer not to say 1 5%
Gender
Majority of respondents were men (50%).
Gender # %
Woman 9 45%
Man 10 50%
Prefer not to say 1 5%
Asian or Asian
American
35%
White or
Caucasian
50%
Asian or Asian
American;
Latino, Latina, or
Latinx
5%
White or
Caucasian; Asian
or Asian
American
5%
Prefer not to say
5%
Race/Ethnicity
Man
Woman 50%
45%
Prefer not to say
5%
Gender
362
CC 08-16-2022
362 of 1555
1 Cupertino Climate Action Plan Results from the Community Survey #2 The Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update provides a roadmap for the City of Cupertino and its citizens to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve their climate goals with community solutions and individual actions.
The City of Cupertino is updating the CAP Update to better meet the needs and goals of the community.
As part of this process, we asked Cupertino’s community to complete a survey to identify concerns and support for different measures and actions of the CAP Update.
This survey was open from September 30th to October 25th, 2021. The survey was offered in English and Traditional Chinese. Anyone could take the survey on cupertino.org/climateaction webpage.
Contents
Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Demographic Results................................................................................................................................... 2 Survey Results.............................................................................................................................................. 3 Buildings................................................................................................................................................... 3 Transportation ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Waste....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Water....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Healthy Ecosystems............................................................................................................................... 11 Resilience & Adaptation......................................................................................................................... 13 Municipal Buildings & Operations ......................................................................................................... 15 Summary
In total, we received 50 responses. Some additional demographic information about the survey respondents is provided below:
• Majority of respondents own their home (28 of 42 responses, 67%) • Half of respondents are White/Caucasian, and 42% of respondents are Asian or Asian American • Most respondents (88%) would like to be involved in the Cupertino CAP planning process (35 of 40 responses)
363
CC 08-16-2022
363 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 2 Less than
$50k, 12%
$50k–$99k
15%
$100k–$124k
9%
$125k–
$149k
12%
$150k–$174k
18%
$175k–$199k
9%
More than
$200k
25%
Demographic Results
Race and Ethnicity (n = 38)
White or Caucasian 19
Asian or Asian American 16
Asian – Indian 3
Asian – Chinese 11
Asian – Other 2
Hispanic, Latino, or Latinx 1
Black or African American 0
Other 2
Age (n = 42)
18 or under 2
19-44 16
45-64 14
65 years or older 10
Estimated Household Income (n = 33)
Less than $50,000 4
$50,000 to $99,999 5
$100,000 to $124,999 3
$125,000 to $149,999 4
$150,000 to $174,999 6
$175,000 to $199,999 3
More than $200,000 8
18 or under
5%
19-44 years
38%
45-64 years
33%
65 years
or older
24%
White or
Caucasian
50%
Asian or Asian
American
42%
Hispanic, Latino,
or Latinx
3%
Other
5%
364
CC 08-16-2022
364 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 3 Survey Results
The figures below highlight the overall support or opposition for measures and actions asked about in the survey. In each section, we also summarize open-ended responses. The figures and summaries do not include an interpretation of the results.
Buildings
We asked respondents to indicate their level of support for four specific actions related to buildings.
Of the four actions, “streamline permit process and waive fees for electric heat pump retrofits” had the highest level of support (71% of respondents indicated a high level of support, and 96% indicated high or medium levels of support).
Respondents were then asked, “In general, what is your level of support for these measures and actions?” Overall, the majority of respondents (73%) support these measures and actions. 11 8
8 2
14 10
13 11
20 27
23 32
0 10 20 30 40 50
Require all home appliances and HVAC systems to be
all-electric at the time of replacement, a major
renovation, or if the home is sold
Require water heating and space heating equipment
in commercial buildings to be all-electric at the time
of replacement or a major renovation
Require some types of buildings to replace existing
gas appliances with electric appliances by 2025
Streamline permit process and waive fees for electric
heat pump retrofits
Low (I have major concerns)
Medium (I have some concerns but generally support)
High (I have no concerns and strongly support)
365
CC 08-16-2022
365 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 4 We asked respondents, “Why do you support or oppose the above actions?” (n = 35). Below are some key findings and themes:
ü Cupertino can be a leader in climate action
ü Support for aggressive action now
ü Concern about costs
ü Concern that the electrical grid cannot
handle more electric appliances
ü Concern about inability to cook during
power outages with electric stoves
ü Preference for functionality of gas
appliances
We also asked respondents, “Are there any additional actions not listed here that you recommend adding related to buildings and energy?” (n = 24). We summarized the main recommendations below:
ü Include equity protections for appliance
replacement mandates
ü Incentivize homeowners to switch to
electric appliances (via rebates or subsidies)
ü Do not allow gas installation for restaurants
and laundromats
ü Install solar on all buildings
ü Educate homeowners about retrofitting
ü Install heat pump water heaters in all City
buildings
ü Require EV charging stations at all new
residential buildings
ü Reduce urban heat island effect by painting
roofs white and installing skylights
20 13
5 5
2 0 5 10 15 20 25
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
Strongly oppose
Number of Responses
366
CC 08-16-2022
366 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 5 Transportation
Respondents were asked about their level of support for six specific actions related to transportation.
The first action, charging a fee for vehicles during peak congestion times, received the least support (57% of respondents indicated their support was “low”). Conducting a pilot program that designated streets specifically for bikes received the most support (84% of respondents indicated their support level as “medium” or “high”).
We then asked respondents, “In general, what is your level of support for these measures and actions?” 57% of respondents support these measures and actions, and 30% indicated a “neutral” level of support.
24 10
9 7
16 13
11 13
16 15
11 14
7 21
17 23
18 17
0 10 20 30 40 50
Charge a fee for vehicles during peak congestion
times, in certain high-traffic zones
Fund new public transit, bike lanes, and transit
programs with new taxes or fees, such as a Road
User Charge or fee for ridesharing services
Partner with an e-bike or e-scooter company to
promote these transit options in commercial areas.
Adopt ordinances to manage this new transit option
Conduct a pilot program that designates streets
specifically for bikes
Allow developers to build housing without off-street
parking if the project is close to frequent transit
service
Conduct a study on how to price public parking
spaces based on supply and demand
Low (I have major concerns)
Medium (I have some concerns but generally support)
High (I have no concerns and strongly support)
367
CC 08-16-2022
367 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 6 We asked respondents, “Why do you support or oppose the above actions?” (n = 32). Below are some key findings and themes:
ü Support for safely walkable and bikeable
communities for climate, community
wellbeing, pollution, and noise
ü Support for carpooling and public
transportation incentives
ü Support for more bike infrastructure
(protected bike lanes)
ü Concern about public transit safety during
COVID-19
ü Concern about impact on low-income
households
ü Concern about cost and feasibility of actions
ü Concern about congestion tax being
regressive
ü Concern about punitive actions (support for
incentives instead)
ü Concern about safety of biking
ü Concern about e-bikes and e-scooters
We also asked respondents, “Are there any additional actions not listed here that you recommend adding related to transportation?” (n = 21). We summarized the main recommendations below:
ü Incentivize public transportation
(employers)
ü Improve public transportation access in
neighborhoods and make it free for children
and elderly
ü Support pollinator/native plant corridors
along bike/pedestrian corridors
ü Support safer walking and biking to school
ü Reduce and enforce speed limits (for safer
walking)
ü Provide EV charging stations at all buildings
ü Convert all City vehicles to EV
11 15
14 5
1 0 5 10 15 20
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
Strongly oppose
Number of Responses
368
CC 08-16-2022
368 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 7 Waste
We asked respondents about their level of support for six specific actions related to waste management.
We then asked respondents, “In general, what is your level of support for these measures and actions?” Most respondents (80%) support these measures and actions. 2 12
5 5
8 3
15 8
10 12
10 7
28 24
31 28
25 34
0 10 20 30 40 50
Send garbage waste to a recovery facility to save
metal, glass, paper, and plastic that were incorrectly
sorted. This would reduce landfill waste by up to 30%
and increase trash bills
Look in residential waste carts when they are placed
at the curb and leave notes to improve waste sorting
Host repair or fix-it clinics to help residents repair
items that would otherwise go to landfill
Require contractors to deconstruct and rehome
materials (e.g., saving cabinets, fixtures, or wood
during building demolition)
Develop a program to encourage reusable diaper
collection services
Require large events to hire an event waste
management company to ensure proper waste
diversion
Low (I have major concerns)
Medium (I have some concerns but generally support)
High (I have no concerns and strongly support)
369
CC 08-16-2022
369 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 8 We asked respondents, “Why do you support or oppose the above actions?” (n = 23). We summarized some main findings and themes below:
ü Waste reduction benefits community
ü Support for education and competition
among neighborhoods
ü Support for awareness about
overconsumption
ü Not a top priority for climate action
ü Concern about sufficient community
participation, privacy, and cost
ü Concern about recycled items not actually
being recycled
We asked respondents, “Are there any additional actions not listed here that you recommend adding related to waste reduction or reuse?” (n = 17). Some key recommendations are summarized below:
ü Educate the public on recycling guidelines
ü Ban plastic bags, plastic utensils, and straws
in businesses and restaurants
ü Ban single-use plastic bottles at large events
ü Monitor compost and recycling bins at large
events
ü Consider creation of upcycle/resell shop
(job creation and waste diversion)
ü Penalize businesses and individuals that
produce more waste
ü Require materials recycling for building
renovations
ü Focus on food waste and composting
solutions
19 18
4 2
1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
Strongly oppose
Number of Responses
370
CC 08-16-2022
370 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 9 Water
We asked respondents about their level of support for three specific actions related to water.
All three actions received high levels of support from respondents. We then asked, “In general, what is your level of support for these measures and actions?” Almost all respondents (96%) support these measures and actions.
We asked respondents, “Why do you support or oppose the above actions?” (n = 23) and summarized key findings and themes below:
ü Support for water conservation and
associated energy savings
ü Support for water conservation because of
climate-induced drought
ü Concern about landscape watering
ü Concern about building unnecessary
infrastructure
1 1
1 8
7 8
38 38
38 0 10 20 30 40 50
Require new development to use less water, i.e.
require dual-plumbing systems that use graywater
from sinks and laundry for irrigation
Invest in new water meters that allow facilities
managers to more easily pinpoint leaks
Increase green stormwater infrastructure such as rain
gardens to absorb more intense rainfall
Low (I have major concerns)
Medium (I have some concerns but generally support)
High (I have no concerns and strongly support)
31 12
1 1
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
Strongly oppose
Number of Responses
371
CC 08-16-2022
371 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 10 We also asked respondents, “Are there any additional actions not listed here that you recommend adding related to water?” (n = 18). Some of the main recommendations are summarized below:
ü Remove lawns from all City, commercial,
and residential buildings
ü Encourage drought-tolerant and native
plant landscaping
ü Provide information on rain gardens, design
and installation, and rain barrels
ü Encourage and incentivize low-flow fixtures,
rainwater storage, covering swimming
pools, etc.
ü Penalize companies and homeowners that
use more water
ü Provide Wi-Fi-connected meters that
citizens can check on phones and
computers
372
CC 08-16-2022
372 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 11 Healthy Ecosystems
We asked respondents about their level of support for two specific actions related parks, green spaces, and healthy ecosystems.
We then asked respondents, “In general, what is your level of support for these measures and actions?” Most respondents (87%) support these measures and actions.
We asked respondents, “Why do you support or oppose the above actions?” (n = 24). Below are some summarized findings and themes:
ü Support for prioritizing low-income
communities
ü Support for green space for community
health and wellbeing
ü Support for protecting biodiversity and
enhancing ecosystems
ü Support for planting trees in parking strips
ü Concern that impact is too low; priority
needs to be emissions reduction
We asked respondents, “Are there any additional actions not listed here that you recommend adding related to healthy ecosystems?” (n = 17). We summarized some of the main recommendations below:
2 1
11 8
34 37
0 10 20 30 40 50
Study new ways that Cupertino can manage parks or
other open spaces to capture more carbon and store
it in soils and plants
Prioritize planting more trees in low-income housing
areas, areas with bus stops, and areas with less tree
coverage
Low (I have major concerns)
Medium (I have some concerns but generally support)
High (I have no concerns and strongly support)
33 6
5 1
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
Strongly oppose
Number of Responses
373
CC 08-16-2022
373 of 1555
12 ü Replace certain tree species with droughttolerant and native trees ü Plant trees in parking strips
ü Create a community garden
ü Protect pollinators (remove bee traps, plant
monarch habitat)
ü Provide free arborist services to community
ü Remove lawns at City buildings
ü Set goal in CAP for 80% native species of
new planted trees
374
CC 08-16-2022
374 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 13 Resilience & Adaptation
We asked respondents about their level of support for four specific actions related to climate adaptation and resilience.
We then asked respondents, “In general, what is your level of support for these measures and actions?” Most respondents (82%) support these measures and actions.
We asked respondents, “Why do you support or oppose the above actions?” (n = 22) and summarized the key findings and themes below:
5 5
2 1
24 15
10 13
16 24
33 31
0 10 20 30 40 50
Require property owners to use high-quality air
filtration or HVAC systems to protect residents from
wildfire smoke and air pollutants
Invest resources and funds for City buildings to
withstand future climate change hazards, such as
flooding, heat waves, and wildfires
Provide more parks and recreation services in areas
with large proportion of renters, low-income areas,
and in communities of color
Ensure emergency shelters, community facilities, and
schools have proper supplies, equipment, and medical
supplies in case of a climate-induced emergency such
as extreme heat, flooding, or loss of power
Low (I have major concerns)
Medium (I have some concerns but generally support)
High (I have no concerns and strongly support)
19 17
5 3
0 0 5 10 15 20
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
Strongly oppose
Number of Responses
375
CC 08-16-2022
375 of 1555
14 ü Support for keeping people safe
ü Support for community preparedness
ü Efforts should be concentrated on
emissions reduction
ü Concern about cost
We also asked respondents, “Are there any additional actions not listed here that you recommend adding related to adaptation and resiliency?” (n = 9). Some recommendations are summarized below:
ü Provide cooling centers during extreme
heat
ü Give subsidies for home air filtration
ü Implement nature-based solutions
ü Create green spaces and plant trees on all
City property
ü Incentivize and build solar panels
ü Establish accurate and accessible air quality
monitors throughout the city
376
CC 08-16-2022
376 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 15 Municipal Buildings & Operations
We asked respondents about their level of support for five specific actions related to municipal buildings and operations.
Installing solar panels in parking lots at City facilities received the highest support, with 98% of respondents indicating medium or high levels of support.
We then asked respondents, “In general, what is your level of support for these measures and actions?” Most respondents (89%) support these measures and actions. 3 2
1 2
3 13
6 5
13 14
27 36
40 30
29 0 10 20 30 40 50
Invest funds in a municipal building decarbonization
plan to ensure City buildings are all electric
Invest in battery microgrids at critical facilities, which can keep the lights on without using diesel fuel
Install solar panels in parking lots at Quinlan
Community Center, the Library, and other City
facilities
Provide resources to create a plan and replace all City vehicles to electric vehicles
Require partners, such as Recology (waste trucks) and
VIA (shuttles), to switch to zero-emissions vehicles
Low (I have major concerns)
Medium (I have some concerns but generally support)
High (I have no concerns and strongly support)
26 15
3 1
1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Strongly support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
Strongly oppose
Number of Responses
377
CC 08-16-2022
377 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #2 Results 16 We asked respondents, “Why do you support or oppose the above actions?” (n = 25). Some key findings and themes are summarized below:
ü Support for City leadership and example
setting in municipal decarbonization
ü Support for solar energy
ü Support for microgrids
ü Concern about cost
ü Concern about capacity of the electrical grid
We also asked respondents, “Are there any additional actions not listed here that you recommend adding related to municipal buildings or operations?” (n = 13). We have summarized some of the main recommendations below:
ü Install solar panels in open paved spaces
(parking lots)
ü Incentivize solar installation
ü Use vehicles until end of life before
switching to EVs
ü Provide EV charging stations at City
buildings
ü Discourage City cars and trucks idling when
parked
ü Provide City shuttle for neighborhood
transportation
378
CC 08-16-2022
378 of 1555
1 Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0
Stakeholder Engagement Workshop #3 Summary
May 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...................................................................................................................................... 8 Question & Answer & Chat Comments........................................................................................................ 8 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, 379
CC 08-16-2022
379 of 1555
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 Waste Zero Specialist for Cupertino
Michael Strahs Kimco Realty/Cupertino Village Shopping Center Shyam “Sean” Panchal First Maganson Holdings, Inc.
Ursula Syrova Ursula Syrova
Amy Dao BAAQMD
Dashiell Leeds
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
Hoi Poon
Gwyn Azar Student
Priya Vytla
Project Staff
Name Affiliation
Andre Duuvoort City of Cupertino
Victoria Morin City of Cupertino
Rina Horie City of Cupertino
Karen Chen City of Cupertino
Mike Chang Cascadia Consulting Group
380
CC 08-16-2022
380 of 1555
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?” 381
CC 08-16-2022
381 of 1555
4 Cleaning the Air – Renewable Energy and Electrification Question & Answer & Chat Comments
Question 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?
Short answer: PG&E came to a few of our public
meetings and let us know, there’s no immediate issues
with electric capacity in Cupertino, but we are subject to power shut offs (during high temp/protecting from
wildfires) so this is a typical challenge. CAP 2.0 does not have a clear answer, but says 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?
Existing ordinance (exemptions are available like
hospitals, emergency services) anther is an exemption
for certain types of cuisine; applicant (person who is
building out new building) burden is on them to say
“hey I looked with my designer, there’s no alternative
to this, I can’t comply with this measure because
there’s no feasible alternative” So 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?
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.
382
CC 08-16-2022
382 of 1555
5 Question Answer
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, excited to see
the measures, one thing I’d love to se is explicit
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.
Andre: When we get into the details of creating that
ordinance, we will develop that specific framework
(economic activity, DAC, offset those communities and
comply with ordinances). GHG emissions – we did
modify our inventory (appendix B/C), we came up
with a pathway to the goal (the goal is the same), but
we need to revise sooner (5 years time) when the tech
is available to get us to that 2040 date.
How would the city work with ABAG power to
encourage market development of natural gas
alternatives?
Andre: We are already under the way, authorized
ABAG power to institute and power – we think you’re
in a unique position as an org who sells us gas, take on this task – are there market alternatives? Biofuels,
renewable natural gas, go out and see if that is
possible with ABAG Power. That’s what we’re
currently under way with.
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?
Andre: Went to City Council to develop technical
work, vision was emphasis on equity and message
“we don’t want to displace residents” we recognize
that there are high-income residents, but also lowincome residents/fixed income residents. Qualified CEQA GHG reduction plan is something our GP
requires us to do. With those combined, we sided on
the err of what is feasible, truly evidence to support
these measures today. We don’t rely on the future.
This is why we weren’t confident we could put
together a specific date that is justified according to the rule and guidelines of CA. That doesn’t mean we
won’t get to that message from City Council. We may
need to go back and see if there are measures/actions
we need to accelerate. We have come up with good
framework, but we acknowledge to revise the plan.
Hopefully we have the economic, and technology to
advance us.
383
CC 08-16-2022
383 of 1555
6 Question Answer
Resources coming in from State, let’s tap into
those resources/funding.
Andre: We can justify this approach to any funding
agency (federal state) and show them our numbers, to
get funding for pilot programs. This is why it’s
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.
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.
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.
384
CC 08-16-2022
384 of 1555
7 Connecting Communities – Transportation, Land Use
Question & Answer & Chat Comments
Question 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.
Andre: 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. CAP raises it up to say it is a priority of the community, we have
robust calculations that its an effective thing to do,
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 putting it in the CAP with all of your support, our staff and community
will bring it out to the commission and reiterate that
it’s an important action item for the City to take. We
rely on those feedback at our milestones.
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?
Additional comments:
§ Scooters would be great!
§ I agree— would love more options for
rental!
Andre: Bringing this back to city council, several years ago ‘shared scooters/short term bike rentals’ not
what we see in Cupertino, but we want to re-visit
that. They are going to be a huge 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
Andre: Massive challenge, we do say in the CAP we
want to continue to partner with VTA (as transit
agency for the region) partnership action we have.
We want to move forward to try things out. Via
385
CC 08-16-2022
385 of 1555
8 Question Answer
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.
shuttle is a perfectly example of that. Once that’s
established and serving folks we wanted to serve,
measure TR-2 talks about expanding upon those pilot
programs. We’re working with City of SJ to get
grants/expand services into the City of SJ with the Via Shuttle. We see there is a need to continue partnering
with VTA, but also a need to try different things (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.
Getting to Zero Waste
Question & Answer & Chat Comments
Question 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.
386
CC 08-16-2022
386 of 1555
9 Working with Nature
Question & Answer & Chat Comments
Question 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.
Andre: There are fees with changes to landscaping, so
whether it is providing direct support to resident or
whole HOA, 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.
387
CC 08-16-2022
387 of 1555
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. 388
CC 08-16-2022
388 of 1555
11 Question & Answer & Chat Comments
Question Answer
How long does the survey take? Tori: 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%
389
CC 08-16-2022
389 of 1555
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%
390
CC 08-16-2022
390 of 1555
Engagement Summary
Report
23 July 2021 - 17 May 2022
Climate Action Plan 2.0
Cupertino.org/ClimateAction
Highlights
TOTAL
VISITS
2.5 k
MAX VISITORS
PER DAY
54 ENGAGED
VISITORS
277
INFORMED
VISITORS
720
AWARE
VISITORS
1.5 k
Webpage Visitors Summary
Pageviews Visitors Visits
1 Sep '21 1 Jan '22 1 May '22
250
500
750
1000
391
CC 08-16-2022
391 of 1555
Engage Cupertino : Summary Report for 23 July 2021 to 17 May 2022
PARTICIPANT SUMMARY
ENGAGED
INFORMED
AWARE
277 ENGAGED PARTICIPANTS
000
18 124 120
000
006
013
43 3
Registered Unverified Anonymous
Contributed on Forums
Participated in Surveys
Contributed to Newsfeeds
Participated in Quick Polls
Asked Questions
Contributed to Ideas
* A single engaged participant can perform multiple actions Climate Action Plan Update - CAP 2.0 … 277 (18.5%)
(%)
* Calculated as a percentage of total visits to the Project
ENGAGED
INFORMED
AWARE
720 INFORMED PARTICIPANTS
50 178
148
419
277
Participants
Viewed a video
Downloaded a document
Visited the Key Dates page
Visited Multiple Project Pages
Contributed to a tool (engaged)
* A single informed participant can perform multiple actions Climate Action Plan Update - CAP 2.0 … 720 (48.1%)
(%)
* Calculated as a percentage of total visits to the Project
ENGAGED
INFORMED
AWARE
1,498 AWARE PARTICIPANTS
1,498
Participants
Visited at least one Page
* Aware user could have also performed an Informed or Engaged Action Climate Action Plan Update - CAP 2.0 … 1,498
* Total list of unique visitors to the project
CC 08-16-2022
392 of 1555
SURVEYS SUMMARY TOP 3 SURVEYS BASED ON CONTRIBUTORS
NEWSFEEDS SUMMARY TOP 3 NEWSFEEDS BASED ON VISITORS
QUICK POLLS SUMMARY 72348,&.32//6%$6('21&2175,%87256 Q & A SUMMARY TOP 3 Q & A BASED ON CONTRIBUTORS
Engage Cupertino : Summary Report for 23 July 2021 to 17 May 2022
ENGAGEMENT TOOLS SUMMARY
6859(<6
5 1(:6)(('6
48,&.32//6
4 $
6 6XUYH\V
/DQJXDJHV
6XEPLVVLRQV
6XUYH\
6KDUH
\RXULGHDVDQG
FRQFHUQV
&RQWULEXWRUVWR
&RQWULEXWRUVWR
6XUYH\
$FWLRQVDQG
0HDVXUHV)HHGEDFN
&RQWULEXWRUVWR
6XUYH\
&OLPDWH
$FWLRQ3ODQ'UDIW
)HHGEDFN
5 1HZV)HHG
9LVLWV
9LVLWRUV
Public Workshop #2 - Register
Now to join October 11
18 Visitors to
Survey 2 now open!
5 Visitors to
Give your input at Public
Workshop #1| July 29 | 5:30
p.m.
1 Visitors to
2 Quick Polls
6 Contributors
6 Responses
&RQWULEXWRUVWR
+RZZRXOG\RXOLNHWR
UHFHLYH SURMHFWXSGDWHV"
&RQWULEXWRUVWR
+DYH\RXZDWFKHGWKH
&OLPDWH $FWLRQ3ODQ9LGHR"
4 $V
4XHVWLRQV
6XEPLWWHG
DQG
$QVZHUHG
)$4
&RQWULEXWRUVWR
6KDUHGLGHDV
IDEAS SUMMARY TOP 3 IDEAS BASED ON CONTRIBUTORS
3 Ideas
10 Contributors
17 Contributions
10 Contributed to
If you could see one thing
included in this Climate Action
Plan 2.0, what would that be?
0 Contributed to
Share your strategy ideas on a
sticky note
Energy Ideas
0 Contributed to
393
CC 08-16-2022
393 of 1555
DOCUMENTS TOP 3 DOCUMENTS BASED ON DOWNLOADS
VIDEOS TOP 3 VIDEOS BASED ON VIEWS
KEY DATES TOP 3 KEY DATES BASED ON VIEWS
Engage Cupertino : Summary Report for 23 July 2021 to 17 May 2022
INFORMATION WIDGET SUMMARY
26 DOCUMENTS
0 PHOTOS
3 VIDEOS
0 FAQS
1 KEY DATES
26 Documents
178 Visitors
379 Downloads
CAP 2.0 Draft April 2022
161
Downloads
City Council Staff Report: CAP
Vision Statement and Goal
37 Downloads
Rincon and Cascadia
Consultant Proposals
22 Downloads
3 Videos
50 Visitors
68 Views
Public Workshop #1 - CAP 2.0
33 Views
City Council Study Session
about CAP 2.0
28 Views
Public Workshop #2 - CAP 2.0
7 Views
1 Key Dates
148 Visitors
185 Views
Climate Action Plan Update -
CAP 2.0
185
Views
Page of 5 394
CC 08-16-2022
394 of 1555
REFERRER URL Visits
www.cupertino.org 435
www.google.com 198
lnks.gd 103
l.instagram.com 36
www.bangthetable.com 13
cupertinotoday.com 11
content.govdelivery.com 9
m.facebook.com 9
android-app 8
l.facebook.com 8
patch.com 5
t.co 4
docs.google.com 3
mail.google.com 3
statics.teams.cdn.office.net 3
Engage Cupertino : Summary Report for 23 July 2021 to 17 May 2022
TRAFFIC SOURCES OVERVIEW
CC 08-16-2022
395 of 1555
City of Cupertino CAP Update
Appendix D:
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence
prepared by
City of Cupertino
City Manager’s Office
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Contact: Andre Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
396
CC 08-16-2022
396 of 1555
397
CC 08-16-2022
397 of 1555
Table of Contents
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Climate Action Targets........................................................................................................1
1.2 Measures and Actions Organization ...................................................................................2
1.3 GHG Emissions Reductions .................................................................................................3 2 Building Energy Measures ..............................................................................................................7 3 Transportation Measures ............................................................................................................ 29 4 Waste Measures .......................................................................................................................... 54 5 Water & Wastewater Measures .................................................................................................. 62 6 Carbon Sequestration Measures................................................................................................. 67 Figures
Figure 1 Estimated GHG Emissions Reductions Associated with CAP Update .......................... 5 Figure 2 Targets Versus GHG Emissions Reductions.................................................................. 6 Tables
Table 1 Population Projections for Cupertino .......................................................................... 3 Table 2 Estimated GHG Emissions Reductions by Measure ..................................................... 4 Table 3 Targets Versus GHG Emissions Reductions.................................................................. 6 Table 4 Non-SVCE and Direct Access Usage Rates in Cupertino .............................................. 9 Table 5 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 1-6 ............................................................ 11 Table 6 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 4-7 ............................................................ 16 Table 7 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 5-6 ............................................................ 22 Table 8 GHG Emissions Reductions from Action 1 ................................................................. 25 Table 9 Bicycle Network Buildout versus Mode Share........................................................... 34 Table 10 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 5-7 ............................................................ 35 Table 11 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 2-3 ............................................................ 39 Table 12 Lower Bound Public Transit GHG Emissions Reductions Scenario for Cupertino...... 40 Table 13 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 1-2 ............................................................ 45 Table 14 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 6-7 ............................................................ 47 Table 15 GHG Emissions Reductions from Action 4 ................................................................. 53 Table 16 Cupertino Waste Characterization Study Results...................................................... 57 Table 17 GHG Emissions Reductions from Action 1 ................................................................. 57 Table 18 GHG Emissions Reductions from Action 1 ................................................................. 68 Table 19 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 1-3 ................Error! Bookmark not defined. 398
CC 08-16-2022
398 of 1555
399
CC 08-16-2022
399 of 1555
Introduction
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 1
1 Introduction
This report presents the technical quantification and evidence supporting the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction potential of the City of Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update. Section 15183.5(b)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines establishes several criteria which a CAP must meet in order to be considered a “qualified GHG reduction plan” and allow for programmatic CEQA streamlining of project GHG emissions. This document provides the evidence substantiating the GHG emissions reductions associated with the CAP Update measures pursuant to Subsection (D) which states, “measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level.” Based on the substantial evidence contained in this report, the GHG emissions reductions associated with the measures in the CAP Update are sufficient to exceed Cupertino’s fair share of GHG emissions consistent with the reduction target established by Senate Bill (SB) 32, meet the City’s 2030 climate action target, and make substantial progress towards the city’s 2040 target, which exceeds California’s target established by executive order (EO) B-55-18.
The quantification in this report is specifically intended to illustrate a viable path to achieving the City of Cupertino’s 2030 climate action target. As required in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(e), mechanisms to monitor the CAP’s progress toward achieving the GHG emission reductions provided in this report have been established through the CAP development process. If, based on the tracking of community GHG emissions, the City is not on track to reach the 2030 GHG reduction specified here and exceed the target established by SB 32, the CAP as a whole or specific measures and actions will be amended and a new CAP update will be prepared that includes altered or additional measures and actions, with evidence that their implementation can achieve the City’s climate action targets.
1.1 Climate Action Targets
The City of Cupertino’s climate action targets are more aggressive than California’s goals to reduce GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32) and to carbon neutrality1 by 2045 (EO B-55- 18). Cupertino’s targets are:
Reduce the community’s per capita GHG emissions to 3.39 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) per person – equivalent to 50% below 2010 per capita levels by 2030, or 66% below 1990 per capita levels by 2030.2 Based on projected population growth through 2030, this is equivalent to reducing the City’s mass emissions to 222,867 MT CO2e by 2030, or 45% below the City’s 1990 GHG emissions.
Achieve carbon neutrality by 2040 and maintain through 2045. 1 Carbon neutrality refers to a state of net-zero GHG emissions (in units of carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2e), where a community’s GHG emissions have been reduced as much as possible, and any remaining GHG emissions arising from community-level activities are offset by GHG emissions sequestration activities and technologies, such as tree planting, compost application, or industrial practices that take GHG emissions out of the atmosphere and sequester them in solid or liquid form. 2 This is equivalent to the City Council recommended target of 54% below 2010 levels by 2030. 400
CC 08-16-2022
400 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
2 The use of per capita emission targets is called for in the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2017 Scoping Plan Update .3 Avoiding interference with and making substantial progress toward the state’s 2030 and long-term 2045 goals is important as they have been set at levels that achieve California’s fair share of international emissions reductions. Established by the Paris Agreement and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), California’s fair share of international emissions reductions are consistent with an emissions level expected to stabilize global climate change effects and avoid adverse environmental consequences.4
1.2 Measures and Actions Organization
As part of the CAP Update process, the City of Cupertino has developed a comprehensive set of measures reducing community wide GHG emissions in all sectors to achieve the City’s climate action targets. Each measure is supported by a set of actions that provide measurable GHG emissions reduction that is supported by substantial evidence. The City has also developed a set of measures and actions for offsetting GHG emissions through carbon sequestration, established under a new sector called “Carbon Sequestration.” Measures and actions are organized according to the following hierarchy:
1. Sectors: Sectors define the GHG emissions category in which the GHG reductions will take place and include Building Energy, Transportation, Waste, Water and Wastewater, and Carbon Sequestration.5
2. Measures: Measures identify specific goals (i.e., activity data targets by 2030 and 2040) to address GHG emissions in each sector. A single measure generally addresses a subsector; for example, three measures may be established under the Transportation sector to address active transportation, shared/public transportation, and single-passenger vehicles.
3. Actions: Actions identify the programs, policies, funding pathways, and other specific commitments that the City of Cupertino will implement. Each measure contains a suite of actions, which together have been designed to accomplish the measure goal. a. Key Pillars: The actions supporting each measure have been designed around a set of key pillars. Each pillar emphasizes specific criteria that have been proven to play an essential role in the implementation of the measure. Because community-focused climate action often requires community-level behavioral changes and buy-in to be implementable and successful, the City must design a suite of actions that support these changes by emphasizing specific needs of the community. The key pillars are: Structural Change, Studies & Plans, Funding, Equity, Engagement, Partnerships, and Regional Collaboration. In general, the actions under a single measure should collectively address 3 California Air Resources Board. November 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Accessed at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 4 As described under EO B-55-18 Section 3.1.3, Potential Effects of Climate Change. See also the IPCC’s report, accessed at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
5 Note that the City’s municipal measures as established in the CAP Update are not discussed in this document. While the municipal measures are important for reducing the GHG emissions of City operations and establishing the City’s operations as demonstrations of climate action leadership, they contribute only minorly to community-level GHG emissions reductions and are a subset of the community GHG emissions. For this reason, the GHG emissions reductions expected from municipal measures were conservatively excluded from the analysis in this document and were not quantified as part of the CAP Update preparation process. 401
CC 08-16-2022
401 of 1555
Introduction
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 3
all the key pillars.6 Identification of the pillars and their inclusion into the CAP helps plan for implementation. More information on the pillars can be found in the CAP.
Measures and actions can be either quantitative or supportive, defined as follows:
Quantitative: Quantitative measures and actions result in quantifiable GHG emissions reductions when implemented. GHG emissions reductions from these measures and actions are supported by case studies, scientific articles, calculations, or other third-party substantial evidence. Quantitative measures/actions can be summed to quantify how the City of Cupertino will meets its 2030 climate action target and demonstrate progress towards the 2040 target.
GHG emissions reductions were calculated using published evidence provided through adequately controlled investigations, studies, and articles carried out by qualified experts that establish the effectiveness for the reduction measures and actions. The estimates and underlying calculations provided in this report include the substantial evidence and a transparent approach to achieving the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets. Supportive: Supportive measures and actions may also be quantifiable and have substantial evidence to support their overall contribution to GHG reduction. However, due to one of several factors – including a low GHG reduction benefit, indirect GHG reduction benefit, or potential for double-counting– they have not been quantified and do not contribute directly to the expected GHG reduction target and consistency with the state goals. Despite not being quantified, supportive measures/actions are nevertheless critical to the overall success of the CAP and provide support so that the quantitative measures and actions will be successfully implemented.
1.3 GHG Emissions Reductions
The GHG emissions reduction associated with the Cupertino CAP’s measures and actions have been calculated and presented in this report in terms of per capita emissions (in units of MT CO2e/person). The population projection used to develop the City’s GHG emissions forecast (Appendix A) was also used to calculate per capita GHG emissions reductions. Population projections are shown in Table 1.7
Table 1 Population Projections for Cupertino
Year 2018 2030 2040
Population 63,228 65,690 68,305
A breakdown of the GHG emissions reductions calculated for each measure is included in Table 2 and Figure 1.
6 The exception is for measures and actions in the municipal sector because the City has much more leverage to enact changes at a municipal level and may not need to consider each pillar to ensure success during implementation. 7 Population projections were obtained from the Associated of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2040 website; accessed at:
http://2040.planbayarea.org/forecasting-the-future
402
CC 08-16-2022
402 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
4 Table 2 Estimated GHG Emissions Reductions by Measure Measure
#
Measure Anticipated
Reduction/Sequestration
(MT CO2e/person)
GHG Emissions Reduction Measures
BE-1 Reduce non-SVCE usage rate to 2% for residential and 10% for commercial by 2030 and maintain through 2040
2030: 0.012
2040: 0.004
BE-2 Electrify existing residential buildings to reduce annual residential natural gas usage from 129 therms per person in 2018 to at most 71 therms per person in 2030 and 16 therms per person in 2040
2030: 0.290
2040: 0.566
BE-3 Electrify existing commercial buildings to reduce annual commercial natural gas usage from 119 therms per person in 2018 to at most 90 therms per person in 2030 and 54 therms per person in 2040
2030: 0.190
2040: 0.366
BE-4 Require new residential and commercial development to be all-electric at time of construction
2030: 0.067
2040: 0.221
BE-5 Develop specific requirements for procurement of carbon-free fuels in lieu of natural gas for new projects that cannot be electrified Supportive
TR-1 Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15% of active transportation mode share by 2030 and 23% by 2040 2030: 0.048
2040: 0.071
TR-2 Implement public and shared transit programs to achieve 29% of public transit mode share by 2030 and maintain through 2040
2030: 0.269
2040: 0.256
TR-3 Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption to 35% for passenger vehicles and 20% for commercial vehicles by 2030 and 100% for all vehicles by 2040 2030: 0.457
2040: 1.960
TR-4 Refocus transportation infrastructure away from single-occupancy gasoline passenger vehicles to support the bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, and ZEV goals of Measures TR-1, TR-2, and TR-3
Supportive
TR-5 Electrify or otherwise decarbonize 34% of off-road equipment by 2030 and 35% by 2040
2030: 0.098
2040: 0.102
W-1a Implement SB 1383 requirements and reduce community-wide landfilled organics 75% by 2025 and inorganic waste 35% by 2030 and reduce all waste 90% by 2040
2030: 0.202
2040: 0.200
W-2 Reduce overall waste disposed to garbage, recycling, and compost per capita by 15% by 2035
Supportive
WW-1 Reduce per capita water consumption 15% compared to 2019 levels by 2030 and maintain through 2040
Supportive
WW-2 Support the SJ-SC RWF in implementing GHG emissions reduction projects Supportive Carbon Sequestration Measures
W-1b Meet or exceed the SB 1383 recycled organics products procurement requirements and sequester or avoid at least 0.018 MT CO2e per person by through 2045
2030: 0.018
2040: 0.018
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
403
CC 08-16-2022
403 of 1555
Introduction
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 5
Figure 1 Estimated GHG Emissions Reductions Associated with CAP Update Together, the measures and actions in the CAP Update provide Cupertino with the GHG reductions necessary to achieve Cupertino’s 2030 climate action target (Table 3). However, the 2040 GHG emissions reductions quantified in this report are not yet enough to meet the City’s long term 2040 climate action target of carbon neutrality. Achieving carbon neutrality will require significant changes to the technology and systems currently in place. The CAP Update aims to establish new systems that are resilient and equitable and allow for a transition to carbon neutrality in the future.
This includes electrification of building and transportation systems, an increased shift to active and public/shared transportation, continued usage of carbon neutral electricity, increased water use efficiency, and waste reduction and diversion. As these measures and actions are implemented, the City will gain more information, new technologies will emerge, and current pilot projects and programs will scale to the size needed to reach carbon neutrality. Furthermore, the state is expected to update state-level regulations and provide additional support for meeting carbon neutrality in the future. Future CAP updates past 2030 will also outline new measures and actions that Cupertino will implement to close the remaining gap to achieve the carbon neutrality target. 404
CC 08-16-2022
404 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
6 Table 3 Targets Versus GHG Emissions Reductions
Target/Forecast 2030 GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e/person)
2040 GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e/person)
Business-as-usual Forecast 5.77 5.91
Adjusted Forecast 5.04 4.74
Climate Action Targets 3.39 0.00
GHG Emissions Reductions from Full Implementation of Measures 1.66 3.77 GHG Emissions after Measure Reductions
(Adjusted Forecast – GHG Emissions Reductions) 3.39 0.97 Target Anticipated to be Met?
Yes
No; substantial
progress demonstrated
Figure 2 shows the climate action targets in relation to the City’s GHG emissions after measure implementation. Figure 2 shows GHG emissions in terms of mass emissions (e.g., per capita emissions times the population projection) for better comparison to the 2018 inventory, 1990 backcasts, and forecasts. A complete description of each measure and its contributing actions is included in the remainder of the report.
Figure 2 Targets Versus GHG Emissions Reductions
405
CC 08-16-2022
405 of 1555
Building Energy Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 7
2 Building Energy Measures
The City of Cupertino’s building energy measures are primarily focused on leveraging the renewable energy portfolio provided to the community by Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) through continued reduction of non-SVCE/direct access usage rates and electrification8 of Cupertino’s building stock. All-electric buildings are powered 100% by electricity and when coupled with renewable electricity generation, their operational energy footprint becomes GHG emissions-free.
Based on this strategy, the CAP Update’s energy measures consist of the following:
BE-1: Reduce non-SVCE usage rate to 2% for residential and 10% for commercial by 2030 and maintain through 2040
BE-2: Electrify existing residential buildings to reduce annual residential natural gas usage from 129 therms per person in 2018 to at most 71 therms per person in 2030 and 16 therms per person in 2040
BE-3: Electrify existing commercial buildings to reduce annual commercial natural gas usage from 119 therms per person in 2018 to at most 90 therms per person in 2030 and 54 therms per person in 2040
BE-4: Require new residential and commercial development to be all-electric at time of construction
BE-5: Develop specific requirements for procurement of carbon-free fuels in lieu of natural gas for new projects that cannot be electrified
SVCE procures low-carbon renewable energy for the community. Using electricity from SVCE instead of natural gas, propane, or other electricity sources to power buildings reduces the GHG emissions associated with building operations to zero or near-zero. Measure BE-1 directs the City to work with SVCE to lower existing residential and commercial non-SVCE usage rates, which increases the GHG reduction potential for SVCE’s renewable electricity. Cupertino’s building stock currently relies heavily on natural gas. While the City has already adopted an electrification reach code for new construction (included in the CAP as Measure BE-4) which requires developers for most building types to build all-electric buildings with no natural gas line connections,9 GHG emissions from Cupertino’s existing buildings must also be reduced to achieve the City’s climate action targets.
Measures BE-2 and BE-3 provide frameworks of updated regulations, programs, funding mechanisms, education, and advocacy to drive electrification of existing residential and commercial buildings.
8 Building electrification consists of converting building appliances, such as space heaters, boilers, stoves, clothes dryers, and hot water heaters, that are currently powered by natural gas or propane to electricity as the primary energy source. This most often consists of retrofitting a building to support more electric capacity and replacing natural gas or propane appliances with electric-powered alternatives.
9 City of Cupertino. 2019. Cupertino’s Electrification Ordinance. Accessed at: https://lpdd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/A-DraftOrdinance.pdf 406
CC 08-16-2022
406 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
8 Measure BE-1: Reduce non-SVCE usage rate to 2% for residential and 10% for commercial by 2030 and maintain through 2040
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
1 Work with SVCE to conduct an annual analysis of non-SVCE and direct access usage rates in the City of Cupertino to understand why residents and businesses opt out of SVCE or use direct access electricity.
2030: 0.012
2040: 0.004
2 Investigate feasibility of adopting an energy benchmarking program in Cupertino. Evaluate similar programs and determine how energy data would be reported and reviewed, if standards could be set to require energy efficiency improvements, and how much staff time would be required to maintain the program.
3 Establish an energy benchmarking program in Cupertino that requires large commercial entities (over 10,000 square feet) to report their energy usage and energy procurement details.
4 Develop a program to provide SVCE green energy for rental units and households in the Below Market Rate (BMR) rental and ownership programs.
Supportive
5 Develop a local education program detailing and promoting the benefits of opting in to SVCE service.
Supportive
6 Partner with local community organizations that focus on climate and other social causes to promote the cost efficiency and benefits of SVCE. Solicit applications from among the community to take part in SVCE's Innovation Onramp Program.
Supportive
Actions 1-6: SVCE Opt-in
Electricity in the City is predominantly supplied by SVCE, a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA).
CCAs are public, non-profit agencies that procure electricity for a region or community in place of the incumbent utility provider, in this case Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). While SVCE determines how electricity will be procured to meet customer demand, PG&E is still responsible for delivering that electricity to SVCE customers via the existing electrical grid. SVCE offers two carbon-free electricity options with lower GHG emissions rates than PG&E: GreenStart, made up of 50% renewables and 50% large hydro sourced electricity (100% GHG-free), and GreenPrime, made up of 100% renewable electricity from solar and wind.10 Customers in Cupertino are automatically enrolled in SVCE GreenStart, but have the option to opt-up to GreenPrime, to opt-out to receive electricity directly from PG&E, or to procure electricity wholesale directly from electricity generators (i.e., through direct access). Non-SVCE and direct access usage rates for residential and commercial customers in Cupertino are shown in Table 4.
10 Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). 2019. Your Power is Making a Difference. Accessed at: https://www.svcleanenergy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/Power-Content-Label-2019-Res.pdf 407
CC 08-16-2022
407 of 1555
Building Energy Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 9
Table 4 Non-SVCE and Direct Access Usage Rates in Cupertino Customer Class Non-SVCE Usage Rate11 Direct Access Usage rate12 Total Residential 2.7% 0.02% 2.7%
Commercial 2.3% 11.6% 13.9%
Typical California CCA opt-out rates are 0% for municipal accounts, 5% for residential accounts, and 15% for commercial and industrial accounts.13 Non-SVCE usage rates are comparatively low, as seen in Table 4, however, switching more customers, particularly direct access customers, to SVCE reduces electricity emissions in the short term and increases the GHG reduction impact of Measures BE-2 and BE-3, when natural gas end-uses are converted to electricity. Measure BE-1 and its actions aim to reduce non-SVCE and direct access usage rates to 2% for residential and 5% for commercial customers.
To support these lower non-SVCE and direct access usage rates, the City will start by working with SVCE to identify barriers to SVCE opt-in (Action 1). To aid in this investigation and help the City better characterize non-SVCE electricity usage, Actions 2 and 3 commit the City to establishing an energy benchmarking program. Energy benchmarking programs can have the effect of improving building performance for participating entities.14
In general, the City understands that cost is often the deciding factor for residents and businesses when making energy provider choices.15 For this reason, the City will develop a program to fund SVCE opt-in for Cupertino’s below market rate (BMR) housing. Action 4 additionally commits the City to promoting SVCE’s Innovation Onramp Program, a grant program that seeks to address key technical, market, and policy barriers to achieving deep decarbonization.16 Finally, the City will conduct additional education and promotion of SVCE programs and benefits (Actions 5 and65). While the impacts associated with promotional and educational outreach around CCAs have not been well documented, some research has been conducted on the effects of promotion and education on energy. One study in New York showed that out of the 8,991 people who participated in informational programs, 69% implemented the recommended practices.17 Another research meta-analysis reviewed dozens of papers covering various energy efficiency, 11 Customers opted out of SVCE are serviced by PG&E.
12 The commercial direct access usage rate excludes direct access electricity procured by Apple, which as a single electricity customer accounted for 44% of electricity (residential plus commercial) used in Cupertino in 2018. 13 County of Butte. July 2018. Community Choice Aggregation Initial Feasibility Study. Page 18. Accessed at:
http://buttecounty.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=512&meta_id=87147 14 City of Portland. November 2019. 2018 Building Energy Performance Reporting Results. Accessed at:
https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/pepr_2018buildingperformancereport_final_0.pdf 15 Sara Appel. Civic Business Journal. June 2018. The City of Rancho Mirage Launches Community Choice Aggregation Program with Low Opt-Out Rate. Accessed at: https://www.civicbusinessjournal.com/city-rancho-mirage-launches-community-choice-aggregation-programlow-opt-rate/ 16 Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). May 2020. SVCE Innovation Onramp Pilots Selected to Accelerate EV Charging Deployment.
Accessed at: https://www.svcleanenergy.org/news/svce-innovation-onramp-pilots-selected-to-accelerate-ev-charging-deployment/ 17 Joseph Laquatra. Journal of Extension. December 2009. The Consumer Education Program for Residential Energy Efficiency. Accessed at: https://archives.joe.org/joe/2009december/a6.php
408
CC 08-16-2022
408 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
10 water efficiency, and waste outreach and found that education-only campaigns could produce between 10-12% energy savings.18
The methods and assumptions used to calculate the GHG emissions reductions associated with these actions are shown in the table below. GHG emissions reductions were calculated by subtracting GHG emissions attributed to electricity usage after reducing the non-SVCE/direct access usage rate (scenario a) from GHG emissions attributed to electricity usage under the current nonSVCE/direct access usage rate (scenario b).GHG emissions for both scenario a and scenario b were calculated by multiplying the community’s total residential/commercial electricity usage by the weighted average residential/commercial electricity emissions factor for each scenario. Weighted average electricity emissions factors were calculated per the equation below:
𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐸𝐸 ∗ (1 − 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑥𝑥) + 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐸𝐸 ∗ 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑥𝑥 18 John Green and Lisa A. Skumatz. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. 2000. Evaluating the Impacts of Education/Outreach Programs: Lessons on Impacts, Methods, and Optimal Education. Accessed at:
https://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2000/data/papers/SS00_Panel8_Paper10.pdf 409
CC 08-16-2022
409 of 1555
Building Energy Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 11
Table 5 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 1-6
Inputs and Assumptions
Residential non-SVCE/direct access usage rate (2018)19 2.7% Commercial non-SVCE/direct access usage rate (2018)20 13.8% GHG Emissions Reductions Calculations
Year 2030 2040
Target residential non-SVCE/direct access usage rate 2.0% 2.0% Target commercial non-SVCE/direct access usage rate 10.0% 10.0% Communitywide residential electricity usage (kWh)21 101,350,471 123,661,696 Communitywide commercial electricity usage (kWh)22 156,051,734 156,670,495 SVCE Electricity emissions factor (MT CO2e/kWh)23 0.0000017 0.0000006 Residential non-SVCE electricity emissions factor (MT CO2e/kWh)24 0.0000637 0.0000212 Commercial non-SVCE electricity emissions factor (MT CO2e/kWh)25 0.0001247 0.0000416 Weighted residential electricity emissions factor at 2018 nonSVCE/direct access usage rate (MT CO2e/kWh) 0.0000034 0.0000011 Weighted commercial electricity emissions factor at 2018 nonSVCE/direct access usage rate (MT CO2e/kWh) 0.0000188 0.0000063 Weighted residential electricity emissions factor at target nonSVCE/direct access usage rate (MT CO2e/kWh) 0.0000030 0.0000010 Weighted commercial electricity emissions factor at target nonSVCE/direct access usage rate (MT CO2e/kWh) 0.0000140 0.0000047 Emissions from electricity usage before reducing non-SVCE/direct access usage rate (MT CO2e) 3,271 1,119
Emissions from electricity usage after reducing non-SVCE/direct access usage rate (MT CO2e) 2,492 856
Total Reductions (MT CO2e) 779 264
Per Capita Reductions (MT CO2e/person) 0.012 0.004
19 Calculated from 2018 Inventory (see Appendix A).
20 Calculated from 2018 Inventory (see Appendix A).
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid. Does not include electricity used by Apple, which already procures zero-emissions electricity. 23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
410
CC 08-16-2022
410 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
12 Measure BE-2: Electrify existing residential buildings to reduce annual residential natural gas usage from 129 therms per person in 2018 to at most 71 therms per person in 2030 and 16 therms per person in 2040 Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
Electrification Strategy
1 Develop a residential building electrification strategy (RBES) to aid in development of a residential building electrification ordinance which:
1. Includes a detailed existing building analysis to understand current natural gas end uses and scenarios to electrify
2. Includes an electrification costs analysis that explores the up-front costs of electrification as well as ongoing energy costs for the end user (homeowners, landlords, and renters) after electrification
3. Considers impacts to renters, renter/landlord dynamics
4. Identifies potential impacts to electrical grid resiliency
5. Identifies and develops protections against potential equity concerns/impacts of electrification
6. Identifies funding and financing opportunities for residential electrification
7. Identifies the City staff resources needed to enforce a new electrification ordinance Supportive
2 Identify and partner with local community-based organizations with connections to lowincome and fixed income people, historically underserved communities, elders, disabled individuals with access needs to assist in development of the RBES.
Supportive
3 Conduct engagement efforts for the public and targeted low-income and fixed income people, historically underserved communities, elders, disabled individuals with access needs during development of the RBES to understand the community's concerns around electrification.
Supportive
Electrification Ordinance
4 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 either electrification of appliances or a disconnect from the gas system at time of replacement and major renovation. 2030: 0.290 2040: 0.566
5 Define equity metrics for ordinance enforcement based on feedback from low-income and fixed income people, historically underserved communities, elders, disabled individuals with access needs. Equity metrics should be designed to prevent displacement and ensure that end-user energy costs for low-income populations will not be greater after electrification than before. Design compliance support programs such as technical assistance to help permit applicants with compliance.
411
CC 08-16-2022
411 of 1555
Building Energy Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 13
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
6 Enforce ordinance compliance through a comprehensive permitting compliance program, to be developed based on the results of the feasibility study in Action 1. Structure the program to include, as determined necessary, routine training of staff, dedicating staff time to building inspections, charging fees for noncompliance, providing easy to understand compliance checklists online and with permit applications, and facilitating permitting online.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the program on a biannual basis to avoid potential issues such as reduced permit application rates.
7 Actively participate in regional permit streamlining efforts for all-electric building upgrades, EV charging, and battery storage.
Supportive
Workforce Education
8 Work with the local contractors, realtors, homeowner associations, and labor unions to develop a comprehensive building code and compliance training program, including hosting workforce development trainings discussing the benefits and technical requirements of electrification. Consider working with regional partners to maintain a database of qualified contractors and consultants for electrification retrofits.
Supportive
Neighborhood Electrification
9 Commit to electrifying the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) rental and housing stock at a neighborhood level by 2040. Establish a plan and schedule for implementing this action by 2024.
Supportive
10 Create a dedicated fund to support BMR rental and housing upgrades, to be supported by grants using an existing regional program (e.g., BayREN Home +).
Supportive
11 Work with PG&E to identify opportunities for natural gas infrastructure pruning to redirect PG&E dollars allocated for pipeline maintenance to electrification retrofit projects instead and reduce the chance of stranded assets. Stranded assets arefunctional natural gas infrastructure with ongoing maintenance costs that has become obsolete due to electrification. Work with PG&E to identify additional funding as needed for the abandonment/removal of the infrastructure. Consider piloting this approach with a group of municipal facilities.
Supportive
12 Collaborate with the County and other cities in the region to advocate for regulatory changes at the state and federal level to allow neighborhood level electrification and natural gas pruning. Consider also supporting federal carbon pricing proposals in the City’s legislative platform.
Supportive
Funding and Financing
13 Seek out funding partnerships with local financiers and work with partners such as SVCE and BayREN to fund a program specifically for decarbonization retrofits, such as a local turnkey retrofit program that leverages existing funding, which offers low-cost financing of electrification and energy efficiency retrofits for residents and local businesses.
Supportive
412
CC 08-16-2022
412 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
14 Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
14 Develop a program dedicated to understanding, streamlining, and expanding energy and electrification turnkey, rebate, and financing programs (e.g., PACE, CHEEF, and utilityoffered incentive programs). Staff would also be responsible for supporting residents with rebate applications, with a focus on low-income residents.
Supportive
Actions 1-3: Electrification Strategy
Actions 1 to 3 commit the City to developing a residential building electrification strategy (RBES) as a first step towards implementing a residential building electrification ordinance. Existing building electrification is relatively untested at a city scale, suggesting that a Cupertino-specific strategy that investigates the opportunities, barriers, and solutions associated with residential building electrification is key to successful implementation of an ordinance. Because of the generally high cost of building electrification, developing solutions for potential equity impacts of residential building electrification is key to successful implementation.26 The RBES is designed to give special consideration to the potential equity impacts of an electrification ordinance by investigating upfront and on-bill costs of electrification to residents, potential impacts to renters, potential impacts to electrical grid resiliency (Action 1), and by specifically targeting equity groups for feedback on RBES development (Action 3). The City recognizes that outreach to equity groups during policy development processes is often challenging, and therefore plans to engage local community-based organizations with connections to these groups in an effort to engage more intentionally and transparently (Action 2).
Outreach and engagement for the CAP Update found that the community has concerns about the potential for electrification to increase demands on and lower the resiliency of the electrical grid, especially given the potential for service disruptions for public safety power shutoffs (PSPS) multiple times a year. Peak grid demand, and therefore PSPS, usually occurs in the summer on the hottest days when most buildings are running air conditioning. Building electrification in Cupertino in the residential sector prioritizes electrifying residential hot water heaters and heat pumps that run on natural gas (residential stoves and clothes dryers use comparatively insignificant amounts of electricity).27 Hot water heaters, while used throughout the year, can use electricity during off-peak times by heating water and storing it for use at a later time, avoiding significant contribution to peak demand in the summer. Meanwhile, since heat pumps are primarily used in the winter for space heating, converting to an electric heat pump would similarly avoid contributing to peak demand in the summer. electrifying a heat pump or other space heating appliance has the added benefit of being highly efficient, and widespread electrification of temperature control appliances would likely reduce electricity demand throughout the year. The electrical grid is therefore well-suited to absorbing increased electrical demands from electrification, which even under full electrification scenarios would not exceed current peak summer electricity demands.28 26 Greenlining Institute. 2019. Equitable Building Electrification: A Framework for Powering Resilient Communities. Accessed at:
https://greenlining.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Greenlining_EquitableElectrification_Report_2019_WEB.pdf 27 Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). 2020. Buildings Baseline Study (Appendix C). 28 Reem Rayef. National Resources Defense Council. April 2020. California’s Grid is Ready for All-Electric Buildings. Accessed at:
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/merrian-borgeson/californias-grid-ready-all-electric-buildings 413
CC 08-16-2022
413 of 1555
Building Energy Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 15
Actions 4-7: Electrification Ordinance
Actions 4 to 7 commit the City to adopting an electrification ordinance for existing residential buildings by 2023, to be enforced through a comprehensive and equitable permitting compliance program. Natural gas usage from residential buildings accounted for about 13 % of GHG emissions in Cupertino in 2018. To address these GHG emissions, the electrification ordinance bans natural gas line expansion and installation of natural gas heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, hot water heaters, and other appliances starting in 2023. HVAC system and hot water heaters are targeted in the ordinance due to their large contribution to residential natural gas enduses and the cost-effectiveness associated with their replacement on burnout.29 The City recognizes that successful ordinance implementation will require effective permit compliance. Permits are required for many energy efficiency improvements, including hot water heaters, insulation, HVAC systems, duct replacement, and others. However, permit evasion remains an issue in many jurisdictions, with permitted HVAC systems only accounting for 8-29% of total installations.30, 31 Strategies that have proven effective at improving permit compliance in various states and local jurisdictions include streamlining the compliance process, improving third-party enforcement, and advanced training for enforcement staff.32 Actions 6 and 7 commit the City to developing an enhanced permitting compliance program that incorporates these elements to achieve better permit compliance and therefore improved ordinance implementation success. Per Action 7, the City will work to streamline permitting for electrification and other energy projects at a regional level, to reduce the workforce education needed for project implementation on the ground.
The methods and assumptions used to calculate the GHG emissions reductions associated with these actions are shown in the table below. GHG emissions reductions were calculated based on the percentage of natural gas attributed to water heaters, HVAC systems, and stoves, the average lifespan of each natural gas consuming devices, and the assumption that 96% appliances would be replaced on burnout.
29 Energy and Environmental Economics (E3). April 2019. Residential Building Electrification in California: Consumer economics, greenhouse gases and grid impacts. Accessed at: https://www.ethree.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf 30 Emily Alvarez and Bruce Mast. BayREN Codes & Standards Program. October 2021. Local Government Policy Calculator for Existing Single-Family Buildings – User Guide. Accessed at: https://www.bayrencodes.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/BayREN-PolicyCalculator-User-Guide_10.29.2021.pdf 31 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). September 2017. Final Report: 2014-16 HVAC Permit and Code Compliance Market Assessment (Work Order 6) Volume I – Report. Accessed at:
http://www.calmac.org/publications/HVAC_WO6_FINAL_REPORT_VolumeI_22Sept2017.pdf 32 Ryan Meres et al. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). 2012. Successful Strategies for Improving Compliance with Building Energy Codes. Accessed at: https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2012/data/papers/0193-000112.pdf 414
CC 08-16-2022
414 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
16 Table 6 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 4-7
Inputs and Assumptions
Ordinance implementation year 2023
Natural gas emissions factor (MT CO2e/therm)33 0.005305 Natural gas fugitive emissions factor (MT CO2e/therm)34 0.000173 Convert kWh to therms (kWh/therm) 29.3001
Average increased efficiency of electric appliances over natural gas appliances (%)35 300% Average natural gas water heater lifespan36 13
Average natural gas HVAC lifespan37 21.5
Average natural gas stove lifespan38 12
Natural gas usage that comes from water heater39 50%
Natural gas usage that comes from heating/cooling40 44% Natural gas usage that comes from cooking 7%
Assumed noncompliance41 6%
GHG Emissions Reductions Calculations
Year 2030 2040
Residential natural gas usage after new building electrification ordinance is implemented (therms) 8,186,706 8,186,706
Percentage of homes with replaced water heaters, assuming noncompliance and replacement on burnout 51% 94% Natural gas reduction from water heater replacement (%) 25% 47% Percentage of homes with replaced HVAC, assuming non-compliance and replacement on burnout 31% 74%
Natural gas reduction from HVAC replacement (%) 13% 33% Percentage of homes with replaced stoves, assuming non-compliance and replacement on burnout
55% 94%
Natural gas reduction from stove replacement 4% 6%
Total natural gas saved (therms) 3,491,690 7,069,508
Emissions reduced from total natural gas saved (MT CO2e) 19,128 38,728 Electricity usage from converting to electric (kWh) 34,102,288 69,045,762 Electricity emissions factor after Measure BE-1 (MT CO2e/kWh)42 0.0000030 0.0000010 Emissions added from converted electricity usage (MT CO2e) 102 69 Total Reductions (MT CO2e) 19,027 38,660
Per Capita Reductions (MT CO2e/person) 0.29 0.57
Per capita residential natural gas after ordinance implementation (therms/person) 71 16
Action 8: Workforce Education
Workforce education has been shown to improve code compliance when implemented in addition to a permitting compliance program and has therefore, been identified as a key component of the 33 Appendix A.
34 Appendix A.
415
CC 08-16-2022
415 of 1555
Building Energy Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 17
electrification ordinance implementation process.43 Action 8 commits the City to implementing a comprehensive workforce education program to provide electrification education at all levels of residential retrofit work within the City.
Actions 9-12: Neighborhood Electrification
Neighborhood scale electrification consists of electrifying entire neighborhoods rather than individual appliances in individual homes and includes elimination (or pruning) of natural gas infrastructure within buildings and beneath the streets. A neighborhood-scale approach to electrification can be more cost-effective overall. For example, in a neighborhood in which half of the buildings have been electrified while the other half still rely on natural gas, those left on natural gas are left paying for the infrastructure for the entire neighborhood.44 Actions 9 and 10 focus on neighborhood-scale electrification of the City’s BMR rental and housing stock by 2040. The City’s BMR rental and housing stock consists of between 171 and 259 units.45 Electrification of these units would help accelerate the electrification timeline expected as a result of implementing an electrification ordinance (Actions 4-6).
Actions 11 and 12 commit the City to exploring natural gas pruning opportunities. Natural gas pruning would require regulatory changes at the CPUC to allow PG&E the flexibility needed to reallocate funding from natural gas infrastructure projects to electrification projects.46 In the interest of supporting these changes, the City plans to collaborate regionally on advocating for natural gas pruning. Action 10 also commits the City to advocating for a federal-level policy on carbon pricing, to provide a more robust legal and economic framework for incentivizing low-carbon behaviors, such as electrification.
35 Pacific Gas & Electric. 2021. Electrification for your home or building. Accessed at: https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/customerservice/home-services/renovating-and-building/benefits-of-electric-homes-and-buildings/benefits-of-electric-homes-and-buildings.page? 36 EIA. 2018. Updated Buildings Sector Appliance and Equipment Cost and Efficiencies. Appendix C. Accessed at:
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/buildings/equipcosts/pdf/full.pdf 37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). 2020. Buildings Baseline Study (Appendix C). 40 Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). 2020. Buildings Baseline Study (Appendix C). 41 8 to 29% of HVAC projects are permitted, while 100% of energy efficiency requirements are met regardless of permitting status. It was therefore assumed that a permit enforcement program will push the average closer to 100%. Noncompliance was therefore calculated as the average of 8%, 29%, 0%, and 0%. See CPUC’s Final Report: 2014-16 HVAC Permit and Code Compliance Market Assessment (Work Order 6) Volume I – Report, accessed at: http://www.calmac.org/publications/HVAC_WO6_FINAL_REPORT_VolumeI_22Sept2017.pdf 42 See calculations for Measure BE-1.
43 Ryan Meres et al. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). 2012. Successful Strategies for Improving Compliance with Building Energy Codes. Accessed at: https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2012/data/papers/0193-000112.pdf 44 City of Berkeley. April 2021. Existing Building Electrification Strategy Administrative Draft. 45 City of Cupertino. 2021. Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program. Accessed at: https://www.cupertino.org/ourcity/departments/community-development/housing/below-market-rate-housing-program 46 City of Berkeley. 2021. Existing Building Electrification Strategy. 416
CC 08-16-2022
416 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
18 Actions 13-14: Funding and Financing
In general, electrification has been found to reduce costs for homeowners over the lifetime of appliances when compared to propane or natural gas-fueled equipment, especially when retrofits are bundled and completed when appliances are already planned for replacement, or when coupled with rooftop solar installation.47 However, the City anticipates that the residential building electrification ordinance will result in up-front retrofit costs for residents that may be difficult for the community, particularly low-income residents, to bear. The largest barrier to existing building electrification is higher up-front capital costs compared to natural gas.48 On-bill or financed incentives to offset these costs for the end-user are therefore among the most promising opportunities for electrification.49 Actions 13 and 14 build the support and funding pathway to make existing building electrification possible, particularly for low-income residents of the City.
Action 13 commits the City to developing a funding program for decarbonization retrofits, which will seek private capital to fund a local turnkey retrofit program that would allow for low-cost financing of electrification retrofits.50 Once up-front costs are financed, long term savings can be used to achieve cash flow positive retrofits and/or acceptable ROI’s. Demonstrating cost effective pathways for existing building electrification will be a key step before mandatory requirements can be set.
Action 14 strengthens the potential reach of Action 13 by committing the City to creating a dedicated staff position for connecting residents to appropriate funding and financing pathways.
The City is currently piloting a similar use of staff time in the Climate Victory Gardens Pilot to provide technical and administrative support directly to residents who wish to remove lawns and install drought-tolerant gardens. Action 14 commits the City to a similar use of staff time to support residents to apply for all available rebates and to get unbiased technical advice. 47 Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). 2018. The Economics of Electrifying Buildings: How Electric Space and Water Heating Supports Decarbonization of Residential Buildings. Accessed at: file:///L:/EPS/Santa%20Clara%20Co/21- 10845%20Cupertino,%20Cupertino%20CAP%20Upd/Report/15_Final%20GHG%20Reduction%20Measures%20List%20with%20Quantifica tion/Sources/RMI_Economics_of_Electrifying_Buildings_2018.pdf 48 California Center for Sustainable Energy. 2009. Solar Water Heating Pilot Program: Interim Evaluation Report. 49 Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. October 2018. Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings. https://www.synapseenergy.com/sites/default/files/Decarbonization-Heating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf 50 Tik Root. The Washington Post. November 2021. This U.S. city just voted to decarbonize every single building. Accessed at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/11/03/ithaca-new-york-decarbonize-electrify/ 417
CC 08-16-2022
417 of 1555
Building Energy Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 19
Measure BE-3: Electrify existing commercial buildings to reduce annual commercial natural gas usage from 119 therms per person in 2018 to at most 90 therms per person in 2030 and 54 therms per person in 2040 Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
Electrification Strategy
1 Inform and facilitate energy master planning work around electrification for commercial business owners and large developers. Build a partnership with and distribute technical support to the business community (e.g., local business associations) to with the aim of identifying, piloting, and scaling large energy efficiency and electrification projects.
Supportive
2 Develop a commercial building electrification strategy (CBES), building on the existing Baseline Buildings Study from SVCE (2020), with a detailed commercial natural gas usage analysis, analysis to potential impacts to the local commercial sectors, and electrification costs analysis to aid in development of a commercial building electrification ordinance.
Supportive
3 Conduct engagement efforts for the commercial sector during development of the CBES to understand potential concerns and barriers to commercial electrification. Engage with BAAQMD in the development of the CBES in order to coordinate on the approach to emergency power and baseload power generation systems which commonly use natural gas.
Supportive
4 Conduct outreach to small businesses and minority-owned businesses to understand potential equity impacts of the ordinance.
Supportive
Electrification Ordinance
5 By 2024, adopt an electrification ordinance for existing commercial buildings to be implemented through the building permit process, which bans expansion of natural gas infrastructure, requires electrification of natural gas appliances at time of major renovation and time of replacement where technologically feasible (exceptions can be made where allelectric alternatives to do not exist or are a significant cost burden, to be further defined based on results of the CBES).
2030: 0.190
2040: 0.366
6 Enforce existing buildings electrification ordinance compliance through the same permitting compliance program and with same staff as for residential building electrification.
Battery Storage
7 Conduct engagement efforts for the commercial sector to identify ways the City can support commercial battery storage installations and improve local grid resiliency beyond what will be required in the 2022 California Building Energy Code's commercial battery storage and solar installation requirements.
Supportive
Funding and Financing
8 Work with SVCE and PG&E to develop or expand commercial rebate program and incentivize commercial all-electric retrofits and battery storage installations.
Supportive
418
CC 08-16-2022
418 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
20 Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
9 Create a program to generate interest and secure partnerships among local business and institutions for the purpose of seeking out grants or initiatives. Leverage this program to facilitate funding opportunities for commercial business electrification.
Supportive
10 Develop a program that funnels Cupertino businesses into the SVCE Innovation Onramp grant program or similar grant offerings.
Supportive
Actions 1-4: Electrification Strategy
Existing building electrification in the commercial sector is less well researched than in the residential sector. While some commercial natural gas end uses may be ripe for electrification – about 27% of commercial floor space heated with fossil fuel systems can be electrified today with a simple payback period of less than 10 years – other end uses may not.51 However, the commercial sector accounts for a large portion of the City’s total natural gas usage (about 48%), and therefore provides significant opportunity for decarbonization. To close the knowledge gap about commercial building electrification in Cupertino, Actions 1 through 4 commit the City to engaging with the commercial sector and business community to understand barriers, equity/cost impacts, and opportunities associated with electrification of commercial natural gas end uses. The City will facilitate two planning efforts – energy master planning work in the short-term through direct partnership with business community groups (Action 1) and development of a commercial building electrification strategy (CBES) in the mid-term to chart a path towards a commercial electrification ordinance (Action 2). Actions 3 and 4 support development of the CBES. GHG emissions reductions associated with commercial building electrification are quantified below, and Actions 1 through 4 are considered supportive to those reductions.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has also recently shared plans to address nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions associated with buildings by developing new requirements around natural gas-fired furnaces, boilers, and water heaters, which may support commercial electrification work in Cupertino.52
Actions 5-6: Electrification Ordinance
Actions 5 and 6 commit the City to adopting an electrification ordinance for existing commercial buildings by 2024, to be enforced through the same comprehensive and equitable permitting compliance program described under Measure BE-2 Action 6. Natural gas usage from commercial buildings accounted for about 15% of GHG emissions in Cupertino in 2018. To address these GHG emissions, the electrification ordinance bans natural gas line expansion and requires installation of all-electric appliance, such as heat pumps, variable refrigerant flow systems, and hot water heaters, at time of major renovation and time of replacement as technologically feasible. The ordinance 51 Steven Nadel and Chris Perry. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). October 2020. Electrifying Space Heating in Existing Commercial Buildings: Opportunities and Challenges. Accessed at: https://www.aceee.org/press-release/2020/10/reportelectrifying-heating-existing-commercial-buildings-could-cut-their 52 Jeanne Clinton. April 19, 2021. Costs, Markets, and Funding Options in Accelerating the Bay Area’s Building Electrification:
Presentation to BAAQMD Stationary Source and Climate Impacts Committee. Accessed at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/board-of-directors/2021/sscic_presentations_04192021-pdf.pdf?la=en 419
CC 08-16-2022
419 of 1555
Building Energy Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 21
recognizes that current technology may limit the extent to which commercial natural gas end uses in Cupertino can be electrified;53 for this reason, some limited exemptions are included in the ordinance, to be informed by the results of the CBES. The methods and assumptions used to calculate the GHG emissions reductions associated with these actions are shown in the table below. 53 kW Engineering. March 2021. Important Considerations for Electrification of Commercial Buildings. Accessed at: https://www.kwengineering.com/electrification-commercial-buildings-important-considerations/ 420
CC 08-16-2022
420 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
22 Table 7 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 5-6
Inputs and Assumptions
Ordinance implementation year 2024
Natural gas emissions factor (MT CO2e/therm)54 0.005305 Natural gas fugitive emissions factor (MT CO2e/therm)55 0.000173 Convert kWh to therms (kWh/therm) 29.3001
Average increased efficiency of electric appliances over natural gas appliances (%)56 300%
Average natural gas water heater lifespan57 10
Average natural gas HVAC lifespan58 23
Natural gas usage that comes from water heater59 35%
Natural gas usage that comes from heating/cooling60 35% Assumed noncompliance61 6%
GHG Emissions Reductions Calculations
Year 2030 2040
Commercial natural gas usage after new
building electrification ordinance is
implemented (therms)
8,273,884 8,273,884
Percentage of buildings with replaced
water heaters, assuming non-compliance
and replacement on burnout
56% 94%
Natural gas reduction from water heater
replacement (%)
20% 33%
Percentage of commercial buildings with
replaced HVAC, assuming noncompliance and replacement on burnout 24% 65%
Natural gas reduction from HVAC
replacement (%)
9% 23%
Total natural gas saved (therms) 2,339,225 4,607,564
Emissions reduced from total NG saved
(MT CO2e)
12,815 25,241
Electricity usage from converting to
electric (kWh)
22,846,507 45,000,696
Electricity emissions factor after Measure
BE-1 (MT CO2e/kWh)62
0.0000140 0.0000047
Emissions added from converted
electricity usage (MT CO2e)
321 211
Total Reductions (MT CO2e) 12,494 25,031
Per Capita Reductions (MT CO2e/person) 0.190 0.366
Per capita commercial natural gas after
ordinance implementation
(therms/person)
90 54
Action 7: Battery Storage
While electrification is not expected to result in additional strain on the electrical grid,63 commercial-scale battery storage projects present an opportunity to improve the resilience of the 421
CC 08-16-2022
421 of 1555
Building Energy Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 23
electrical grid and provide cost savings over the lifetime of the equipment.64 2022 California Building Energy Code requires new commercial construction over 5,000 square feet to install PV and storage to meet 60% of the building’s energy load and reduce exports to 10%.65 Action 7 commits the City to exploring opportunities to support commercial batter storage installations beyond these requirements.
Actions 8-10: Funding and Financing
Technologies that currently exist for electrifying HVAC systems and water heaters in the commercial sector range from cost-effective to prohibitively expensive, usually depending on the complexity of the system.66 Additionally, while all-electric HVAC systems and water heaters can be cost-effective over their lifetimes, up-front costs may be substantially higher with payback periods longer than 10 years.67 Financial incentives are needed to make conversion of about 73% of commercial floor space cost effective, not to mention other end uses that are less well studied.68 To meet this need, Actions 8 through 10 commit the City to developing and expanding financial incentive programs targeted to the commercial sector, including rebates and grant programs. 54 Appendix A
55 Appendix A
56 Pacific Gas & Electric. 2021. Electrification for your home or building. Accessed at: https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/customerservice/home-services/renovating-and-building/benefits-of-electric-homes-and-buildings/benefits-of-electric-homes-and-buildings.page? 57 EIA. 2018. Updated Buildings Sector Appliance and Equipment Cost and Efficiencies. Appendix C. Accessed at:
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/buildings/equipcosts/pdf/full.pdf 58 Ibid.
59 Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). 2020. Buildings Baseline Study (Appendix C). 60 Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). 2020. Buildings Baseline Study (Appendix C). 61 Assumed roughly equivalent to residential non-compliance due to lack of sufficient data or studies. 62 See calculations for Measure BE-1
63 Reem Rayef. National Resources Defense Council. April 2020. California’s Grid is Ready for All-Electric Buildings. Accessed at:
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/merrian-borgeson/californias-grid-ready-all-electric-buildings 64 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). June 2021. Battery Storage for Resilience. Accessed at:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79850.pdf
65 Kelsey Misbrener. Solar Power World. August 2021. California Energy Commission mandates solar + storage on new commercial buildings. Accessed at: https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2021/08/california-energy-commission-mandates-solar-storage-newcommercial-buildings/ 66 Steven Nadel and Chris Perry. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). October 2020. Electrifying Space Heating in Existing Commercial Buildings: Opportunities and Challenges. Accessed at: https://www.aceee.org/press-release/2020/10/reportelectrifying-heating-existing-commercial-buildings-could-cut-their 67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
422
CC 08-16-2022
422 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
24 Measure BE-4: Require new residential and commercial development to be all-electric at time of construction
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
1 Adopt an electrification ordinance for new residential and commercial development which requires developers to build all-electric at time of construction. Actively maintain the electrification ordinance through each tri-annual code cycle. 2030: 0.067
2040: 0.221
Action 1: New Construction Electrification Ordinance
Action 1 commits the City to adopting an electrification ordinance for new construction. While this action was already completed by the City in 2019, it is included in the CAP to allow the City to accurately account for the GHG emissions reductions associated with the ordinance, which were not captured in the 2018 inventory or the adjusted forecast. Additionally, the City must activey study and re-adopt or modify the new construction electrification ordinance with each tri-annual code cycle. The ordinance consists of local amendments to the State Energy Code and the State Green Building Code. The methods and assumptions used to calculate the GHG emissions reductions associated with this action are shown in the table below. 423
CC 08-16-2022
423 of 1555
Building Energy Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 25
Table 8 GHG Emissions Reductions from Action 1
Inputs and Assumptions
Implementation year for residential development 2020
Implementation year for commercial development 2020
Natural gas emission factor (MT CO2e/therm)69 0.00530
Natural gas fugitive emissions factor (MT CO2e/therm)70 0.00017 Convert kWh to therms (kWh/therm) 29.3001
Average increased efficiency of electric appliances over natural gas appliances (%)71 3
GHG Emissions Reductions Calculations
Year 2030 2040
Residential Reductions
Residential natural gas usage (therms)72 8,289,600 10,192,093 Residential natural gas usage in ordinance
implementation year (therms) 8,186,706 8,186,706
Natural gas saved (therms) 102,894 2,005,387
Emissions reduced from natural gas saved (MT
CO2e) 564 10,986
Electricity usage from converting to electric
(kWh) 1,004,930 19,586,017
Electricity emissions factor after Measure BE-1
(MT CO2e/kWh) 0.0000030 0.0000010
Emissions added from converted electricity
usage (MT CO2e) 3 19
Total emission reductions (MT CO2e) 561 10,967
Commercial Reductions
Commercial natural gas usage (therms)73 8,995,575 9,031,243 Commercial natural gas usage in ordinance
implementation year (therms) 8,273,884 8,273,884
Natural gas saved (therms) 721,691 757,359
Emissions reduced from natural gas saved (MT
CO2e) 3,954 4,149
Electricity usage from converting to electric
(kWh) 7,048,539 7,396,902
Electricity emissions factor after Measure BE-1
(MT CO2e/kWh) 0.0000140 0.0000047
Emissions added from converted electricity
usage (MT CO2e) 99 35
Total emission reductions (MT CO2e) 3,855 4,114
Totals
Total Reductions (MT CO2e) 4,415 15,081
Per Capita Reductions (MT CO2e) 0.067 0.221
69 Appendix A.
424
CC 08-16-2022
424 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
26 70 Appendix A
71 Pacific Gas & Electric. 2021. Electrification for your home or building. Accessed at: https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/customerservice/home-services/renovating-and-building/benefits-of-electric-homes-and-buildings/benefits-of-electric-homes-and-buildings.page? 72 Appendix A.
73 Appendix A.
425
CC 08-16-2022
425 of 1555
Building Energy Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 27
Measure BE-5: Develop specific requirements for procurement of carbon-free fuels in lieu of natural gas for new projects that cannot be electrified Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
1 Energy consumption by Apple facilities is significant in Cupertino. Coordinate with Apple during preparation of future community inventories to ensure that Apple is continuing to procure biofuel for their Apple Park fuel cell through a legitimate book and claim process and that the data is reflected correctly in Cupertino’s community inventory according to the latest inventory guidance and protocols from CARB and ICLEI.
Supportive
2 Develop requirements for future commercial projects with fuel cells, stationary generators, or other natural gas equipment that cannot be electric to coordinate with the City and procure biofuel or other carbon-free fuel for operation of the equipment. Coordinate this action with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which conducts regular analysis on carbon-free alternatives to diesel generators under the Diesel-Free by ‘33 program.
Supportive
3 Work with the City’s natural gas provider, ABAG POWER, to develop market alternatives to natural gas that provide legitimate carbon reduction opportunities, such as renewable diesel fuels or bio-based fuels. Consider purchasing these fuels at a price premium.
Supportive
Action 1: Coordinate with Apple during community inventory updates Apple is a large employer and user of natural gas in Cupertino, and therefore accounts for a large portion of the City’s commercial/industrial natural gas. On June 29, 2012, the proposed Apple Campus 2 Project was certified as an Environmental leadership Development Project (Leadership Project) by the Governor’s Office pursuant to the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (AB 900).74 In an effort to reduce GHG emissions, Apple directly purchases biofuel through a book and claim agreement to power their fuel cell, located in Cupertino. The gas which arrives at Apple is delivered via PG&E infrastructure and is included in the natural gas total for the City.
Just like GHG-free electricity, which produces a Renewable Energy Credit (REC), biofuel generates a fuel attribute in the United States that can be bought or sold separately from the fuel itself, which is typically injected into the nearest common pipeline where it becomes indistinguishable from the other natural gas in the system. The fuel attribute is matched with the unit of energy purchased (therms), and that attribute belongs to the purchaser of the biofuel who holds the market credit.
Apple purchases enough biofuel annually to power the fuel cell. The biofuel is then directly injected into a common natural gas pipeline in the United States.
Because the biogas avoids natural gas usage equal to Apple’s fuel cell usage within the geographical boundaries of the United States, which is not being claimed by anyone else, natural gas fuel cell CO2 emissions are considered zero. This process is verified annually through Apple’s regular sustainability reporting. This approach to accounting for biofuels is supported by the California Air Resources Board as part of their Low Carbon Fuel Standard program.75 Furthermore, while the U.S. 74 See: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/apple-park 75 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/fuels/lcfs/guidance/lcfsguidance_19-05.pdf 426
CC 08-16-2022
426 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
28 Community Protocol “does not provide guidance on quantifying or reporting on GHG benefits associated with; actions that have been or could be taken to reduce emissions, carbon offset projects, purchased carbon credits, or renewable energy credits” they do state that information on these types of activities is “best presented in the context of climate action plans”.76 Therefore, as a key action towards decarbonization of the City, Cupertino will track the GHG reduction benefits of Apple’s biofuel purchases (Action 1). As part of this action, Cupertino will verify Apple’s book and claim process for biofuel and review Apple’s reporting methodologies each time before accounting for biofuel directly in Cupertino’s GHG emissions inventory. This process is similar to reviewing emissions factors for electricity as part of future inventory updates, which have RECs built directly into their calculation.
Actions 2-3: Require future projects to procure carbon-free fuel These actions will ensure that no future commercial projects with gas-fired fuel cells, generators, or other equipment come to Cupertino and cause increases in community natural gas usage. 76 https://icleiusa.org/us-community-protocol/
427
CC 08-16-2022
427 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 29
3 Transportation Measures
Reducing transportation emissions and becoming a carbon neutral city means reducing the number of miles driven by fossil fuel-powered vehicles, particularly passenger vehicles, which account for 43% of GHG emissions in the City of Cupertino. The City’s transportation strategy consists of a multipronged approach for incentivizing alternatives to fossil fuel-powered vehicle trips, including shifting transportation mode share77 to active transportation and public transit options; electrifying passenger and commercial vehicle trips, and decarbonizing off-road equipment. This CAP prioritizes reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) first, by improving active and public transportation mode share, then shifting remaining VMT to electric vehicles. While in theory, 100% electrification of all vehicles in Cupertino could achieve zero-emissions in the transportation sector without reducing VMT, the City recognizes that cars and roadways carry huge amounts of embodied emissions78 not accounted for in the inventory, over which the City has little control.79 Reducing VMT carries additional benefits outside of GHG emissions reductions as well, including reduced congestion, reduced space needed for roadways and parking, local economic revitalization, and lifestyle improvements.80 Based on this strategy, the CAP Update’s transportation measures consist of the following:
TR-1: Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15% of active transportation mode share by 2030 and 23% by 2040
TR-2: Implement public and shared transit programs to achieve 29% of public transit mode share by 2030 and maintain through 2040
TR-3: Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption to 35% for passenger vehicles and 20% for commercial vehicles by 2030 and 100% for all vehicles by 2040 TR-4: Refocus transportation infrastructure away from single-occupancy gasoline and diesel passenger vehicles to support the bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, and ZEV goals of Measures TR-1, TR-2, and TR-3
TR-5: Electrify or otherwise decarbonize 34% of off-road equipment by 2030 and 35% by 2040 To achieve a greater than 15% mode shift to active transportation (Measure TR-1), the City plans to provide low stress and convenient infrastructure and prioritize mobility via active transportation.
Infrastructure needs include bikeways, sidewalk improvements, and expansions of both kinds of infrastructure to all areas of the City. Once the infrastructure is available and stress/comfort is not an issue, comparison with other cities around the world suggest more people will choose active transportation.
77 Mode share in this context is used to refer to percentage of passenger trips that can be attributed to one transportation mode or another. For example, 5% active transit mode share means that 5% of all passenger trips are taken using active transit modes (walking, biking, scootering, etc.). Importantly, mode share does not refer to percentage of passenger VMT that can be attributed to a specific transportation mode, since not all trips are the same length. To convert from mode share to percent of VMT, some assumption about the length of trip in each type of mode must be applied.
78 Embodied emissions are associated with energy used in the extraction, processing, and transportation of materials. 79 Mark Mills. August 2021. The tough calculus of emissions and the future of EVs. Accessed at: https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/22/thetough-calculus-of-emissions-and-the-future-of-evs/ 80 Richard Campbell and Margaret Wittgens. March 2004. The Business Case for Active Transportation. Accessed at:
http://thirdwavecycling.com/pdfs/at_business_case.pdf
428
CC 08-16-2022
428 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
30 To achieve a greater than 29% mode shift to public transit (Measure TR-2), the City plans to improve public and shared transit programs and infrastructure. This measure prioritizes shared and public transit in the City, makes transit more convenient, and reduces the time it takes to reach a destination via transit – important determining factors for shared and public transit mode share.
While the City cannot require its residents or businesses to buy ZEVs, Measure TR-3 will ensure the infrastructure and incentives are present in the City to begin to remove present barriers to passenger and commercial ZEV adoption.
Measure TR-4 provides the supportive framework for the goals in Measures TR-1, TR-2, and TR-3 by creating behavior disincentives for owning a fossil fuel-powered passenger vehicle, such as limited parking options, local taxes to support transit, and Transportation Network Company (TNC) user taxes. Finally, Measure TR-5 establishes a goal of decarbonizing 34% of off-road equipment by 2030, supported by a new City ordinance, and expanded rebates and incentives. 429
CC 08-16-2022
429 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 31
Measure TR-1: Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15% of active transportation mode share by 2030 and 23% by 2040 Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Planning
1 As part of the City’s active transportation planning, identify priority projects to connect neighborhoods with commercial areas via bike/ped paths, repainted roadways, and e-bike share.
Supportive
2 Collaborate with the County, VTA, and SVCE to connect Cupertino's bicycle network to cross-jurisdiction bicycle superhighways and other e-bike networks as feasible.
Supportive
3 Engage the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Safe Routes to School network, and community groups to identify additional short-term and long-term bikeway and pedestrian infrastructure improvement projects to implement.
Supportive
4 Ensure there is equitable access to safe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in all areas of the city. Prioritize new bicycle and pedestrian facilities (e.g., bike paths, bike parking, sidewalks) in areas with underdeveloped facilities and also in areas with low-income populations .
Supportive
Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
5 Continue to implement the 2018 Pedestrian Plan and the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan's prioritized list of projects, with accelerated completion of all planned bike paths by 2030. 2030: 0.048
2040: 0.071
6 Re-stripe arterial, minor collector, and major collector roads (as mapped in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan) without existing designated bike lanes to include bike lanes and reduce the width of existing car lanes/travel where determined by the bicycle and pedestrian plans. 7 Conduct a pilot program, including a plan for pilot implementation, that designates the road space on select streets specifically for bikes and is closed to through-traffic motor vehicles.
As part of the plan, consider location and extent of pilot program based on transportation data analysis, and develop success tracking metrics to inform potential pilot expansion.
Bicycle Parking Infrastructure
8 Evaluate and update the City's Zoning Code, Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, and California Green Building Code to ensure the City requires installation of accessible, shaded, and secure bicycle parking for new commercial development and retrofits.
Supportive
9 Improve the bike/e-bike parking network to reduce theft and increase rider attraction. This would include surveying existing bike parking facilities throughout the city and developing a plan to improve these with preference given to improving bike/e-bike parking facilities near public transit stops to improve and expand access to transit (i.e., first and last-mile access) Supportive
Micro-mobility
430
CC 08-16-2022
430 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
32 Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
10 Design a micro-mobility program that explores expansion of the use of electric bikes and scooters and shared micro mobility options.
Supportive
11 Bring an e-bike share or e-scooter share to Cupertino with focus on placing hubs near neighborhood entry points and commercial areas. Adopt an ordinance to allow and manage the mobility share.
Supportive
12 Pilot a program to provide free or reduced-price access to e-bikes or other micro mobility options to low-income residents and students.
Supportive
Funding and Financing
13 Establish a program for researching and obtaining grant funding for bike and pedestrian network expansion.
Supportive
Actions 1-4: Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Planning
Current bicycle and pedestrian mode share in Cupertino (as of 2015) is low – 0.7% and 1.2%, respectively.81 Studies show that investments in active transportation infrastructure have demonstrated improvements in active transportation mode shifts and GHG emissions reductions.82 Cupertino has adopted a Bicycle Transportation Plan (2016)83 and a Pedestrian Plan (2018),84 which identify programs and projects to improve pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in Cupertino.
Actions 1 through 4 commit the City to expanding on these efforts, including identification of additional projects to enhance active transportation infrastructure connectivity (Actions 1, 2, and 4), and connect the existing active transportation network to other jurisdictions (Action 2). Because active transportation initiatives require coordination across many different stakeholders and agencies, partnerships across public agencies, community groups, and advocacy groups are necessary for successful infrastructure improvements.85 Actions 2 and 3 therefore identify important stakeholders in Cupertino for this work, including the County, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), SVCE, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, and other community groups. Action 4 additionally integrates equity considerations into project prioritization, based on the understanding 81 City of Cupertino. June 2016. City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Accessed at:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3479/636443578340030000 82 Andrew Glazener and Haneen Khreis. January 2019. Transforming our Cities: Best Practices Towards Clean Air and Active Transportation. Accessed at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40572-019-0228-1 83 City of Cupertino. June 2016. City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Accessed at:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3479/636443578340030000 84 City of Cupertino. February 2018. City of Cupertino 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Accessed at:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/16864/636650034974470000 85 Deborah R. Young et al. August 2020. Creating Built Environments That Expand Active Transportation and Active Living Across the United States: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association. Accessed at:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000878 431
CC 08-16-2022
431 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 33
that the distribution of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is often inequitable, and equity should be considered as part of the active transportation infrastructure planning process.86 Actions 5-7: Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
Walking, bikes, e-bikes, and other active transportation modes can have a strong impact on cities’ GHG emissions, with the potential to cut urban transportation emissions up to 11% in cities that make a strong commitment to promoting bicycle travel.87 Nationally, 16.4% of vehicle trips were one mile or less in 2017, a distance easily travelled by foot or bicycle.88 Actions 5 through 7 commit the City to implementing key improvements to Cupertino’s bicycle and pedestrian networks. The City’s existing Pedestrian Transportation Plan and Bicycle Transportation Plan identify a number of programs and projects, such as 50 added miles of bike lane buildout, sidewalk buildouts, intersection improvements, Safe Routes to School program expansion, and education programs, that will make the active transportation network in Cupertino more connected, accessible, and safe.
Action 5 directs the City to implement these plans on an accelerated timeline to achieve an active transportation network buildout of over 90 miles of connected multimodal bikeways and comprehensive active transportation options of safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. Action 6 directs the City to add more bikeway beyond what is proposed in the Bicycle Transportation Plan, by repainting roads to add bike lanes and limiting space on the roads for cars. Action 7 pilots designated streets for bicycles, which helps to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian movement in the City and increase the safety of active transportation in those areas.
In order to estimate the mode shift potential associated with Actions 5 through 7, other cities with similar buildouts (bike network mileage versus road network mileage) were compared. Results from significant investment in bicycle infrastructure in California suggest that bicycle mode share can be increased on par with leading bicycle cities in the state. The City of Davis leads the state with 23.2% bicycle mode share in 2019 followed by the City of Berkeley with 9.7% bicycle mode share in 2019 (see Table 9). GHG emissions quantification in 2030 for these actions conservatively estimates the average of the two (15%), while quantification in 2040 estimates a mode shift close to the maximum. A 15% bicycle mode share translates approximately to a 3% decrease in passenger VMT from. The methods and assumptions used to calculate the GHG emissions reductions associated with these actions are shown in Table 10.
86 Richard J Lee. September 2016. Understanding the role of equity in active transportation planning in the United States. Accessed at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01441647.2016.1239660 87 Jacob Mason et al. Institute for Transportation & Development Policy and the University of California, Davis. November 2015. A Global High Shift Cycling Scenario. Accessed at: https://itdpdotorg.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/A-Global-High-Shift-CyclingScenario_Nov-2015.pdf 88 National Household Travel Survey. December 2021. Population Vehicle Trips Statistics. Accessed at: https://nhts.ornl.gov/vehicle-trips 432
CC 08-16-2022
432 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
34 Table 9 Bicycle Network Buildout versus Mode Share
City Bike Network Length
(miles)
Road Network Length
(miles)
Bike Buildout
Ratio
Bicycle Mode Share
(%)
City of Davis in 2021 12389 16990 0.72 23.2%91
City of Berkeley in
2021
50.892 22193 0.23 9.7%94
City of Cupertino in
2030
9095 16096 0.56 15%97
89 City of Davis. September 2020. Form 1878 (League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly America Application Form). Accessed at:
https://bikeleague.org/content/about-bfc-application-process 90 Ibid.
91 Wikipedia. November 2021. List of U.S. Cities with Most Bicycle Commuters. Accessed at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_bicycle_commuters 92 City of Berkeley. May 2017. City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan. Accessed at:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Public_Works/Level_3_-_Transportation/Berkeley-Bicycle-Plan-2017- Executive%20Summary.pdf
93 City of Berkeley. 2003. General Plan Transportation Element Introduction. Accessed at:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Home/General_Plan_-_Transportation_Element.aspx 94 Wikipedia. November 2021. List of U.S. Cities with Most Bicycle Commuters. Accessed at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_bicycle_commuters 95 City of Cupertino. June 2016. City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Accessed at:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3479/636443578340030000 96 Ibid.
97 Conservatively estimated as the average of Berkeley and City of Davis mode share since the buildout ratio for Cupertino in 2030 will sit between Berkeley’s and Davis’.
433
CC 08-16-2022
433 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 35
Table 10 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 5-7
Inputs and Assumptions
Existing bicycle mode share (2015)98 1%
Average bike trip length (miles)99 1.5
GHG Emissions Reductions Calculations
Year 2030 2040
Bicycle mode share target100 15% 23%
Passenger trips/mile101 0.1314 0.1325
Mode share increase from 2015 14% 22%
Passenger VMT102 402,635,644 429,178,926
Passenger trips 52,913,916 56,886,156
New bike trips substituted for vehicle trips (miles) 7,566,690 12,685,613 Passenger VMT reduced with bike trips (miles) 11,350,035 19,028,419 Percent of passenger VMT reduced with bike trips (%) 3% 4% Passenger emissions factor (MT CO2e/VMT)103 0.00027500 0.00025342 Total Reductions (MT CO2e) 3,121.24 4,822.27
Per Capita Reductions (MT CO2e/person) 0.048 0.071
Actions 8-9: Bicycle Parking Infrastructure
A bicycle network is not complete without secure and convenient bike parking at the end of a trip.
Bicycle parking in Cupertino is available at many shopping centers, schools, and some parks. Most bicycle parking is short-term bicycle racks. Cupertino must continue to increase the amount of highquality bicycle parking to improve its Bicycle Friendly Communities designation per the League of American Bicyclists. Improved bicycle parking would increase bicycling by making residents confident they’ll have a safe place to leave their bike when they arrive at their destination.104 Action 8 commits the City to strong bicycle parking installation requirements for commercial developments while Action 9 commits the City to improving its existing bike parking network, making substantial progress towards an improved bike parking network. 98 City of Cupertino. June 2016. City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Accessed at:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3479/636443578340030000 99 California Air Resources Board (CARB). April 2019. Quantifying Reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled from New Bike Paths, Lanes, and Cycle Tracks. Accessed at: http://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/auction-proceeds/bicycle_facilities_technical_041519.pdf 100 See Table 9.ou
101 Calculated from data for the County of Santa Clara from California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMFAC2021 model, accessed at:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/d7e33b22a7ef163d2dc9fd91182391d41cb025f9 102 Appendix A
103 Calculated from data for the County of Santa Clara from California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMFAC2021 model, accessed at:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/d7e33b22a7ef163d2dc9fd91182391d41cb025f9 104 City of Cupertino. June 2016. City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Accessed at:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3479/636443578340030000 434
CC 08-16-2022
434 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
36 Actions 10-12: Micro-mobility
Actions 10 through 12 commit the City to planning, implementing, and providing funding for a micro-mobility program in Cupertino. There is good evidence to suggest that micro-mobility programs like e-bike share can reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions. A 2019 report from the City of Santa Monica found that 49% of shared rideable trips replaced vehicle trips based on answers to survey questions.105 A 2014 study from Utrecht University suggests that the car substitution rate of shared rideables is dependent on what proportion of trips are already taken by car in a city. 106 In the study, Minneapolis and Melbourne had between 70% and 76% vehicle mode share in 2014 and showed high rates of car mode substitution (19% to 21%) after shared rideables were introduced. On the other hand, London and Washington DC had between 36% and 46% vehicle mode share in 2014 and showed much lower rates of car mode substitution where shared rideables were introduced (2% to 7%). Sacramento and Santa Monica both had high vehicle mode share (83% and 72% respectively) before shared rideables were introduced, suggesting that Cupertino would see a similar if not higher car substitution rate of shared rideables as Santa Monica and Sacramento.
Both studies previously mentioned suggest that average trip duration of shared rideable trips is about 2 miles (this is seen consistently across the six diverse cities mentioned above) and appears to be largely independent of other city metrics.
An e-bike ride share program has the potential to be even more successful, as e-bike riders can go longer distances and are more accessible to non-riders. A study in Portland, Oregon found that a 15% e-bike mode share could result in a 12% reduction in transportation-related emissions.107 Action 13: Funding and Financing
Action 13 commits the City to devoting staff time to identifying funding opportunities for bike and pedestrian network expansion, in support of Actions 1 through 12. While much less expensive than roadways, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure can be expensive for cities to build and maintain, and funding sources outside of city budgets are generally needed to fund active transportation infrastructure projects.
105 City of Santa Monica. November 2019. Shared Mobility Pilot Program Summary Report. Accessed at:
https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Transportation/SantaMonicaSharedMobilityEvaluation_Final_110419.pdf 106 Elliot Fishman et al. 2014. Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Accessed at:
http://mobility-workspace.eu/wp-content/uploads/Bike-shares-impact-on-car-use-3.pdf 107 Michael McQueen. October 2020. The E-Bike Potential: Estimating regional e-bike impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. Accessed at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920920306696 435
CC 08-16-2022
435 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 37
Measure TR-2: Implement public and shared transit programs to achieve 29% of public transit mode share by 2030 and maintain through 2040 Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
Transit Planning
1 Develop a plan for on-demand community shuttle (Via-Cupertino) expansion and designated streets for transit based on data collected by the City.
Supportive
Public Transit Improvements
2 Include public transit in the designated streets pilot program in Measure TR-1 (Action 7). 2030: 0.269
2040: 0.256
3 Aggressively expand the on-demand community shuttle to meet shared transit goals and support vulnerable populations: secure funding to support transition to an all-electric fleet, maintain bike racks on all fleet vehicles, increase service and coverage, wheelchair accessibility, and offer free or deeply subsidized passes to students attending Cupertino schools and low-income individuals.
4 Partner with VTA and neighboring cities to develop high-capacity transit service along the Stevens Creek Boulevard/I-280 corridor
Supportive
Funding and Financing
5 Conduct a free public transit pilot program that provides free public transit on VTA and the Via-Cupertino Shuttle to students, foster youth, and unhoused youth in Cupertino.
Supportive
Transportation Demand Management
6 Require medium to large-sized employers (25 employees or more) to develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. TDM plans should include subsidies for employees to bike, walk, or carpool, and provide free transit passes for all employees.
Supportive
7 Require new multi-family development projects to install a car share or provide e-bikes/escooters to each new tenant. Supportive Transportation Authority Coordination
8 Establish a program for supporting regional transportation coordination for improving region-wide service, such as establishing prioritized service, obtaining grant funding for service expansion or headway reductions.
Supportive
Action 1: Transit Planning
Effective implementation of the key actions under Measure TR-2 – including designated streets for transit (Action 2) and expansion of the Via-Cupertino Shuttle (Action 3) – requires planning. Action 1 commits the City to conducting a study to support both actions, which will help the City determine the steps for implementation, associated costs and other potential barriers, and to identify the most strategic and impactful locations within Cupertino to implement the programs. 436
CC 08-16-2022
436 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
38 Actions 2-4: Public Transit Improvements
In general, increases and improvements to public transportation systems reduce a city’s dependence on fossil fuels and reduce VMT. The best ways to improve a transit system and reduce driving is to expand its geographical reach and increase the frequency and reliability of transit service. Each new mile of transit usage replaces VMT on much more than a 1:1 basis. Approximately 1% increase in transit frequency saves 0.5% in VMT.108 Further, improving transit access has the potential to shift trips from cars to transit, which may reduce vehicle trips, VMT, and greenhouse gas emissions, with time spent getting to a transit stop being the key indicator of transit access.109 Action 2 commits the City to piloting a designated streets program for buses (to be implemented in conjunction with Measure TR-1 Action 7 – designated streets for active transportation) which helps to prioritize bus movement in the City. This action addresses the need for increased frequency and reliability of transit service. Action 3 commits the City to expanding the existing Via-Cupertino Shuttle program, an on-demand community shuttle accessed via phone or app that goes everywhere in Cupertino and connects to some locations outside of Cupertino. This action addresses the need for expanded geographical reach of transit and addresses the first-last mile problem110 in Cupertino. Action 3 commits the City to developing new high-capacity transit service in key regional travel corridors for improved, more frequent, and more reliable transit service.
In order to estimate the mode shift potential associated with Actions 2, 3, and 4, other cities with similar levels and types of public transit investment were compared. Success in other cities suggests that significant investment in public transit can increase public transit mode share on par with those cities. The City of San Francisco leads the state with 26% transit mode share in 2017 (pre-COVID).111, 112 The City of Seattle has documented significant increases in public transit mode share to 48% in 2017 (pre-COVID).113 Key strategies employed by these cities include significant expansions of transit service lines, designated streets or lanes for bus lines to decrease headways, implementation of taxes to support transit, reduced parking availability, and TNC user taxes. Cupertino will follow the lead of San Francisco and Seattle and implement all of these strategies in Actions 2, 3, 4, and Measure TR-4. Quantification estimates that given full implementation of the public transit improvement actions, the average of Seattle and San Francisco’s public transit mode share (29%) is achievable for Cupertino in 2030, given the barriers to public transit that Cupertino currently faces.
This would be equivalent to a 16% decrease in passenger VMT from public transit. The methods and assumptions used to calculate the GHG emissions reductions associated with these actions are shown in the table below.
108 Todd Litman. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. August 2021. Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs Best Practices Guidebook.
Accessed at: https://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf
109 California Air Resources Board (CARB). August 2017. Methods to Assess Co-Benefits of California Climate Investments: Vehicle Miles Travelled. Accessed at: http://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/auction-proceeds/carb_vehicle_miles_traveled.pdf 110 The first-last mile transit problem refers to the distance a commuter needs to travel, typically on-foot or by bicycle, between home and the nearest public transit stop, or vice versa. Often if the distance is greater than ¼ mile, the travel distance can function as a barrier to public transit use (see Footnote 109).
111 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). December 2021. Sustainable Transportation Mode Share. Accessed at:
https://www.sfmta.com/reports/sustainable-transportation-mode-share 112 Pre-COVID numbers are referenced here with the understanding that public transit usage during the COVID pandemic were lower than normal and are likely to increase again assuming a return to pre-COVID conditions. 113 Commute Seattle. December 2021. 2019 Mode Split Study Report. Accessed at: https://www.commuteseattle.com/resource/2019- mode-split-study/
437
CC 08-16-2022
437 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 39
Table 11 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 2-4
Inputs and Assumptions
Existing transit mode share (2014)114 2%
Average transit trip length (miles)115 4.5
GHG Emissions Reductions Calculations
Year 2030 2040
Transit mode share target116 29% 29%
Passenger trips/mile117 0.1314 0.1325
Mode share increase from 2014 27% 27%
Passenger VMT (miles)118 402,635,644 429,178,926
Passenger trips 52,913,916 56,886,156
New transit trips substituted for vehicle
trips 14,286,757 15,359,262
VMT reduced with public transit (miles) 64,290,408 69,116,679 Percent of forecasted passenger VMT
reduced with public transit (%) 16% 16%
Passenger emissions factor (MT
CO2e/VMT)119 0.00027500 0.00025342
Total Reductions (MT CO2e) 17,679.75 17,515.86
Per Capita Reductions (MT CO2e/person) 0.269 0.256
While the City believes the aggressive public transit actions in this CAP will push Cupertino towards a 29% public transit mode share and an associated 16% decrease in VMT, the City also recognizes that increasing public transit mode share on this order of magnitude in California has only been accomplished successfully by the City of San Francisco, and in all other California cities VMT has stagnated or increased. Given this, the City recognizes that the 29% transit mode share/16% VMT reduction is a stretch goal and may be difficult to achieve despite the actions in this CAP being some of the most aggressive public transit programs in the state. At a bare minimum (lower bound public transit scenario), the City expects to be able to achieve a 5% public transit mode share by 2030, which corresponds to a 2% decrease in VMT. Under this lower bound scenario, Cupertino would not meet its aggressive target to decrease per capita GHG emissions 50% below 2010 levels, but would 114 City of Cupertino. June 2016. City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Accessed at:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3479/636443578340030000 115 See Table 1; average of trip lengths for bus and light rail used.
American Public Transportation Association. December 2018. 2018 Public Transportation Fact Book. Accessed at:
https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Resources/resources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/2018-APTA-Fact-Book.pdf 116 Commute Seattle. December 2021. 2019 Mode Split Study Report. Accessed at: https://www.commuteseattle.com/resource/2019- mode-split-study/
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). December 2021. Sustainable Transportation Mode Share. Accessed at:
https://www.sfmta.com/reports/sustainable-transportation-mode-share 117 Calculated from data for the County of Santa Clara from California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMFAC2021 model, accessed at:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/d7e33b22a7ef163d2dc9fd91182391d41cb025f9 118 Forecasted VMT from adjusted forecast (Appendix A) minus VMT reduced from Measure TR-1. 119 Calculated from data for the County of Santa Clara from California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMFAC2021 model, accessed at:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/d7e33b22a7ef163d2dc9fd91182391d41cb025f9 438
CC 08-16-2022
438 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
40 still exceed the state level target to decrease emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32). This scenario is detailed in Table 12. Therefore, at a minimum, Cupertino expects to exceed the state level target for 2030 set by SB 32 regardless of the performance of Measure TR-2.
Table 12 Lower Bound Public Transit GHG Emissions Reductions Scenario for Cupertino 2030 Scenario GHG Emissions (MT
CO2e/person)
BAU GHG emissions 5.77
Adjusted GHG emissions 5.04
City target (50% below 2010 levels by 2030) 3.39
SB 32 target (40% below 1990 levels by 2030) 3.68
GHG emissions reductions from TR-2 under lower bound public transit scenario (5% public transit mode share by 2030)120 0.030
GHG emissions reductions from all measures except TR-2 under lower bound public transit scenario121 1.447
GHG emissions after CAP implementation under lower bound public transit scenario 3.57 Lower bound public transit scenario meets or exceeds City target? No Lower bound public transit scenario meets or exceeds SB 32 target? Exceeds Action 5: Funding and Financing
Cupertino understands that reducing VMT through improved public transit will require a large behavior shift regarding transportation in Cupertino, and California as a whole. Current transit mode share in Cupertino is only 2% (see table and sources above). In an effort to incentivize this behavior shift, Action 4 commits the City to piloting a free public transit program with VTA and Via-Cupertino Shuttle, which provides free public transit to Cupertino’s students, foster youth, and unhoused youth. This action was based on the successful implementation of a similar program in nearby Sacramento, California.122 The City of Sacramento has seen demonstrated success with their program, including increased public transit ridership, better school access for children, and improved afterschool transportation.123
120 Calculated the same as in Table 11, but substituting the 29% mode share target in 2030 for 5%. 121 Under the lower bound public transit scenario, all other measure reductions are the same as under the 29% public transit mode share scenario except TR-3 Actions 1-2. Under the lower bound public transit scenario, the calculations in Table 13 change in the following way: “Passenger VMT after mode shift to active and shared transit” adjusts to 384,142,231 miles and “Per capita reductions” adjusts to
0.398 MT CO2e reduced per person.
122 City of Sacramento. July 2021. Student Fare-Free Transit Pass Program. Accessed at: https://www.sacrt.com/apps/free-sacramentostudent-fares/ 123 Alex Karner. University of Texas at Austin. January 2021. RydeFreeRT Evaluation Study: User Demographics, Attitudes, and Impacts on Travel Behavior. Accessed at: https://www.sacrt.com/rydefreert/docs/RydeFreeRT_Evaluation_(FINAL).pdf 439
CC 08-16-2022
439 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 41
Actions 6-7: Transportation Demand Management
Actions 5 and 6 commit the City to implementing strong transportation demand management (TDM) requirements for existing employers and new developments in Cupertino. TDM is defined as a set of strategies aimed at maximizing traveler choices, especially for commuters, and reducing VMT and congestion by encouraging shifts away from single-occupancy vehicles. Effective employer TDM strategies include subsidizing or paying workers for vanpooling, taking public transit, and other more sustainable transit options, as well as requiring new development to provide alternative transit options to driving.124 Seattle Children’s Hospital has reduced its employee drive-alone cohort 35% between 1990 and 2017 by paying employees $4 every day they do not drive to work.125 Action 5 requires employers with over 25 employees to implement similar strategies as part of their operations. Action 6 puts the onus on developers to build out transit options as part of a new multifamily development project. This helps ensure that as Cupertino’s multi-family units are developed, residents of those units will have immediate access to non-single occupancy vehicle transportation options.
Action 8: Transportation Authority Coordination
The City recognizes that its jurisdiction is limited to the boundaries of Cupertino; however, an attractive public transportation network is regional in nature and crosses city and county boundaries. VTA is the special district responsible for public transportation services, congestion management, specific highway improvement projects, and countywide transportation planning for Santa Clara County, including Cupertino. Improving public transportation within Cupertino and throughout the region necessitates collaborating and supporting VTA’s programs. Action 7 therefore commits the City to dedicating staff time or creating a staff position with VTA engagement, support, and collaboration as its focus. This will be key to aligning Cupertino’s micro mobility programs (e.g., the designated streets program in Action 2, Via-Cupertino Shuttle expansion in Action 3, and the TDM requirements in Actions 5 and 6) with VTA programs to maximize the impact of those programs.
124 Adam Russell. Mobility Lab. February 2017. Five ways employers are thinking big on commuter benefits. Accessed at:
https://mobilitylab.org/2017/02/21/five-ways-employers-are-thinking-big-on-commuter-benefits/ 125 Ibid.
440
CC 08-16-2022
440 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
42 Measure TR-3: Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption126 to 35% for passenger vehicles and 20% for commercial vehicles by 2030 and 100% for all vehicles by 2040
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
Public Electric Vehicle Chargers
1 Conduct a survey of existing publicly accessible electric vehicle chargers, their locations, and their kW hour charging speed, and identify a prioritized list of locations for new electric vehicle charging stations with particular consideration for equitable distribution of chargers to residents of multi-family homes, low-income and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs . 2030:0.339
2040:1.1263
2 Leverage public and private partnerships to add 719 new publicly accessible Level 2 and 3 electric vehicle charging stations to the City by 2030.
Private Electric Vehicle Chargers
3 Review electric vehicle infrastructure reach code for new development and consider readoption of the reach code or strengthening electric vehicle installation requirements at next code cycle.
Supportive
4 Create a local reach code ordinance for installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure at existing multi-family and commercial sites. Work with SVCE on model code development and coordinate efforts with other SVCE cities.
Supportive
5 Continue to maintain and advertise a streamlined electric vehicle infrastructure permitting process in accordance with SB 1236 and SB 970.
Supportive
Private/Commercial Vehicle Fleets
6 Investigate commercial vehicle fleets in Cupertino and identify businesses/employers to target for accelerating zero emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption. 2030: 0.118 2040: 0.697
7 Work and collaborate with local businesses/employers to develop and implement a plan for City-supported accelerated fleet electrification. As part of the plan, identify opportunities for accelerated fleet electrification and promote zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption within major private and employee fleets in the city.
ZEV Car Share
8 Support zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) car share companies in coming to Cupertino; collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions and the County to do the same to create a larger connected network of ZEV car share.
Supportive
126 For the purposes of this document and the Cupertino CAP Update, ZEV adoption refers to percent of vehicles registered in Cupertino that are ZEV.
441
CC 08-16-2022
441 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 43
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
9 Establish affordable, zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) car share to serve affordable housing and/or multifamily developments with a priority to target renters, residents in multi-unit housing, low-income and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs.
Supportive
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
10 Review zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption rates based on demographics of Cupertino to identify ways to improve ZEV adoption among renters, low-income and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, disabled individuals with access needs. Based on the results, conduct targeted outreach to groups to identify barriers and concerns of potential ZEV drivers. Work with community-based organizations to target outreach and program planning to reduce barriers for ZEV adoption among groups with low participation rates.
Supportive
11 Coordinate with community-based organizations, agencies, and non-profits to conduct zeroemission vehicle (ZEV) education events for renters, low-income and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs that would include information on costs/benefits of owning ZEVs, steps on how to receive incentives for ZEVs, and other benefits.
Supportive
Funding and Financing
12 Work with SVCE and PG&E to incentivize electric vehicle charger installations through on-bill financing.
Supportive
13 Identify and implement incentives for commercial fleet electrification. This could include local tax breaks.
Supportive
Actions 1-2: Public Electric Vehicle Chargers
Adding and supporting the addition of electric vehicle chargers within Cupertino will be the main mechanism through which the City will encourage zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption within the community. The state has established a goal of putting 5 million ZEVs on the road by 2030.
However, the recent passing of executive order N-79-20 calls for 100% of passenger vehicle sales to be all-electric by 2035. This new executive order puts the total number of ZEVs on the road by 2035 at approximately 15 million.127 Based on the current number of vehicles registered in California and a 2% growth rate per year, 15 million ZEV’s accounts for 35% of total passenger vehicles in 2035.
The City has established its own goal in line with this and aims to reach 35% ZEV adoption by 2030, 5 years ahead of the state, and 100% by 2040. As of 2020, 8% of passenger vehicles in Cupertino were ZEVs.128
While the City cannot require residents to buy and use ZEVs rather than gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles, the City will take actions to incentivize this behavior change and support this level of ZEV 127 Susan Carpenter. Spectrum News 1. October 2020. What it will take to get 100% EV sales in California. Accessed at:
https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/transportation/2020/10/05/what-it-will-take-to-sell-100--evs-in-california 128 California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). January 2020. Fuel Type by County as of 11/2020. Accessed at:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/uploads/2020/09/MotorVehicleFuelTypes_City_01012020.pdf 442
CC 08-16-2022
442 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
44 adoption. The City’s primary target to achieve this measure is to provide one public electric vehicle charger for every 20 electric vehicles (addressed by Actions 1 and 2 discussed in more detail here), as well as ensure as many privately owned chargers are installed in existing buildings and new development as practicable, in line with the leading ZEV cities in California, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose. Increasing private electric vehicle chargers is addressed in Actions 3 and 4, discussed in the section below.
Action 1 commits the City to surveying the existing network of publicly accessible electric vehicle chargers to determine priority locations for installation of new chargers. Cupertino currently (as of December 2021) hosts 173 publicly accessible electric vehicle chargers, putting the City’s ZEV-topublic charger ratio just above 20.129 Action 2 commits the City to installing at least 719 new publicly accessible Level 2 and 3 chargers by 2030. 719 new chargers were calculated to be the minimum number of new publicly accessible chargers that would be needed to support the City’s 2030 goal to achieve 35% passenger ZEV adoption, based on Cupertino’s current ratio of 20 ZEVs to publicly accessible chargers. This ratio is also in line with leading electric vehicle cities in the state, including Sacramento and San Francisco. The methods and assumptions used to calculate the number of chargers needed by 2030 and 2040, as well as the GHG emissions reductions associated with these actions are shown in the table below.
129 PlugShare. December 2021. Best EV Charging Stations in Cupertino. Accessed at:
https://www.plugshare.com/directory/us/california/cupertino#:~:text=There%20are%20180%20Charging%20Stations%20in%20Cupertin o.
443
CC 08-16-2022
443 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 45
Table 13 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 1-2
Inputs and Assumptions
Total registered vehicles in Cupertino (2020)130 47,212 Registered EVs in Cupertino (2020)131 3,786
EV chargers in Cupertino (2021)132 173
2020 population133 60,381
Cars per capita 0.78
Cars needed per public EV charger 20
GHG Emissions Reductions Calculations
Year 2030 2040
Passenger ZEV adoption goal 35% 100%
Business-as-usual passenger ZEV adoption (%)134 10.14% 11.28% ZEV adoption beyond business-as-usual 24.9% 100%
Passenger VMT after mode shift to active and shared transit (miles)135 326,995,201 341,033,827
Passenger VMT emissions factor (MT CO2e/VMT)136 0.00027500 0.00025342 Emission Reduction from increased ZEV (MT CO2e) 22,356 86,426 ZEV electricity usage (kWh/mile)137 0.371025797 0.369790302 ZEV electricity usage from increased ZEV adoption (kWh) 30,162,252 126,111,002 Electricity emissions factor after Measure BE-1 (MT CO2e/kWh)138 0.000003 0.0000010 Emissions from electricity usage for added ZEVs (MT CO2e) 86 115 Total Reductions (MT CO2e) 22,266 86,301
Per Capita Reductions (MT CO2e/person) 0.339 1.263
Electric Vehicle Charger Count Calculations
Population139 65,690 68,305
Total registered vehicles 51,363 53,408
Registered ZEVs goal 17,977 53,408
Additional public EV chargers needed to support ZEV goal 719 2,490 Actions 3-5: Private Electric Vehicle Chargers
Actions 3 through 5 commit the City to maintaining an electric vehicle reach code for new development and existing buildings, as well as a streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle 130 California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). January 2020. Fuel Type by County as of 11/2020. Accessed at:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/uploads/2020/09/MotorVehicleFuelTypes_City_01012020.pdf 131 Ibid.
132 PlugShare. December 2021. Best EV Charging Stations in Cupertino. Accessed at:
https://www.plugshare.com/directory/us/california/cupertino#:~:text=There%20are%20180%20Charging%20Stations%20in%20Cupertin o.
133 United States Census Bureau. December 2021. QuickFacts: Cupertino City, California. Accessed at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/cupertinocitycalifornia/PST045219 134 Calculated from data for the County of Santa Clara from California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMFAC2021 model, accessed at:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/d7e33b22a7ef163d2dc9fd91182391d41cb025f9 135 Forecasted VMT from adjusted forecast (Appendix A) minus VMT reduced from Measures TR-1 and TR-2. 444
CC 08-16-2022
444 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
46 charger installation. Electric vehicle-ready reach codes (as in Action 3) are one of the most effective and low-cost strategies for states and local governments to encourage consumers to buy or lease electric vehicles and can save consumers thousands of dollars in installation costs.140 However, new development only accounts for a small fraction of buildings in Cupertino, and the City recognizes the need for electric vehicle charging infrastructure in existing buildings as well, especially in homes and apartment buildings. To encourage this, Action 4 commits the City to implementing a requirement for electric vehicle installation in existing buildings to support this need. Finally, Action 5 commits the City to maintaining a streamlined permitting process, a key strategy for cities in supporting ZEV adoption. SB 1236 and SB 970 require cities to adopt permit streamlining procedures for electric vehicle charging stations. Cupertino has adopted most but not all of the permit streamlining procedures under these State laws. Action 5 commits the City to adopting all procedures under these bills.
Actions 6-7: Private/Commercial Vehicle Fleets
Commercial electric vehicle adoption is projected to occur at a slower rate than passenger vehicle adoption, with the greatest electrification success projected in light-duty commercial vehicles.141 To accelerate commercial electric vehicle adoption in Cupertino and achieve 20% ZEV adoption in 2030 and 100% in 2040, the City plans to actively identify and engage businesses/employers with vehicle fleets to accelerate ZEV adoption. Action 6 commits the City to investigating existing commercial vehicle fleets to help identify businesses/employers to engage, while Action 7 commits the City to working with identified businesses/employers to enact a plan for accelerated ZEV adoption. These actions directly contribute to the City’s goal of 20% commercial ZEV adoption by 2030 and 100% by 2040. The expanded charger network the City has committed to with Actions 1 and 2 will also help the City achieve this goal. The methods and assumptions used to calculate the GHG emissions reductions associated with these actions are shown in the table below. 136 Calculated from data for the County of Santa Clara from California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMFAC2021 model, accessed at:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/d7e33b22a7ef163d2dc9fd91182391d41cb025f9 137 Ibid.
138 See calculations for Measure BE-1.
139 Appendix A
140 Southeast Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP). December 2018. Cracking the Code on EV-Rady Building Codes. Accessed at:
https://www.swenergy.org/cracking-the-code-on-ev-ready-building-codes 141 Erica Schueller. FleetOwner. July 2021. What it will take to accelerate electric truck adoption. Accessed at:
https://www.fleetowner.com/drivers-seat/article/21167635/what-it-will-take-to-accelerate-electric-truck-adoption 445
CC 08-16-2022
445 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 47
Table 14 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions 6-7
GHG Emissions Reductions Calculations
Year 2030 2040
Commercial ZEV adoption goal 20% 100%
Business-as-usual commercial ZEV adoption
(%) 7.73% 30.06%
ZEV adoption beyond business-as-usual 12.3% 100.0%
Commercial VMT (miles) 59,858,476 61,457,285
Commercial VMT emissions factor (MT
CO2e/VMT) 0.00107089 0.00077902
Emission Reduction from increased ZEV
adoption (MT CO2e) 7,864 47,877
ZEV electricity usage (kWh/mile) 1.019 1.000
ZEV electricity usage from increased ZEV
adoption (kWh) 7,483,845 61,434,422
Electricity emissions factor after Measure BE1 (MT CO2e/kWh) 0.0000140 0.0000047 Emissions from electricity usage for ZEVs 105 287
Total Reductions (MT CO2e) 7,759 47,589
Per Capita Reductions (MT CO2e/person) 0.118 0.697
Actions 8-9: ZEV Car Share
Research from the Transportation Sustainability Research Center at the University of California – Berkeley shows that car share programs lower vehicle ownership and overall VMT.142 While a majority of car share members use the program to add or replace vehicle trips (leading generally to small VMT increases), a minority of members (2-5%) use car share as a replacement for vehicle ownership (leading generally to larger VMT reductions). The net effect is an overall decrease in vehicle ownership, VMT, and GHG emissions. Approximately one car share vehicle replaces seven to eleven cars and VMT is reduced, on average, between 6% to 16% per car share household assuming one-way usage.
Action 8 commits the city to supporting ZEV car share companies in coming to Cupertino with the aim of creating a regional connected network of ZEV car share. Action 9 commits the City to pursuing ZEV car share that specifically serves affordable housing/multifamily developments as a way to bridge the equity gap between low-income residents and renters and ZEV ownership.
Actions 10-11: Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Community and stakeholder engagement around ZEV adoption will be critical in helping the City understand existing barriers to ZEV adoption, and in helping the community share in the benefits of ZEV adoption. Actions 10 and 11 commit the City to identifying ZEV ownership statistics in Cupertino and barriers to ZEV ownership within the community, working with local community-based organizations to engage populations where ZEV ownership is low (such as among renters or low142 Elliot Martin and Susan Shaheen. Transportation Sustainability Research Center at University of California, Berkeley. July 2016.
Impacts of Car2Go on Vehicle Ownership, Modal Shift, Vehicle Miles Travelled, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Analysis of Five North American Cities. Accessed at: http://innovativemobility.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Impactsofcar2go_FiveCities_2016.pdf 446
CC 08-16-2022
446 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
48 income residents), and conducting education and outreach around the benefits of ZEV ownership and available incentives that can make ZEV ownership more affordable in the short-term.
Actions 12-13: Funding and Financing
Actions 12 and 13 commit the City to providing monetary incentives, in the form of on-bill financing for residents and local tax breaks for businesses, for installing electric vehicle chargers or adopting ZEVs. These actions help accelerate Cupertino’s ZEV adoption rates beyond what is anticipated at the state level.
447
CC 08-16-2022
447 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 49
Measure TR-4: Refocus transportation infrastructure away from singleoccupancy gasoline and diesel passenger vehicles to support the bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, and ZEV goals of Measures TR-1, TR-2, and TR-3
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
Feasibility Planning
1 Conduct public outreach and analysis of the potential community impacts and benefits of implementing disincentive-based policies for driving gasoline and diesel single passenger vehicles. Explore options such as limiting parking options, increased local taxes (income tax, gasoline tax, or car registration tax), and transportation network company (TNC) user taxes.
Supportive
2 In addition to general public outreach, conduct targeted outreach to students, low-income and fixed income people, historically underserved communities, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs during analysis of the disincentive-based transportation policies to understand the community's potential concerns.
Supportive
3 Define equity metrics for implementation of disincentives based on feedback from local students, low-income and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs and structure the disincentive programs to meet these metrics.
Supportive
Parking Restrictions
4 Develop a plan and timeline for allowing developers to build housing without off-street parking if it is close to frequent transit service, to be implemented at a time when frequent transit options are more available in Cupertino.
Supportive
5 As part of future updates to the General Plan, conduct a traffic pattern study to identify commercial areas of the city to severely limit or eliminate parking for single-passenger gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Supportive
6 Conduct a study of citywide parking minimums and based on available transportation options, travel demand, and land use, consider parking maximums and potentially charging for public parking spaces.
Supportive
Local Taxes
7 Identify options for funding active and public transit programs through a local tax starting in 2023 (e.g., income tax, local gasoline tax, or gasoline/car registration tax). Ensure any tax or fee is designed to have low to no impact on low-income residents (e.g., includes a rebate for CARE/FERA customers, or has progressive fee levels based on income bracket/value of the car).
Supportive
8 Implement a user tax on Transportation Network Companies (TNC), taxi companies, and other private transportation services, which would put a small fee on the use of these services to generate funds to pay for transit and mobility infrastructure. Exceptions to a user tax may be made for private transportation services that demonstrably reduce VMT.
Supportive
448
CC 08-16-2022
448 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
50 Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
Tracking
9 Track the results of the CAP's driving disincentive programs - parking limitations, increased local taxes (income tax, gasoline tax, or car registration tax), and TNC user taxes - and share these results with neighboring jurisdictions and the County to collaborate on extending these programs within the County.
Supportive
Actions 1-3: Feasibility Planning
While incentive-based policies and infrastructure improvements, such as those identified in Measures TR-1, TR-2, and TR-3 can be effective in changing community choices around transportation, the impacts of incentive-based policies increase when coupled with disincentives for less favorable choices, such as making it less convenient to drive a gasoline-fueled single passenger vehicle.143 However, disincentive-based policies can be unpopular and place a burden on the community if not implemented carefully. Actions 1 and 2 commit the City to conducting feasibility planning for implementing disincentives for driving gasoline-fueled single passenger vehicles, including analyzing and engaging the community on potential impacts and benefits of limiting parking options, increasing local taxes, and implementing transportation network company (TNC) user taxes. Action 3 commits the City to developing equity metrics for the implementation of disincentives to ensure potential impacts to equity groups are mitigated.
Actions 4-6: Parking Restrictions
Reduced parking supply, when combined with other VMT reduction measures such as efficient public transit, land use policies, and urban parking pricing can reduce VMT.144 Reduced parking supply makes driving single-passenger vehicles less attractive and can shift traveler choice to other options. Parking supply can be reduced by decreasing parking requirements for new development (e.g., Action 4), eliminating parking spots along curbs (e.g., Action 5), and implementing parking maximums (e.g., Action 6). Actions 4 through 6 commit the City to exploring options for implementing these types of parking restrictions in Cupertino.
Actions 7-8: Local Taxes
Institution of local taxes has had demonstrated success in the City of Seattle, which observed an 89% increase in light rail ridership and a decrease in traffic and VMT since 2006 despite a substantial population increase.145 Transit infrastructure improvements in the City are paid for by a local sales 143 Gabriel Ayobami Ogunkunbi et al. August 2021. Evidence-Based Market Overview of Incentives and Disincentives in Electric Mobility as a Key to the Sustainable Future. Accessed at: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7590/1/2/17/pdf 144 Lee Provost. Caltrans Division of Research, Innovation and System Information. March 2018. Pricing and Parking Management to Reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). Accessed at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-systeminformation/documents/preliminary-investigations/final-pricing-parking-management-to-reduce-vehicles-miles-traveled-pi-a11y.pdf 145 Erick Trickey. May 2019. Has Seattle Found the Solution to Driving Alone to Work? Accessed at:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/23/seattle-car-free-transportation-what-works-226935/ 449
CC 08-16-2022
449 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 51
tax, property tax, and car registration tax. Action 7 commits the City to exploring options to implement a similar program.
Action 8 commits the City to implementing a TNC user tax within Cupertino. The City of San Francisco was given a special variance by the state of California to implement a Traffic Congestion Mitigation tax on private transit service vehicles. The revenues of this tax go to offsetting the emissions from these services through the funding of transit and VMT reducing projects.146 The City will pursue a similar tax in order to help offset the impacts of TNC’s in Cupertino.
Action 9: Tracking
Tracking the results of Measure TR-4 is key to successful and equitable implementation of Actions 1 through 8. Sharing results with neighboring jurisdictions may encourage adoption of similar programs in neighboring jurisdictions and improve the success of these programs. 146 City and County of San Francisco Treasurer and Tax Collector. December 2021. Traffic Congestion Mitigation Tax. Accessed at:
https://sftreasurer.org/business/taxes-fees/traffic-congestion-mitigation-taxtcm#:~:text=The%20City%20imposes%20a%20Traffic,or%20private%20transit%20services%20vehicle. 450
CC 08-16-2022
450 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
52 Measure TR-5: Electrify or otherwise decarbonize 34% of off-road equipment by 2030 and 35% by 2040
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
1 Investigate commercial off-road equipment fleets in Cupertino and identify fleets with highest decarbonization potential.
Supportive
2 Partner with BAAQMD to expand rebate and incentive programs for upgrading off-road equipment and switching to biofuels or electric equipment.
Supportive
3 Partner with SVCE and the County of Santa Clara to incentivize electrification of landscaping equipment and other off-road equipment types such as construction machinery.
Supportive
4 By 2025, develop an ordinance to ban local operation of gasoline and diesel-powered offroad equipment by 2030 to improve public health, reduce noise, and reduce local GHG emissions. This ordinance can build upon the noise ordinance which regulates landscaping equipment. Include allowance for biofuels (i.e., renewable diesel) for equipment for which zero emission alternatives are not available in the ordinance. 2030: 0.098
2040: 0.102
Action 1: Investigating
Off-road equipment in Cupertino accounts for 4% of the City’s GHG emissions. While only a small part of GHG emissions in Cupertino, getting to carbon neutrality will involve decarbonizing the majority of off-road equipment, which currently runs on gasoline, diesel, and natural gas. To support a gasoline and diesel phase-out ordinance for off-road equipment, Action 1 commits the City to investigating commercial off-road fleets in Cupertino, to better understand what types of commercial off-road equipment exist in Cupertino, how old it is, and how much potential there is for electrification or decarbonization.
Action 2: Biofuel Incentives
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) provides various funding opportunities for off-road equipment upgrades and fuel switching projects.147 Many off-road vehicle types have lower carbon or decarbonized options for upgrading, or can use renewable diesel or biodiesel, but these options are more expensive. Partnering with BAAQMD to expand rebate and incentive programs will make lower-carbon options for off-road equipment more cost-effective and attractive for equipment owners.
Action 3: Electrical Landscaping Equipment Program
SVCE and the County are important partners for landscaping equipment electrification work. As the principal electricity provider in the region, SVCE can help identify opportunities for electrification.
Working with the County will help address the issue on a regional scale. This action will contribute to increasing incentives for landscape equipment users in Cupertino to electrify. 147 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). December 2021. Off-Road Vehicles. Accessed at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/funding-and-incentives/businesses-and-fleets/off-road-vehicles 451
CC 08-16-2022
451 of 1555
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 53
Action 4: Phase-out Ordinance
Action 4 commits the City to introducing a ban on the operation of gasoline and diesel-powered offroad equipment by 2030 . Cupertino expects that this action may be supported by future CARB regulations for off-road equipment that may ban their sale in the region by 2030.148 While some off-road equipment does not have market-ready zero-emissions alternatives, lawn and garden equipment, light-duty off-road equipment, and portable off-road equipment can generally be electrified or use biodiesel today. It was therefore conservatively assumed that implementation of Action 4 would eliminate the gasoline and diesel usage for this equipment in 2030, with potential for greater emissions reduction in the future, as more low- and no-emissions alternative equipment becomes available. The methods and assumptions used to calculate the GHG emissions reductions associated with Action 4 are shown in the table below.
Table 15 GHG Emissions Reductions from Action 4
Inputs and Assumptions
Ordinance implementation year 2030
Diesel emissions factor (MT CO2e/gallon)149 0.01048
Gasoline emissions factor (MT CO2e/gallon)150 0.00929
Convert gallons of diesel to kWh151 22.91
Convert gallons of gasoline to kWh152 20
GHG Emissions Reductions Calculations
Year 2030 2040
Lawn/light duty/portable diesel fuel usage projected (gallons)153 361,524 408,740 Lawn/light duty/portable gasoline fuel usage projected (gallons)154 290,874 290,910 Lawn/light duty/portable diesel fuel usage after measure (gallons) 0 0 Lawn/light duty/portable gasoline fuel usage after measure (gallons) 0 0 Emissions reduced from electric replacement equipment (MT CO2e) 6,492 6,988 Added electricity from electric replacement equipment (kWH) 14,099,991 15,182,433 Electricity EF (MT CO2e/kWh) 0.00000298 0.00000099
Added emissions from added electricity usage (MT CO2e) 42 15 Total Reductions (MT CO2e) 6,450 6,972
Per Capita Reductions (MT CO2e/person) 0.098 0.102
148 See: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2021/sore2021 149 Calculated from Tables 2 and 5 of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories (March 2020). Accessed at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/documents/ghg-emission-factors-hub.pdf 150 Ibid.
151 EPA Equivalencies Calculator, accessed at: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator 152 Ibid.
153 Calculated from data for the County of Santa Clara from California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Offroad Emissions model, accessed at: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/d7e33b22a7ef163d2dc9fd91182391d41cb025f9 154 Ibid.
452
CC 08-16-2022
452 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
54 4 Waste Measures
The City of Cupertino’s waste measures focus on reducing solid waste generation and increasing diversion from the landfill. Particular emphasis is placed on reduction of organic waste sent to landfills, as landfilled organic waste is the major source of waste-related greenhouse gas emissions.
The measures in this section also support the City’s overall goal of working toward zero waste of resources, though actions that address inorganic waste have minimal impact toward meeting the city’s communitywide greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.
The CAP Update’s waste measures consist of the following:
W-1a: Implement SB 1383 requirements and reduce community-wide landfilled organics 75% by 2025 and inorganic waste 35% by 2030 and reduce all waste 90% by 2040 W-2: Reduce overall waste disposed to garbage, recycling, and compost per capita by 15% by 2035
Working toward zero waste of resources requires that the city address two factors: 1) waste generation, reducing the amount of waste generated regardless of its destination (e.g., landfilling, recycling, composting); and 2) waste diversion, recycling the waste that is generated through available facilities. Measure W-1a focuses on waste diversion and Measure W-2 focuses on waste generation.
Actions for reducing organic waste are underpinned by SB-1383 requirements, which lay out specific programs, policies, and objectives for the city to support the state’s goal of a 75% reduction in organics waste by 2025. While not explicitly modeled, many of these actions support achievement of SB-1383 goals. Actions that address inorganic waste are not quantified in this analysis due to their very minimal impact on communitywide greenhouse gas emission reduction gals. 453
CC 08-16-2022
453 of 1555
Waste Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 55
Measure W-1a: Implement SB 1383 requirements and reduce communitywide landfilled organics 75 percent by 2025 and inorganic waste 35 percent by 2030 and reduce all waste 90 percent by 2040
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e/person)
1 Partner with local community organizations and businesses to implement all required activities under SB 1383.
2030: 0.202
2040: 0.200
2 Route collected landfilled waste through a materials recovery facility (MRF) to increase diversion before final disposal. Continue financial support for low-income residents to offset increase trash rates.
Supportive
3 Work with contracted hauler to develop and implement a comprehensive monitoring and quality control program with a focus on consumer behavior change.
Supportive
4 Encourage businesses to educate their employees about organic waste diversion and proper sorting annually by providing training resources and rebate program to fund employee time for training.
Supportive
5 Establish relationships with multi-family (MF) property owners/managers to develop signage for their properties to encourage food waste diversity. Go door-todoor at each MF unit yearly to provide supplies and education for proper sorting.
Supportive
6 Conduct targeted, multi-lingual, culturally appropriate, and geographically diverse waste diversion educational and technical assistance campaigns based on outcomes of the waste characterization study and comprehensive monitoring and quality control program. Topics could include proper sorting, reduce smell/mess, where does the material go after it leaves the curb, methane from food waste in landfill.
Supportive
7 Partner with schools, retirement communities, and other large institutions to create waste diversion and prevention programs/procedures/plans.
Supportive
8 Work with hauler to determine data necessary to meet zero waste goals and establish protocol for regular collection and reporting of associated metrics.
Supportive
9 Implement enforcement and fee for incorrectly sorted materials with sensitivity to shared collection.
Supportive
10 Conduct construction and demolition (C&D) feasibility study to determine if the City can expand C&D waste diversion requirements and if feasible create a deconstruction ordinance to require reuse of materials.
Supportive
11 Conduct waste characterization studies every 4-5 years to inform programs and policies. Leverage waste characterization data to understand the waste stream and create a plan to increase diversion and reduce contamination.
Supportive
12 Understand alternatives to three waste streams disposal and fill in waste generation gaps by collecting data from take-back locations (grocery stores, auto shops, carpets, mattresses, battery collection, etc.).
Supportive
454
CC 08-16-2022
454 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
56 Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e/person)
13 Increase access to recycling facilities such as California Refund Value (CRV) redemption and extended producer responsibility (EPR) take-back programs.
Supportive
14 Monitor and report recycling activity, including the number of materials recycled, programmatic achievements, and the strength of commodity markets. Produce reports to the City Council as needed to inform future zero waste planning.
Supportive
15 Add extra bulky-item pickup service for low- and medium-income residents at a subsidized cost to help minimize illegal dumping and increase access to bulky item disposal.
Supportive
16 Conduct a study about textiles recycling opportunities that can be rolled out across Cupertino.
Supportive
Action 1
Emission reductions in the waste sector will be driven by Cupertino’s compliance with SB 1383, which sets a statewide target to reduce organic waste disposal 75 percent relative to 2014 levels and recover 20 percent of edible food by 2025. CalRecycle has provided a suite of activities that jurisdictions are required to complete to achieve this target, including the following:
• Provide organic waste collection services for all residents and businesses and monitor contamination
• Implement an edible food recovery program for commercial edible food generators, with compliance beginning between 2022 and 2024.
• Procure organic waste to meet organic waste product procurement targets, as notified by CalRecycle by 2022
• Conduct education and outreach to businesses, residents, and commercial edible food generators by 2022 and annually thereafter
• Ensure there is adequate capacity and collection services to comply with SB 1383 requirements • Adopt enforceable ordinances prior to 2022 encompassing requirements for organics and edible food generators in the city
• Monitor compliance beginning in 2022, conduct enforcement beginning in 2024, and maintain records of implementation
Completing these activities is expected to provide the level of composting and food donation that will reduce Cupertino’s organic waste disposal by 75 percent by 2025, aligning with the SB 1383 state target. Cupertino already has a food recovery program implemented per SB 1383 requirements. Compliance with this program was required locally starting January 1, 2022.
Cupertino is projected to send 33,502 metric tons of solid waste to landfill in 2030 and 34,836 metric tons in 2040, 41 percent of which is estimated to be organic (27% food waste, 16% paper, 13% wood, 6% garden waste, 6% textiles).155 Calculations assumed that emission reductions would 155 City of Cupertino. 2018. Cupertino Waste Characterization Study. 455
CC 08-16-2022
455 of 1555
Waste Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 57
come from diverting that waste to compost or hunger relief, decreasing the methane generation potential of this waste to zero.
These calculations aligned with the assumptions and methods of Cupertino’s 2018 greenhouse gas inventory, which utilized the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories (GPC) and Cupertino’s waste characterization study. The results of the waste characterization study are shown in Table 15.
Table 16 Cupertino Waste Characterization Study Results Waste Category Percent of Waste Stream Default Carbon Content (tonne C/tonne)156 Food waste 27% 0.15
Garden and plant waste 6% 0.2
Paper 16% 0.4
Wood 13% 0.43
Textiles 6% 0.24
Table 17 GHG Emissions Reductions from Action 1
Inputs and Assumptions
Organic waste diversion 75%
Fraction of DOC degraded (DOCf) 0.6
Fraction of methane in landfill gas 0.5
Stoichiometric ratio between methane and carbon 1.33
Methane recovery at landfill 75%
Oxidation factor 0.10
Calculations
Year 2030 2040
Forecasted waste (MT)157 33,235.90 34,123.62
Forecasted waste emissions (MT CO2e)158 17,135.50 17,593.19 Organic waste diverted (MT) 16,931 17,383
Total waste sent to landfill after diversion (MT) 16,305 16,740 Food waste sent to landfill after diversion (MT) 2,246 2,306 New percent food waste (%) 14% 14%
Garden and plant waste sent to landfill after diversion (MT) 504 517 New percent garden and plant waste (%) 3% 3%
Paper waste sent to landfill after diversion (MT) 1,280 1,280 156 C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. 2014. The Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories (GPC).
Equation 8.4.
157 Appendix A.
158 Ibid.
456
CC 08-16-2022
456 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
58 New percent paper waste (%) 8% 8%
Wood waste sent to landfill after diversion (MT) 1,070 1,099 New percent wood waste (%) 7% 7%
Textile waste sent to landfill after diversion (MT) 503 516 New percent textile waste (%) 3% 3%
DOC of waste sent to landfill after diversion159 0.094 0.093 Methane generation potential after diversion (CH4/MT)160 0.04 0.04 Landfill emissions after diversion (MT CO2e)161 3,848 3,916 Total Reductions (MT CO2e) 13,288 13,677
Per Capita Reductions (MT CO2e/person) 0.202 0.200
Actions 3-5
Actions 3, 4, and 5 directly support implementation of SB 1383, as contamination monitoring and annual organics recycling education fall within the scope of SB 1383 requirements. Conducting these monitoring and education activities will help ensure that the community is doing its best to achieve organic waste reduction and edible food recovery targets.
Action 6
While this action will not lead to direct GHG emission reductions, it is an important component of the strategy behind SB 1383 implementation. For example, education around composting and food waste reduction can provide the information needed by residents to start a home compost pile and/or reduce their overall waste. Providing these materials in multiple languages in a culturally appropriate manner will further the impacts of this action.
Action 7
Action 7 falls partially within the scope of SB 1383’s requirements, as large institutions will be required to participate in organics collection and edible food recovery. A piece of this measure that is working with large institutions to create waste prevention programs, procedures, or plan, is difficult to quantify currently but will also support SB 1383’s organic waste reduction target. This measure will also help Cupertino reduce inorganic waste disposal, but this is not as significant for reducing emissions.
Actions 8-9
Actions 8 and 9 will directly support implementation of SB 1383, as contamination monitoring and enforcement falls within SB 1383’s scope. This action will also support inorganic waste diversion, but this is not as significant for reducing emissions.
159 GPC Equation 8.1
160 GPC Equation 8.4
161 GPC Equation 8.3
457
CC 08-16-2022
457 of 1555
Waste Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 59
Actions 10-12
Actions 10 through 12 encompass studies and plans that will not directly impact GHG emissions but will support the City’s goal to reduce all waste generation.
Actions 13-16
Actions 13 through 16 will contribute to the City’s goal to reduce overall waste generation but will not directly contribute to the City’s quantified emissions reduction target, which is associated with organic waste reduction.
458
CC 08-16-2022
458 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
60 Measure W-2: Reduce overall waste disposed to garbage, recycling, and compost per capita by 15% by 2035
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Reduction
(MT
CO2e/person)
1 Conduct a consumption-based GHG emissions inventory to understand the community’s worst consumption habits and emission reduction potential and provide educational materials on a closed-loop circular economy.
Supportive
2 Based on results of the consumption-based emissions inventory, create a plan to achieve the objective of zero growth of waste generation. Consider reusable diaper service, plantbased diets, etc.
Supportive
3 Consider creation of upcycle/resell shop to increase access to items for reuse and create jobs.
Supportive
4 Conduct targeted, multi-lingual, culturally appropriate, and geographically diverse waste prevention educational and technical assistance campaigns based on a waste characterization study. Outreach topics can include food waste prevention, edible food recovery strategies, proper storage, how to fix clothes/electronics, how to donate, reusable alternatives, effects of overconsumption, sustainable consumption habits, buying second hand, buying durable, sharing, repurposing.
Supportive
5 Create a training/education program that is free and accessible to all residents and employees to learn about waste prevention and diversion strategies and effects of overconsumption.
Supportive
6 Expand edible food recovery program to all restaurants and food generating businesses and create incentives for small businesses who otherwise could not participate.
Supportive
7 Fund edible food recovery organizations so they can expand and manage increased volume. Leverage CalRecycle support for projects that prevent food waste or rescue edible food.
Supportive
8 Work with the business community to design and promote extended producer responsibility such as take-back programs.
Supportive
9 Consider a fee at point of use for single-use foodware by food service providers. Fee would be waived for individuals who are dependent on these products for health reasons.
Supportive
10 Partner with local organizations, schools, and libraries to establish pop-up repair cafes for commonly broken and easily repaired items.
Supportive
11 Increase bans on "problem materials." Ban items without means of recycling or recycling markets, such as sale of polystyrene, produce bags, plastic packaging, straws, plastics #4- 7, mixed materials.
Supportive
12 Waste management at large events: Create a requirement for large events to use an event waste management service. This could be included as a condition before the City issues a special event permit.
Supportive
459
CC 08-16-2022
459 of 1555
Waste Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 61
Actions 1-2
A consumption-based emissions inventory will not directly result in GHG emissions reductions. The plan based on the inventory named in Action 2 is yet undetermined, so the impacts on GHG emissions are unknown.
Actions 4-5
Education campaign will not have direct impact on GHG emissions.
Action 6
We calculated an estimate of food recovered, but the impact is projected to be small, and we do not recommend including it in a quantitative assessment.
Action 7
This action is included in the scope of SB 1383 and will support its emission reduction target by ensuring that there is adequate capacity for food recovery.
Action 8
This action will support SB 1383’s targets by enabling local projects that reduce disposal of organic waste via waste prevention and food recovery.
Actions 3 and 8-12
These actions are anticipated to assist Cupertino towards an overall reduction in inorganic waste disposal but will not contribute to quantified emissions reductions targets. 460
CC 08-16-2022
460 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
62 5 Water & Wastewater Measures
Water and wastewater account only for a small portion of a community’s GHG emissions.
Wastewater GHG emissions accounted for 5% of the community’s GHG emissions in 2018. GHG emissions from water were not accounted for separately in the City’s inventory but are 100% attributable to the use of electricity to pump, distribute, and treat water, and are therefore captured in the community’s electricity usage in 2018. While only a small part of the City’s GHG emissions, water conservation and decarbonized wastewater treatment are important aspects of a community’s overall sustainability and resiliency. To this end, the CAP Update’s water and wastewater measures consist of the following supportive measures:
Measure WW-1: Reduce per capita water consumption 15% compared to 2019 levels by 2030 and maintain through 2040
Measure WW-2: Support the SJ-SC RWF in implementing GHG emissions reduction projects 461
CC 08-16-2022
461 of 1555
Water & Wastewater Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 63
Measure WW-1: Reduce per capita water consumption 15% compared to 2019 levels by 2030 and maintain through 2040
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Sequestration
(MT
CO2e/person)
Water Efficiency Ordinance
1 Adopt an ordinance for installation of dual-plumbing water systems that utilize greywater for irrigation at new residential construction, including ADUs, and in major retrofits. In doing so the City will:
Engage with builders and developers to provide information on the new requirements for residential new construction
Develop and adopt an ordinance based on the available model ordinances Supportive
Outreach, Education, and Engagement
2 Work with Santa Clara Valley Water to develop an enhanced public engagement campaign that promotes water efficiency rebates from Santa Clara Valley Water (Greywater, Laundry to Landscape program), including educating residents on the benefits of dual-plumbing greywater systems, low-flow fixtures, and their connection to climate resilience and GHG emissions reductions. Ensure that all outreach and education is in multiple languages.
Supportive
3 Perform targeted outreach to households with low-income and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs to provide free water conservation devices through the Santa Clara Valley Water. Ensure that all outreach and education is in multiple languages.
Supportive
4 Work with schools to educate youth about water conversation. Supportive Water Conservation Programs
5 Continue to provide rebates or other funding to low- and medium-income homes for installing laundry to landscape, rainwater catchment system, and low-flow appliances.
Supportive
6 Work with Santa Clara Valley Water and Cupertino’s three water retailers to provide Wi-Fi connected meters that citizens can check on phones and computers.
Supportive
7 Partner with Santa Clara Valley Water to support a brackish water/desalinization program, as feasible.
Supportive
8 Expand the Climate Victory Gardens pilot to an ongoing program and work with Santa Clara Valley Water to expand to a regional service.
Supportive
Action 1: Water Efficiency Ordinance
Action 1 commits the City to implementing a water efficiency ordinance in an effort to install more greywater systems throughout the community. Greywater systems filter wastewater from washing machines, bathtubs, and showers for garden irrigation. Homeowners that install greywater systems 462
CC 08-16-2022
462 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
64 can save up to 40,000 gallons of water per year, resulting in much lower water bills.162 Greywater systems have the added benefit of sending wastewater from homes to the ground, rather than through the sewage system, more closely mimicking the earth’s natural water cycle and improving the local ecology.
Actions 2-4: Outreach, Education, and Engagement
Actions 2-4 commit the City to working with Santa Clara Valley Water to engage with the community, including low-income and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs , about the benefits and opportunities associated with more efficient water consumption. Valley Water currently runs multiple outreach and education programs throughout the community, including events, learning programs, school classroom programs, library programs, and others.163 By partnering with Valley Water to enhance these programs, the City intends to expand their impact, reach, and social equity.
Actions 5-8: Water Conservation Programs
Laundry to landscape, rainwater catchment systems, and low-flow appliances have demonstrated success in reducing water consumption. Action 5 provides funding for integrating more of these systems into Cupertino’s households, providing more opportunity for lower-income residents to adopt these technologies.
Wi-Fi connected water meters, typically referred to as “smart” meters, have the potential to help all water customers manage their water consumption.164 Traditional water meters typically require that city staff visit to record usage, while Wi-Fi connected water meters allow customers and water agencies to observe and track water usage in real-time, and make better-informed decisions about water conservation. Action 6 commits the City to providing Wi-Fi connected meters in the community to reap these benefits.
Desalination has been identified by Valley Water as a potential long-term solution to the limited availability of fresh water in Santa Clara County.165 Action 7 commits the City to supporting Valley Water’s efforts in this area, as Valley Water plans for the long-term resiliency of the County’s water supply.
Cupertino’s Climate Victory Garden program is a direct-install Turf-to-Native Garden program that helps customers replace turf with a California friendly, low water-use landscape.166 Turf can promote erosion and typically requires large amounts of water throughout the growing season, while native plants are usually more drought resistant, require less water, and provide an ecosystem 162 Water Wise Group. December 2021. Greywater System Benefits. Accessed at: https://waterwisegroup.com/greywatereducation/greywater-benefits/ 163 Valley Water. December 2021. Water Education Programs and Events. Accessed at: https://www.valleywater.org/learningcenter/water-education-programs-and-events 164 Taylor Goldenstein. Los Angeles Times. May 2015. Smart water meters help users, agencies gauge usage. Accessed at:
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-smart-meter-explainer-20150505-story.html 165 Valley Water. December 2021. Desalination. Accessed at: https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/water-supplyplanning/desalination 166 City of Cupertino. December 2021. Climate Victory Gardens. Accessed at: https://www.cupertino.org/ourcity/departments/environment-sustainability/climate-gardens 463
CC 08-16-2022
463 of 1555
Water & Wastewater Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 65
including water, food, and shelter for native birds, insects, and other kinds of wildlife.167 Following the success of the program in converting residential and commercial turf in Cupertino, Action 8 commits the City to expanding this program, and partnering with Valley Water to make the program regional.
167 May Ellen Ellis. Gardening Know How. December 2021. What is Naturescaping – Tips for Planting a Native Lawn. Accessed at:
https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/lawn-care/lawn-substitutes/lagen/planting-a-native-lawn.htm 464
CC 08-16-2022
464 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
66 Measure WW-2: Support the SJ-SC RWF in implementing GHG emissions reduction projects
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Sequestration
(MT
CO2e/person)
1 Establish a program or function for supporting SJ-SC RWF in obtaining grant funding for methane capture or other GHG reduction infrastructure. Explore opportunities related to methane capture and conversion to biofuel through the state's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program.
Supportive
2 Collaborate with the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga, and the County to advocate and support GHG reductions at the SJ-SC RWF.
Explore opportunities to scale beyond regional coordination.
Supportive
Actions 1-2: SJ-SC RWF Decarbonization
The San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (SJ-SC RWF)provides wastewater services to the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Cupertino, Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga, as well as portions of the unincorporated county. GHG emissions at the RWF occur as a result of nitrous oxide from wastewater influent and effluent as a byproduct of the wastewater treatment process and from combustion of digester gas collected during treatment. The RWF also produces about 10 million gallons per day of recycled water, used for landscape irrigation and other non-potable end uses in San Jose, Santa Clara, and Milpitas.
As part of the RWF’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the RWF will rehabilitate and modernize four anaerobic digesters, including the installation of a heat recovery system, gas treatment system, and cogeneration engines to convert collected digester gas into electricity.168 These improvements will enhance energy self-sufficiency, future reliability, and GHG emissions reductions at the RWF.
Through Actions 1 and 2, the City plans to support the work that is planned at the RWF, through dedication of staff time and resources to identifying grant funding, opportunities such as through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), and coordination with the other cities that the RWF serves to reduce GHG emissions at the RWF even further.
168 City of San Jose. August 2020. 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. Accessed at:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63605/637345707563600000 465
CC 08-16-2022
465 of 1555
Carbon Sequestration Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 67
6 Carbon Sequestration Measures
To achieve carbon neutrality in 2040, the City of Cupertino will reduce GHG emissions across all sectors to achieve as close to zero GHG emissions as possible. However, due to limitations in technology and the length of time that it takes to normalize new low-GHG emission behaviors – such as taking public transit rather than driving or installing an electric stove rather than a gas stove – it is expected that some GHG emissions will remain under the City’s jurisdiction in 2040. A carbonneutral future therefore includes carbon sequestration169 mechanisms, which take carbon out of the atmosphere, to offset remaining GHG emissions. Strategies available for carbon sequestration include planting trees, managing greenspace effectively, composting, and removing carbon from the atmosphere. The CAP’s carbon sequestration measures align with these strategies170 and consist of the following:
Measure W-1b: Meet or exceed the SB 1383 recycled organics products procurement requirements and sequester or avoid at least 0.018 MT CO2e per person by through 2045171 Measure CS-1: Increase carbon sequestration through tree planting by developing and implementing an Urban Forest Management Plan
Measure CS-2: Leverage the carbon sequestration potential of open space and carbon removal 169 Carbon sequestration refers to the physical removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, either through natural processes such as photosynthesis and weatherization, or industrial chemical processes that transform atmospheric CO2 to a solid state. 170 Note that measures regarding composting are included in the CAP Update’s waste measures rather than the carbon sequestration measures.
171 While GHG emissions reductions from Measure W-1a were already quantified and included in Section 4, implementation of Measure W-1b is associated with additional carbon sequestration benefits due to compost procurement actions associated with the measure. 466
CC 08-16-2022
466 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
68 Measure W-1b: Meet or exceed the SB 1383 recycled organics products procurement requirements and sequester or avoid at least 0.018 MT CO2e per person by through 2045
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Sequestration
(MT CO2e/person)
1 Develop partnerships with local community organizations and businesses to implement all required recycled organics products procurement activities under SB 1383.
2030: 0.018
2040: 0.018
Action 1: Compost Procurement
SB 1383 requires each jurisdiction in California to procure recycled organics products to meet specific procurement targets, as notified by CalRecycle by 2022. Action 1 commits the City to meeting these procurement requirements. The City expects to meet these requirements through the procurement of compost, which may be applied through a compost trading program in the County and adjacent counties, resulting in carbon sequestration benefits for Cupertino. Guidance from CalRecycle has set the procurement target for Cupertino in 2022 at 4,692 tons of compost, based on Cupertino’s population.172 Based on this procurement target, Cupertino’s population, and the carbon sequestration potential per ton of mixed organics compost, the carbon sequestration potential for Cupertino’s compost procurement through 2040 was calculated. However, the City may also choose to meet the procurement targets in other ways, primarily through procurement of renewable transportation fuel gas (i.e., renewable diesel), or through procurement of heat from renewable natural gas. To meet the carbon sequestration/GHG reduction associated with the measure, however, the City would not procure electricity from renewable gas to meet the procurement requirement. While the City may ultimately procure a combination of these products to meet the CalRecycle procurement requirement in 2030 and 2045, Action 1 commits the City to meeting the minimum GHG emissions reduction benefit that would be achieved through compost procurement alone. The methods and assumptions used to calculate the GHG emissions reductions associated with Action 1 are shown in the table below.
Table 18 GHG Emissions Reductions from Action 1
Inputs and Assumptions
Cupertino procurement requirement in 2022 (tons/year)173 4,692 Cupertino 2022 population (CalRecycle)174 58,656
Per person compost procurement requirement (tons/person) 0.08 Emissions avoided from mixed organics compost application excluding avoided landfill methane (MT CO2e/ton)175 0.23
172 CalRecycle. December 2021. Jurisdiction Procurement Targets Based on January 1, 2021 Population Estimates. 173 Ibid.
174 Ibid.
175 California Air Resources Board (CARB). May 2017. Method for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Diversion of Organic Waste from Landfills to Compost Facilities (Final Draft). Table 14. Accessed at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/waste/cerffinal.pdf 467
CC 08-16-2022
467 of 1555
Carbon Sequestration Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 69
Cupertino alternative renewable transportation fuel gas procurement target in 2022 (DGE/year)176
98,542
Cupertino alternative renewable gas heat procurement target in 2022 (therms/year)177
8,603
Emissions reduced when switching from diesel to biodiesel (MT CO2e/DGE)178
0.01021
Emissions reduced when switching from natural gas to renewable gas (MT CO2e/therm)
0.00530
Calculations
Year 2030 2040
Population 65,690 68,305
Estimated procurement requirement 5,255 5,464
Total Sequestration (MT CO2e) 1,209 1,257
Per Capita Sequestration (MT CO2e/person) 0.018 0.018
Calculations for Alternative Procurement Options
Quantity of renewable transportation fuel gas (i.e., renewable diesel) required to meet GHG reduction from compost procurement (dieselgallon-equivalent/year) 118,371 123,084
Quantity of heat from renewable gas required to meet GHG reduction from compost procurement (therms/year)
227,826 236,896
176 Calculated from CalRecycle Procurement Calculator Tool using Cupertino 2022 population as an input. Accessed at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/Web/118908
177 Ibid.
178 Calculated as the fossil-fuel CO2 emissions associated with diesel transportation fuel in Table 2 of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories (March 2020). Accessed at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/documents/ghg-emission-factors-hub.pdf 468
CC 08-16-2022
468 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
70 Measure CS-1: Increase carbon sequestration through tree planting by developing and implementing an Urban Forest Management Plan Action
#
Action Anticipated
Sequestration
(MT
CO2e/person)
Urban Forest Management Plan
1 Identify and partner with local community-based organizations with connections to lowincome and fixed income people, historically underserved communities, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs to assist in development of an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) to ensure equity is prioritized as part of the plan.
Supportive
2 Conduct an urban heat island study to assist in identifying priority areas in Cupertino for planting new trees.
Supportive
3 Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) based on the City’s tree canopy assessment that identifies the framework and strategy for expanding the tree canopy in Cupertino. As part of the UFMP development effort, identify a tree canopy expansion goal.
Ensure the sustainability of the urban forest (including all existing and new trees) by including in the UFMP plans for continued tree maintenance and protection, attention to safety, resident engagement, and the planting of native and climate-appropriate trees.
Supportive
Tree Protection Ordinance Review
4 Review the Tree Protection Ordinance and ensure that trees are protected with the Housing Element Update. Ensure any trees that may be removed to accommodate new housing are replaced with at least a 2:1 ratio.
Supportive
Funding and Financing
5 Establish a program for obtaining grant funding for development of UFMP and tree planting. Supportive Actions 1-3: Urban Forest Management Plan
The City of Cupertino is home to 20,079 City trees as of December 2021.179 Cupertino’s trees compose a 23% urban tree canopy.180 Results from Cupertino’s Tree Canopy Assessment suggest that Cupertino accommodates 1,983 acres of additional plantable space, equal to 27% of the City’s footprint.181 This suggests that up to 23,500 new trees could be planted in Cupertino. Actions 1 to 3 commit the City to preparing an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) to direct the planting of new trees. Tree planting locations will be prioritized based on the results of an urban heat island study (Action 2) and by working with local community-based organizations to understand where 179 City of Cupertino. December 2021. Tree Plotter App. Accessed at: https://pgcloud.com/Cupertino/?zoomtolocation=1&popupclosest=trees 180 City of Cupertino. 2018. Climate Action Plan 2018 Progress Report. Accessed at:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/25662/637104551121630000 181 Ibid.
469
CC 08-16-2022
469 of 1555
Carbon Sequestration Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 71
there is the greatest need for new canopy cover (Action 1). The UFMP will identify a tree canopy expansion goal. Carbon sequestration benefit from these actions are not quantified here, however, once a tree canopy expansion goal is identified, the City will calculate the carbon sequestration benefit in support of meeting the climate action goals.
Action 4: Tree Protection Ordinance Review
The City of Cupertino is required to update its Housing Element as part of the General Plan Update process. The City’s Housing Element Update and the direction of residential development in Cupertino will be influenced by SB 9,182 which allows for higher home counts per residential parcel, and SB 10,183 which authorizes local governments to rezone neighborhoods for increased housing density. Both SB 9 and 10 provide avenues for densification in California with the ultimate aim of increasing housing production capacity in the state. Increased densification can mean a decrease in plantable space, potentially impacting the City’s existing and planned tree canopy. Action 4 works to protect existing and future tree canopy by reviewing the City’s existing tree protection ordinance to ensure that trees are protected or replaced as part of the implementation of the Housing Element Update. Action 4 therefore protects tree canopy in Cupertino and supports implementation of the UFMP.
Action 5: Funding and Financing
Planting and maintaining trees within the City comes with high-capital costs. Each tree costs approximately $438 to plant, not including maintenance costs, which include trimming, watering, and street cleaning for leaf litter.184 Action 5 commits the City to devoting staff time and resources towards obtaining grant funding for tree plantings.
182 California Legislative Information. September 2021. Senate Bill No. 9. Accessed at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9 183 California Legislative Information. September 2021. Senate Bill No. 10. Accessed at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB10 184 City of Cupertino. Resolution 21-034.
470
CC 08-16-2022
470 of 1555
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
72 Measure CS-2: Leverage the carbon sequestration potential of open space and carbon removal
Action
#
Action Anticipated
Sequestration
(MT
CO2e/person)
Open Space
1 Study opportunities to create new natural areas in existing open spaces, parklands, and fields with native species, biodiverse ecology, higher carbon sequestration potential and improved recreational connectivity for the community.
Supportive
2 Expand community gardens program beyond McClellan Ranch Preserve. Continue to prioritize locating new gardens in high-density housing areas. Program goals include promoting healthy living through access to healthy food, creating a secure place where residents can strengthen community bonds, and providing education on safe organic gardening practices.
Supportive
Carbon Removal
3 Study options to invest in carbon drawdown removal in a way that is appropriate for Cupertino. The study should include a review of the Oxford Carbon Drawdown Principles and identify if there exist any investments within or outside of Cupertino that make sense to contribute to for carbon drawdown.
Supportive
4 Develop an embodied carbon emissions policy and ordinance that encourages or requires carbon to be sequestered in building materials such as mass timber framing or low-carbon concrete.
Supportive
Actions 1-2: Open Space
Open space in cities presents an important opportunity to increase carbon sequestration potential.
Planting open spaces with native species known to absorb higher amounts of carbon from the air can increase carbon sequestration potential when properly scaled. Improvements to open space offer many additional co-benefits aside from carbon sequestration, including healthier air, more walkable spaces, improved local biodiversity, and better food access in cities. Actions 1 and 2 commit the City to identifying these opportunities and implementing them where feasible.
Action 3-4: Carbon Removal
Opportunities may exist for Cupertino to sequester carbon through carbon drawdown removal or by purchasing in carbon-embedded building materials. Exploring practices like these may provide additional carbon sequestration potential in the City. Actions 3 and 4 commit the City to exploring these opportunities.
471
CC 08-16-2022
471 of 1555
1 Appendix E: Existing Programs and
Accomplishments
An overview of the progress that Cupertino has achieved since the 2015 CAP is depicted in Table 1 through Table 5 below. The following tables include both completed and ongoing actions for each sector of the community. Additional context for some 2015 CAP measures and descriptions of complementary sustainability projects and programs pursued by the City of Cupertino beyond the 2015 CAP measures, are included in the text below the tables.
Energy Sector
Sustainable Energy Portfolio
Table 1 CAP 2015 Accomplishments: Sustainable Energy Portfolio Measures Status Measure
ID Measure
Completed A-1
Conduct feasibility study of PG&E Green Option financial costs (per kilowatt hour (kWh) costs have not been finalized yet as part of program development) for City to purchase part or all of its electricity from renewable sources
Completed A-2
Develop resolution to opt into PG&E Green Option program for municipal electricity purchases (Note: program is currently capped at 272 MW and as5 year pilot program; it is currently unknown how enrollment decisions will be made should program become fully subscribed)
Completed A-2
Based on results of City’s previous solar feasibility study, pursue PV installations at City Hall complex, Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Library, Corporation Yard, and Civic Center carports through Santa Clara County Regional PPA or other financing option (e.g., City procurement, lease-to-own)
Completed A-2
Identify appropriate energy analytics firm with which to partner; this could be regional implementation opportunity to secure discounted large group rate -consult other area jurisdictions when pursuing this option Completed A-2 Ensure that new street light installations achieve comparable or better efficiency level as achieved through previous streetlight retrofit program Completed A-4 Use high-resolution data from analytics (e.g., appliance end-use ) to inform development of targeted energy efficiency retrofit programs [see M-F-4] Completed B-1 Benchmark & Track Consumption Data Collected per Facility Completed B-1 Establish Energy Efficiency Fund
Completed B-1 Complete Parking Lot and Park Facility Lighting Retrofits 472
CC 08-16-2022
472 of 1555
2 Status Measure
ID Measure
Completed B-1 thru
B-6
Continue to monitor CCE efforts within Santa Clara County, City of San Francisco, and East San Francisco Bay cities; if local support exists to further consider CCE options within Cupertino, pursue the following steps:
Completed B-2 Identify potential jurisdictional partners for development of CCE (e.g., Sunnyvale, Mountain View)
Completed B-2 Identify City-owned parking lot lighting that has not yet been converted to LED, magnetic induction, or similar highly-efficient technology Completed B-3 Conduct feasibility study to assess viability of CCE program in Cupertino (can be conducted jointly with other jurisdictional partners) Completed B-3 After installation of additional meters, organize PG&E data by facility and City department (e.g., Meters 1, 2 and 3 represent Memorial Park) Completed B-3
Develop fund parameters that support continual replenishment of funding pool (e.g., 80% of cost savings resulting from project implementation are returned to fund for 5 years after which additional savings accrue to project's implementing department)
Completed B-4 Based on results of feasibility study, pursue development of (or participation in) CCE per State requirements
Completed B-4 Benchmark all eligible municipal facilities using ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager
Completed B-5 Adopt resolution for City to participate in CCE Completed B-5
Implement process to track and report municipal energy usage through quarterly or annual staff reports; explore options to make information publicly available through an open data portal system
Completed B-6
Determine feasibility of City to purchase electricity for municipal operations from CCE, based on approved CCE rate structure; CCE may provide options for level of participation (e.g., 50% clean electricity, 100% clean electricity) Municipal Solar Project: The City installed a 103kW solar carport at the Cupertino Service Center.
Removing Barriers for New Solar: Cupertino achieved the SolSmart award from Department of Energy recognizing the permit streamlining process that makes it easier to install new solar.
Community Clean Energy: One of the most significant steps the City has taken to reduce emissions was to participate in the Community Choice Energy (CCE) opt-in program along with several nearby communities to form Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). SVCE is a community-owned electricity provider that sources renewable energy at competitive rates for participating communities, delivered through PG&E’s existing infrastructure. By sourcing renewable and low carbon electricity, this opt-in energy provider has helped Cupertino drastically reduce energy related emissions and will continue to provide significant emissions reductions into the future.
Sustainable Funding: The City established a Sustainability Capital Reserves fund as a sustainable way to help support future sustainability projects and programs through rebates received from other 473
CC 08-16-2022
473 of 1555
3 sustainability and conservation projects. 1 In this way, savings from past projects can help fund future projects and provide more energy and resource savings.
Building Energy Use Reduction
Table 2 CAP 2015 Accomplishments: Building Energy Use Measures Status Measure
ID Measure
Completed A
Continue to participate in California FIRST to make PACE financing available to commercial, industrial, multi-family residential (5+ units), and non-profitowned buildings Completed A
Develop overarching energy plan for community that considers energy sources and their reliability with regards to estimated climate change impacts
Completed A
Conduct outreach program to educate residents and businesses about potential benefits of solar service providers 'power purchase agreements (PPA)
Completed A Work with other Santa Clara County partners to conduct feasibility study of developing multi-jurisdiction CCA program
Completed B
Partner with PG&E, other Santa Clara County local governments, third-party service providers, and local businesses to establish leading regional advanced metering and analytics implementation program for commercial and residential buildings
1 Cupertino, City of. “Operating Budget 2019-2020 Financial Policies and Schedules”. Available:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/24233/636923348883830000. Accessed December 2021. 474
CC 08-16-2022
474 of 1555
4 Status Measure
ID Measure
Completed B
Continue to participate in effort with other Santa Clara County local governments to establish countywide PACE financing district available for residential property owners (could also provide another source of commercial financing to compliment California FIRST program) Completed B
Based on most current Statewide legislation (e.g., Cal Green code) and successful case studies in other cities, research additional opportunities for feasible building retrofit regulations that generate long-term energy savings in existing building stock
Completed B
If study determines CCA to be feasible and advantageous to Cupertino residents and businesses, work with Santa Clara County partners to prepare necessary additional study reports, informational materials, and any other supporting research and/or documents to help pursue development of CCA program
Completed C
Collaborate with other Santa Clara County local governments to develop outreach program that communicates benefits of using advanced analytics to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy bills
Completed C
Work with PACE financing providers to educate local Realtor and contractor community about PACE offerings, process, and benefits to increase participation
Completed C Pending result of PPA workshop, remove identified barriers to wide-scale solar installation throughout city
Completed C-E-2
Retrofit Financing. Promote existing and support development of new private financing options for home and commercial building retrofits and renewable energy development
Completed C-E-3
Homes and Commercial Building Retrofit Outreach. Develop aggressive outreach program to drive voluntary participation in energy and waterefficiency retrofits Completed C-E-4
Energy Assurance and Resiliency Plan. Develop long-term communitywide energy conservation plan that considers future opportunities to influence building energy efficiency through additional or enhanced building regulations.
Completed D
Finalize GreenBiz Financing Guide and create residential focused guide and companion website to direct interested parties to utility, public agency, and local lending institution resources to advance energy efficiency and water conservation measures
Completed D
Provide general information on City website describing various solar PV financing / installation options (e.g., PPA, community shared solar, outright purchase)
Completed K Consider including solar pre-wiring / pre-plumbing requirements in future revisions to City’s Green Building Ordinance
475
CC 08-16-2022
475 of 1555
5 Status Measure
ID Measure
Completed L
Instruct building and plan check officials to provide information to customers on the benefits of pre-wiring / pre-plumbing for solar applications at the time of new construction or substantial retrofits, including lower up-front costs as compared to retrofitting buildings in the future New Construction Electrification Ordinance: In December of 2019 the City of Cupertino Reach Code requiring all new buildings, including accessory dwelling units, to be all-electric was approved. This ordinance takes steps beyond the requirements for California building codes, and also requires outdoor pools, spas, and barbeques to be included within the definition of an all-electric building.
Building Decarbonization Plan: SVCE produced a regional Building Decarbonization Plan which includes consideration of strategies for Cupertino to influence building energy efficiency through additional or enhanced building regulations. Cupertino’s first measure was completed with our all-electric reach code which requires all electric and additional EVSE above and beyond the building code.
Data for Change: In 2020 SVCE launched the Data Hive which provides a streamlined way to review interval metering and energy use data for commercial and residential buildings.
Community Outreach for Personal Climate Action: The City has launched a number of programs in partnership with other organizations to promote personal climate action, including the Cupertino Climate Challenge, and Home Energy Intel, which combine customer meter data with insights to create personal climate action plans.
Transportation Sector
Alternative Transportation & Reducing Fuel Emissions
Table 3 CAP 2015 Accomplishments: Alternative Transportation & Fuel Emissions Reduction Measures
Status Measure
ID Measure
Completed A
Update City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plans to reflect current bicycle and pedestrian safety and access needs; prioritize new projects identified
Completed A Support regional efforts to implement SB 1339 commute benefit requirements for employers with more than 50 employees
476
CC 08-16-2022
476 of 1555
6 Status Measure
ID Measure
Completed A
Conduct feasibility study that evaluates potential for community shuttle between Cal Train, Civic Center, major employment /retail centers in Cupertino, and DeAnza Community College
Completed A
Through City's General Plan process, identify areas that could support net increase in population or employment through land use changes within one quarter mile walking distance of priority transit stops Planning Department Completed A Implement Telematics to Improve Route and Fuel Optimization Completed B
Partner with local bicycle advocacy groups / clubs and neighborhood groups to identify dangerous bicycle or pedestrian conditions, and develop strategies to address problem areas
Completed B Evaluate potential demand for city-wide bikeshare program; discuss expansion opportunities with Bay Area Bike Share
Completed B
Work with VTA and/or 511.org on outreach campaigns targeting employers with fewer than 50 employees to encourage voluntary participation in TDM program activities, including pre-tax deductions for alternative travel mode expenses, transit pass subsidies, and new vanpool development; share bestpractices in TDM programs with local businesses to identify options that have been successful at small scale
Completed B Update Vehicle Use Policy to Prioritize Fuel-Efficient Operations and Maintenance
Completed C Identify grant-funds to pursue Plan-recommended education, design, and/or construction projects
Completed C
Based on work with VTA to identify congestion problems along primary transit routes, also investigate opportunities for integration of intersection queue jump lanes (in conjunction with priority signals) to further facilitate on-time transit service
Completed C
Work with MTC and Bay Area local governments to develop informational brochures and technical support for developers /contractors interested in providing public electric vehicle (EV)charging ports in new projects Completed D
Partner with schools, neighborhood groups, and businesses to encourage alternative transportation commute options. Expand alternative commute measures within existing sustainability programs, including Green@Home, GreenBiz, and green@school
Completed E
Continue to evaluate City’s bike & walkability through use of online and community surveying tools including Walk Score, Bicycle Friendly Community criteria, Safe Routes to School, Walkability Checklist, etc.
Completed E
Continue to enforce pre-wiring for at-home/business electric vehicle charging ports in new construction per City’s existing ordinance and evaluate additional building code and zoning code revisions recommended through SGC Grant
477
CC 08-16-2022
477 of 1555
7 Status Measure
ID Measure
Completed F
Work with other Santa Clara County partners to develop Guaranteed Ride Home program for employees who work in Santa Clara County and commute to work via alternative travel options (e.g., public transit, carpool/vanpool, biking, walking)
Completed G Continue to provide links to existing maps identifying Bay Area alternative fuel charging and refueling infrastructure
Completed H
Share information regarding City's efforts to transition its municipal fleet towards alternative fuel vehicles, including plans for additional installation of recharging / refueling infrastructure that would be open to public use Ongoing A
Continue to operate municipal bike fleet for City employee use and encouragement of bike fleets at large employers
Ongoing A Work with VTA to identify local roadways on which traffic congestion frequently leads to impacted transit reliability or timing Ongoing A
Continue to explore cost-effective ways to increase alternative vehicle charging / refueling infrastructure within City for public use; review permitting and inspection process to identify potential barriers to installation and define strategies to reduce or remove barriers through SGC grant or other means
478
CC 08-16-2022
478 of 1555
8 Status Measure
ID Measure
Ongoing A Update Green Purchasing Policy and Vehicle Replacement Schedule to Prioritize Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Infrastructure Ongoing A Install Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Ongoing B Research possible funding strategies with business improvement districts, major employers, community organizations, and other appropriate partners Ongoing B Consider opportunities for transit-priority signal integration along these routes that would not further contribute to congestion problems Ongoing B
Develop Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Siting Plan focused on strategic development of EV charging stations and municipal CNG fueling stations based upon demand analyses and feasibility studies; EV station siting plans will identify appropriate locations for Level 1 (slow charge), Level 2 (fast charge), and Level 3 and DC (rapid charge) charging stations in community and will analyze different models for charging station
ownership/management (i.e., public vs. private sector)
Ongoing B Expand City Bike Fleet, Training, and Promotion Ongoing C Promote Vehicle Alternatives to Reduce Car-Travel to City-Sponsored Events Ongoing C Expand Commuter Benefits Program
Ongoing E Partner with 511.org and employers to leverage new ride matching technologies and promote rideshare among employees
Ongoing F
Pursue local incentives, partnerships, and funding mechanisms guided by SGC Grant; Provide links on City's website to sources of cash rebates or other financial incentives for purchase and/or lease of alternative fuel vehicles Ongoing M-VF-1 Transition City vehicle fleet to fuel-efficient and alternative-fuel vehicle models.
Ongoing M-VF-2 Increase availability of alternative refueling infrastructure to support municipal fleet transition.
Ongoing M-VF-3 Encourage and promote fuel efficient driving.
Bike Plan Implementation: Cupertino adopted a Bicycle Transportation Plan in 2016 and has moved forward on numerous projects to improve the safety and ease and bike and pedestrian transportation.
Multiple trails and off-street bike paths have been created that connect to existing routes, and construction is underway on the first three phases of the Class IV bike lanes project along McClellan Road.
Bicycle-Friendly Community: Cupertino was designated a bicycle-friendly community by the American League of Bicyclists. In addition to planned projects, the City boasts existing bicycle and pedestrian friendly features such as the Don Burnett Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge. This beautiful bridge is exclusively for pedestrian and bicycle use and connects Cupertino to nearby Sunnyvale.
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: The City has worked to support adoption of electric vehicles by providing infrastructure such as public EV chargers at City Hall, the Cupertino Library, and Quinlan Community 479
CC 08-16-2022
479 of 1555
9 Center. By encouraging the use of electric vehicles, combined with a clean energy grid powered by renewables, this can translate into far fewer GHG emissions from driving.
Diesel Free by 2033: In August 2019 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-076 supporting the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) Diesel Free by 2033 statement of purpose, reflecting the goal of eliminating diesel pollution by December 31, 2033.
Electric and Renewable Diesel Fleet: Public Works staff added electric vehicles and hybrids to the transportation fleet and switched to renewable diesel for all diesel fleet vehicles. Renewable diesel is made from wastes, such as animal fats from food industry waste and used cooking oil. These changes reduced City fleet emissions by 32 percent from 2010 emissions levels.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Ordinance: Enacted in March of 2021, Ordinance No. 21-2223 sets a new standard for reviewing the transportation impacts of new developments. Transportation impacts are now measured in VMT in accordance with CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) guidelines, and the City set a new target for reducing miles traveled by car to 14.4 percent below the City’s baseline rate.2 Any project that cannot meet this threshold would trigger a transportation impact under CEQA, unless it is mitigated sufficiently to meet the City's reduction target. 2 Cupertino, City of. “Ordinance No. 21-2223”. 2021. Available:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/29192/637537459060370000 . Accessed December 2022. 480
CC 08-16-2022
480 of 1555
10 Water Sector
Conservation
Table 4 CAP 2015 Accomplishments: Water Conservation Measures Status Measure
ID Measure
Completed A
Develop public information campaign that highlights/advertises City projects and landscaping practices that conserve water (e.g., drought-tolerant landscaping, efficient irrigations systems)
Completed B
Work with local water providers to identify opportunities for water use data tracking and reporting at communitywide level; if successful, share this information through CAP’s annual progress reporting procedures, aligned with required General Plan implementation annual reports Completed B-1 Benchmark & Track Water Use per Meter
Completed B-3 Incorporate water use reporting into overarching annual CAP reporting procedure described in Chapter 7
Completed C Partner with community/neighborhood groups to promote existing water conservation programs and participation involuntary turf-removal programs Completed C
Identify City-owned site to install educational demonstration project that showcases water-efficient landscaping strategies, alternative irrigation options, and/or low-impact landscape design techniques
Completed C-1 Adopt Water Budget & Green Grounds Policy Completed C-2
Develop landscaping policy that promotes efficient watering schedules, high and low-priority water zones (for use during pre-drought conditions), water efficient and climate-sensitive plant selection, and compost-friendly landscape maintenance
Completed C-5
Consider use of water budgets for irrigated landscape areas; create education stations or post information to City’s website that describe City’s green grounds practices
Completed D-2
Adopt City-wide policy that requires specification of Bay-Friendly, droughttolerant landscapes in any new City project or private project receiving City funds to include landscaped areas as project element
Completed D-6
Pursue project third-party certification through Bay-friendly Rated Landscapes, where applicable, or build landscaping water conservation initiatives into future site-wide comprehensive rating program applications(e.g., LEED, California Green Business Program) Completed D-7
Install informational placards or signs at new landscaping installations that quantify water saving potential from new designs and refer public to additional informational resources
481
CC 08-16-2022
481 of 1555
11 Status Measure
ID Measure
Completed E-1 Install Graywater and Rainwater Catchment Systems in New Construction and Major Retrofit Projects
Municipal Water Savings: The city has reduced water usage 30 percent for municipal compared to water usage in 2013 as a baseline year.
Drought Tolerant Demo Garden: Cupertino converted the landscaping around City Hall into a droughttolerant garden to conserve water and showcase water-efficient landscaping strategies, alternative irrigation options, and low-impact landscape design techniques to inspire residents to do the same.
Adopted Water Budget: Water budgets are included as requirements for projects under WELO and municipal code section 14.15.
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: Updated in 2015, requires water use reduction measures for projects that include landscape areas of 500 square feet or more.
Natural Resources and Sustainability
Creek Clean Up: Cupertino hosts biannual creek cleanups at Creekside Park and volunteers collect trash from Calabazas Creek to improve wildlife habitat and prevent trash from entering the San Francisco Bay. 482
CC 08-16-2022
482 of 1555
12 Runoff Management and Recharging Groundwater: The Municipal Code sets a maximum impervious area for lots to help maximize the amount of ground surface that water and storm runoff may permeate. Limiting impervious lot coverage and maximizing water infiltration can reduce the amount of runoff that collects pollutants and may overwhelm infrastructure during storms, helps to recharge groundwater, maintain surface flow for creeks, and contributes to a cooler ground surface temperature.
Infrastructure
Storm Drainage Master Plan: In 2018 the City completed a Stormwater Infrastructure plan which identifies facilities needed to prevent “10-year” event street flooding, “100-year” event structure flooding, and green infrastructure to meet water quality protection needs in a cost-effective manner.
The plan also provides low impact development (LID) principles to manage stormwater by mimicking natural hydrology, minimizing grading and protecting or restoring natural drainage systems on both public and private developments.
Bioswales at the Cupertino City Library: The Cupertino Library parking lot includes landscaping features called bioswales. These areas recharge the groundwater and naturally filter runoff to prevent pollutants, such as car oil, from entering waterways.
483
CC 08-16-2022
483 of 1555
13 Waste Sector
Reducing Solid Waste
Table 5 CAP 2015 Accomplishments: Solid Waste Reduction Measures Status Measure
ID Measure
Completed A Continue to implement City’s goal to divert 75% of communitywide solid waste through franchise waste hauling contract
Completed A Establish Stretch Waste Reduction and Diversion Goals Completed A Expand Municipal Collection and Composting Program Completed A Set C&D Diversion Policy for Municipal Projects Completed B
Prepare residential and commercial waste characterization studies to identify Cupertino-specific opportunities for additional waste diversion; use study results to develop outreach campaigns that increase participation in City's existing waste management programs, targeting specific waste types and/or sources
Completed B Work with franchise waste haulers to evaluate capability of area landfill operators to maximize C&D waste diversion (e.g.,75% diversion) Completed B Create Paperless Office Policy/Program
Completed C
Establish timeline and funding mechanism to perform periodic Waste Characterization Study updates to evaluate efficacy of new outreach programs
Completed C
Work with franchise waste haulers, the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, and other local business organizations to increase voluntary participation in City's organics collection program; provide technical assistance based on best practice examples to overcome collection bin storage / placement barriers
Completed C Work with franchise waste haulers to evaluate capability of area landfill operators to maximize C&D waste diversion (e.g.,75% diversion) Completed D
Develop robust outreach campaign to ensure communitywide understanding of materials management service offerings, drive behavior change focused on lifecycle of materials (i.e., source reduction, materials reuse, end-of-life), and facilitate access to emerging materials management support tools (i.e., those focused on sharing economy and collaborative consumption) Completed D
Consider developing Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Deposit Program to help enforce C&D ordinance, in which deposit is paid to City prior to issuance of building permit and refunded to applicant following submittal / approval of applicable waste diversion documentation
Completed D Conduct Waste Characterization Audits and Track Materials/Diversion 484
CC 08-16-2022
484 of 1555
14 Status Measure
ID Measure
Completed M-SW-3 Enhance construction and demolition waste diversion rates for municipal projects.
Ongoing A
Continue to implement the City's organics collection program outreach campaign, including outreach to Cupertino’s business community regarding upcoming commercial food waste ordinance
Ongoing A
Continue to implement City's 60% C&D diversion requirement for applicable projects as defined in City's Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance
Ongoing B
Provide information to local elementary schools on existing organics collection program for incorporation into on-going recycling program curriculum
Ongoing C-SW-1 Zero Waste Goal. Maximize solid waste diversion communitywide through preparation of a zero-waste strategic plan
Ongoing C-SW-2
Food Scrap and Compostable Paper Diversion. Continue to promote the collection of food scraps and compostable paper through the City's organics collection program
Waste Diversion & Zero-Waste Policy: Cupertino continues to make inroads towards its goal to divert 75 percent of community wide solid waste in accordance with the Cupertino zero waste policy, with a goal of reaching and maintaining eighty percent (80 percent) waste diversion by 2025 as calculated using CalRecycle’s Diversion rate equivalent formula. Cupetino’s waste diversion rate as of 2018 is 73 percent.
Organics Waste and Food Recovery Ordinance: The City passed an ordinance in alignment with California SB 1383 to reduce the volume of food that is wasted by recovering edible food for community members in need and minimizing food waste sent to landfills which decreases waste related GHG emissions.
Implementation of citywide for contamination monitoring, procurement, and edible food recovery began as of Jan 1, 2022.
Expanded edible food recovery scheduled to begin Jan. 1, 2024.
Free Compost Bin for Residents: Cupertino residents can each receive a free compost bin as part of free home composting courses, sponsored by the Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission of Santa Clara County.3
Construction and Demolition Debris: The City enacted a robust system to collect waste tags and demonstrate the City's construction and development debris requirements are met before a certificate of occupancy is issued. The City’s goal is to divert 65 percent of construction and demolition (C&D) waste from the landfill and achieved a diversion rate of 52 percent as of 2018.
Paperless Office Policy: Cupertino was one of the first cities to pilot paperless agendas, and the Building and Planning Department has required electronic plan submittal since 2016. 3 The composting courses are offered by the UC Cooperative Extension Composting Education Program. 485
CC 08-16-2022
485 of 1555
15 Commercial Organics Ordinance: Requires high generators of food waste to separate food, yard and compostable paper waste for collection by Recology and composting.
Foam Foodware Container Ordinance: Ordinance NO. 14 -2116, adopted in 2014, restricts distribution of food containers made from polystyrene foam (known as Styrofoam™) which generally is used only once and lasts hundreds or thousands of years in the landfill.
Reusable Bag Ordinance: Adopted in 2013, prohibits the distribution of thin, plastic carry-out bags.
Carbon Sequestration
Urban Forest & Green Infrastructure
Tree Planting: The County of Santa Clara has initiated a program to partner with neighborhood groups, community organizations, and the business community to encourage voluntary tree planting on private property and identify opportunities for such organizations to assist with maintenance of street trees planted within public rights-of-way, and Cupertino’s Tree Division is actively participating in this program. Trees store carbon as they grow, helping to offset some community emissions.
Healthy Urban Forest: Maintaining and expanding the community’s urban forest not only makes for a greener and more beautiful Cupertino, but also helps to store carbon from the atmosphere as the trees grow in number and size. Additionally, healthy trees can have a positive impact on property values, energy savings, and air quality. The City of Cupertino is responsible for maintaining over 20,000 trees throughout the community.
486
CC 08-16-2022
486 of 1555
16 Engagement
Community Collaboration
Green Business Network: Cupertino a network of green businesses that have actively sought to improve their environmental and sustainability performance. Since 2010, Cupertino’s award-winning GreenBiz program has helped over 60 businesses achieve California Green Business certification, resulting in GHG emission reductions of over 7,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide and the diversion of over 22 million pounds of waste cumulatively.
Free Bulk Compost: From March to October, Cupertino residents can visit 12100 Stevens Canyon Road on Fridays and Saturdays to pick up free bulk compost. The compost is made from food scraps and yard waste collected by Cupertino's organics recovery program.
Earth & Arbor Day Festival: Every year Cupertino hosts an Earth and Arbor Day Festival in April. This event serves to increase community awareness and engagement with environmental stewardship.
During the festivities community members of all ages can learn about environmental issues and solutions through hands-on activities, while enjoying live entertainment, and delicious food served by local food trucks.
487
CC 08-16-2022
487 of 1555
17 Awards and Recognition
2019 Beacon Award: from the Institute for Local Government recognizing Cupertino’s holistic approach to addressing climate change.
CDP Climate Action Scorecard: Overall Score of B for the 2018 CDP Climate Action Scorecard, ranking Cupertino above average of participating cities for climate action and information disclosure.
Green Biz Cupertino has been honored with four different awards recognizing the program’s success in engaging the business community to prosper while benefiting the planet. The awards include:
• ICLEI’s Green Business Challenge Award, 2014
• Silicon Valley Leadership Group’s Red Tape to Red Carpet Award, 2014 • Green Technology’s Green California Leadership Award, 2013 • Acterra Business Environmental Award, 2013
488
CC 08-16-2022
488 of 1555
18 Lessons Learned
Cupertino met its 2020 emissions target ahead of schedule, and the measures and actions in this CAP Update provide Cupertino with the per capita GHG reductions necessary to achieve Cupertino’s 2030 climate action targets. However, the City’s ambitious target of carbon neutrality by 2040 requires some difficult to achieve reductions in emissions that depend on significant changes to the technology and systems currently in place.4 This CAP Update aims to establish new systems that are resilient and equitable and that will allow for a transition to carbon neutrality in the future. Measures and actions that support this aim include electrification of building and transportation systems, an increased shift to active and public/shared transportation, continued usage of carbon neutral electricity, increased water use efficiency, and waste reduction and diversion. As these current measures and actions are implemented, the City will gain more information, new technologies will emerge, and current pilot projects and programs will scale to the size needed to reach carbon neutrality. Furthermore, the State is expected to update State-level regulations and provide additional support for meeting carbon neutrality in the future. The City has additionally identified a future CAP update schedule, and will outline new measures and actions that Cupertino will implement to close the remaining gap to achieve the target of carbon neutrality by 2040.
4 Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). “The California Supplement to the United States Communitywide Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol”. 2013. Available: https://califaep.org/docs/California_Supplement_to_the_National_Protocol.pdf . Accessed February 2022; and California Air Resources Board (CARB). “California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan”. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf . Accessed February 2022. 489
CC 08-16-2022
489 of 1555
City of Cupertino
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Thresholds and Guidance
Final
prepared by
City of Cupertino
City Manager’s Office
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95104
prepared with assistance from
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, CA 94612
April 29, 2022
490
CC 08-16-2022
490 of 1555
491
CC 08-16-2022
491 of 1555
Table of Contents
Draft i
This page intentionally left blank.
492
CC 08-16-2022
492 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
ii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1
1.1 GHG Emissions Analyses Under CEQA ................................................................................1
1.2 Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Plan ...........................................................................3 2 Climate Action Plan Summary ........................................................................................................5
2.1 Communitywide GHG Emissions Inventories .....................................................................5
2.2 GHG Emission Reduction Strategy ......................................................................................5
2.3 GHG Emissions Forecast ......................................................................................................7 3 Regulatory and Legal Setting ....................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Relevant CEQA Guidelines Sections ................................................................................. 11
3.2 Relevant State and Regional GHG Reduction Targets ..................................................... 15
3.3 Relevant GHG Emissions Analysis Case Law .................................................................... 17 4 Determining Consistency with the CAP ....................................................................................... 19 5 Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds .............................................................................. 22
5.1 Threshold Calculation Methodology ................................................................................ 22
5.2 GHG Thresholds and Use ................................................................................................. 24
5.3 Justification for Thresholds .............................................................................................. 26 6 Quantifying GHG Emissions ......................................................................................................... 29
6.1 Construction GHG Emissions ........................................................................................... 29
6.2 Operational GHG Emissions ............................................................................................. 30
6.3 Modeling GHG Emissions from Existing Land Use ........................................................... 33 7 Moving into the Future ................................................................................................................ 34 Tables
Table 4 CAP Update Consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1) for 2030 ...............4 Table 1 City of Cupertino 1990, 2010, and 2018 Communitywide GHG Emissions Levels ..............5 Table 2 City of Cupertino GHG Emissions Reductions by 2030 .......................................................7 Table 3 City of Cupertino GHG Emissions Forecast Through 2040 ..................................................9 Table 5 GHG Emissions Forecast for 2030 by Type of Development (MT of CO2e) ...................... 24 Table 6 City of Cupertino Demographic Projections .................................................................... 24 Table 7 Cupertino Locally Applicable Plan/Project CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds ................. 25 493
CC 08-16-2022
493 of 1555
Table of Contents
Draft iii
Figures
Figure 1 City of Cupertino GHG Emissions Reduction Targets ................................................... 2 Figure 2 City of Cupertino GHG Emissions Forecast, 2018 to 2045 ........................................... 8 Figure 3 Determining Consistency with the Cupertino CAP .................................................... 19 Figure 4 Allowable GHG Emissions from Existing and New Development in 2030 ................. 23 Figure 5 City of Cupertino GHG Efficiency Thresholds ............................................................. 25 Appendices
Appendix A Overview of GHG Emissions and Climate Change Appendix B GHG Threshold Calculations
Appendix C US Green Building Council Building Area per Employee by Business Type Rates 494
CC 08-16-2022
494 of 1555
495
CC 08-16-2022
495 of 1555
Introduction
Draft 1
1 Introduction
1.1 GHG Emissions Analyses Under CEQA
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discretionary plans and projects to undergo an environmental review process, which includes an evaluation of plan‐ or project‐related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.1 Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes a framework for developing a qualified2 Climate Action Plan (CAP) to cumulatively reduce GHG emissions and allow lead agencies to analyze and mitigate the effects of plan‐ and project‐level GHG emissions.
This GHG Thresholds and Guidance Document is intended to provide methodological guidance and quantitative thresholds of significance for use by City planners, applicants, consultants, agencies, and members of the public in the preparation of GHG emissions analyses under CEQA for plans and projects located within the City of Cupertino.
The City of Cupertino (City) prepared a CEQA Guidelines Section15183.5‐consistent Draft CAP Update dated April 20, 2022 with the goal of achieving 45 percent below total (or mass) 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2040.3 While the City Council, City staff, and community will continue to develop an approach to the longer‐term goal of carbon neutrality, the CAP Update includes specific actions to achieve the shorter‐term communitywide emissions reduction target of 45 percent below 1990 emissions (or 3.39 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents [MT of CO2e]4 per person) by 2030, which is consistent with and exceeds California’s goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (per Senate Bill [SB] 32).
The City has also adopted a goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040, ahead of the State’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 (per Executive Order [EO] B‐55‐18). See Figure 1 for a representation and comparison of the Cupertino and State GHG emissions reduction targets. Therefore, implementation of the Cupertino CAP Update actions would result in GHG emissions reductions in both total and per capita emissions in a manner that exceeds the State 2030 goal. 1 Refer to Appendix A for an overview of GHG emissions and climate change. 2 To be a qualified CAP, a CAP must meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, as further discussed in Section 1.2. 3 Carbon neutrality is defined as net zero carbon emissions, which is achieved either by balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal or by completely eliminating carbon emissions.
4 Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas, CO2, is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions, referred to as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100‐year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 25, meaning its global warming effect is 25 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007).
496
CC 08-16-2022
496 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
2 Figure 1 City of Cupertino GHG Emissions Reduction Targets The City’s 2030 target was developed to provide substantial progress towards the City’s longer‐term carbon neutrality target and contribute substantial progress toward meeting the State’s GHG reduction goals identified in SB 32 and EO B‐55‐18. Consistent with this process, the Cupertino CAP Update includes procedures to evaluate Cupertino’s emissions in light of the trajectory of the CAP Update’s targets to assess its “substantial progress” toward achieving long‐term reduction targets identified in the CAP Update and State legislation and EOs. The CAP Update also includes commitments and mechanisms to adopt additional policies to achieve further GHG emissions reductions necessary to avoid interference with, and make substantial progress toward, long‐term City and State goals. This approach is important, because these targets have been set at levels that achieve California’s fair share of international emissions reduction targets that will stabilize global climate change effects and avoid the adverse environmental consequences of climate change.
To support progress toward the City’s longer‐term carbon neutrality goal, plans and projects within the City that undergo CEQA review will need to demonstrate consistency with targets in the CAP Update, which is a Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Plan (consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5) upon adoption of its CEQA review document, specifically the CAP Update Initial Study‐Negative Declaration (IS‐ND), and approval of the CAP Update by City Council. Chapter 2, Climate Action Plan Summary, provides an overview of the CAP Update and the associated GHG emissions inventories, reduction measures, and forecasts included therein. In addition, Chapter 3, Regulatory and Legal Setting, offers an overview of relevant regulations and case law pertaining to the analysis of GHG emissions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
Plans and projects that are consistent with the CAP Update’s demographic (i.e., residents and employees) projections and land use assumptions, which are based on the Land Use/Community Character Element of the 2015‐2040 City General Plan, will be able to tier from the adopted CAP Update IS‐ND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. To streamline this CEQA GHG emissions analysis process, the City has prepared a CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist that can be utilized in plan‐ and project‐level CEQA review documents to ensure that such proposed plans and projects are consistent with the CAP Update GHG emissions reduction strategy. Chapter 4, 497
CC 08-16-2022
497 of 1555
Introduction
Draft 3
Determining Consistency with , includes guidance on how to navigate this consistency determination process.
For plans or projects that are not consistent with the CAP Update’s demographic projections and land use assumptions, a different methodology and assessment utilizing quantitative thresholds of significance would be necessary to evaluate GHG emissions impacts. Chapter 5, Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds, includes guidance on how to utilize the quantitative thresholds that were developed for purposes of evaluating the level of significance of GHG emissions impacts.5 Furthermore, Chapter 6, Quantifying GHG Emissions, provides direction regarding how to quantify a plan or project’s GHG emissions for comparison to the applicable threshold of significance.
The CAP Update acknowledges that additional actions beyond those identified in the plan will be required to achieve its long‐term goal of carbon neutrality by 2040. As a result, the plan provides a mechanism for updating and adopting a new CAP every five to seven years (i.e., in conjunction with the 2022‐2029, 2030‐2034, and 2035‐2040 cycles) in order to incorporate new measures and technologies that will further move the City toward meeting its longer‐term carbon neutrality target. Chapter 7, Moving into the Future, offers further explanation of how CEQA review of plans and projects could be affected by future updates and/or iterations of the Cupertino CAP.
1.2 Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Plan
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, project‐specific environmental documents can tier from, or incorporate by reference, the existing programmatic review in a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan, which allows for project‐level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project’s consistency with the GHG emissions reduction strategy included in the qualified GHG emissions reduction plan. To meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan must include the following:
Quantify existing and projected GHG emissions within the plan area; Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; Identify and analyze sector specific GHG emissions within the plan’s geographic area; Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that if implemented, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; Establish a tool or mechanism to monitor progress and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; and
Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
Development projects can demonstrate consistency with a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan if they are consistent with the plan’s assumptions regarding future growth projections and consistent with the plan’s GHG emissions reduction measures.6 Projects consistent with the qualified GHG reduction plan, including conformance with performance measures applicable to the project, would not require additional GHG emissions analysis or mitigation under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h) and 1513.5(b)(2). The City of Cupertino has developed the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist to assist with determining project consistency with the CAP Update. The 5 In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b), this guidance document and the quantitative thresholds contained herein will be presented to the City Council for formal adoption via resolution, which includes a public input opportunity. 6 CAPs typically utilize growth projections from the local jurisdiction’s General Plan or applicable Metropolitan Planning Organization’s regional demographic forecast.
498
CC 08-16-2022
498 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
4 checklist is intended to provide individual projects the opportunity to demonstrate that they are minimizing GHG emissions while ensuring new development achieves its proportion of emissions reductions consistent with the assumptions of the CAP Update. Project consistency with a GHG emissions reduction plan can also be demonstrated through a quantitative analysis that demostrates the project will not impede (or will facilitate) the City’s ability to meet its GHG emissions reduction targets.
Table 1 summarizes the consistency of the CAP Update with these requirements for year 2030 (the next State milestone target year for GHG emission reductions). As shown in Table 1, upon adoption of the IS‐ND and approval of the plan by City Council, the Cupertino CAP Update will meet the requirements of a qualified GHG emission reduction plan per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1) for projects with buildout years through 2030.
Table 1 CAP Update Consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1) for 2030 CEQA Guidelines Section
15183.5(b)(1) Requirement1 Climate Action Plan Consistency Quantify GHG emissions, both
existing and projected over a
specified time period, resulting
from activities within a defined
geographic area.
Consistent. The Update includes communitywide GHG emissions inventories for years 2010 and 2018 and forecasts GHG emissions for years 2030 and 2040.
Establish a level, based on
substantial evidence, below
which the contribution to GHG
emissions from activities
covered by the plan would not
be cumulatively considerable.
Consistent. A key aspect of a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan is substantial evidence that the identified GHG emissions reduction target establishes a threshold where GHG emissions are not cumulatively considerable. The AEP (2016) Beyond Newhall and 2020 white paper identifies this threshold as being a local target that aligns with the State legislative targets. The CAP Update establishes a long‐term aspirational goal of carbon neutrality by 2040, and as discussed in Section 2.3, GHG Emissions Forecast, implementation of the plan will achieve a 45 percent reduction in 1990 emissions levels by 2030. Therefore, this local target is more stringent than the State targets of a 40 percent emission reduction in 1990 levels by 2030.
Identify and analyze the GHG
emissions resulting from
specific actions or categories of
actions anticipated within the
geographic area.
Consistent. The CAP Update breaks down its inventories and forecasts into five sectors (transportation, residential energy, non‐residential energy, wastewater, solid waste, and carbon sequestration).
Specify measures or a group of
measures, including
performance standards, that
substantial evidence
demonstrates, if implemented
on a project‐by‐project basis,
would collectively achieve the
specified emissions level.
Consistent. The CAP Update specifies measures and actions that the City will enact and implement between 2022 and 2030 to meet its 2030 GHG emissions target. As discussed in Section 2.3, GHG Emissions Forecast, implementation of the plan will achieve a 45 percent reduction in 1990 emissions levels by 2030, which is more stringent than the State target of a 40 percent emission reduction in 1990 levels by 2030 and demonstrates substantial progress by 2030 toward achieving the City’s longer‐term goal of carbon neutrality by 2040.
Establish a mechanism to
monitor the plan’s progress
toward achieving the level and
to require amendment if the
plan is not achieving specified
levels.
Consistent. Chapter 13, Implementation, includes a process to complete community GHG emissions inventories every five to seven years, with the first inventory to be completed for calendar year 2026. The inventories will allow the City to measure progress towards meeting the CAP Update goals. If an inventory indicates that the City is not on track to meet the CAP Update GHG emissions goals, additional CAP updates may be required at that time to increase emissions reductions measures and maintain the CAP Update’s status as a CEQA qualified GHG emissions reduction plan.
Be adopted in a public process
following environmental
review.
Consistent. The City prepared an IS‐ND for the CAP Update that was circulated for public review and comment and adopted prior to approval of the CAP Update and CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance by City Council.
Source: Compiled by Rincon in 2022.
499
CC 08-16-2022
499 of 1555
Climate Action Plan Summary
Draft 5
2 Climate Action Plan Summary
The following sections provide an overview of the Cupertino CAP Update, including the 2010 and 2018 communitywide GHG emissions inventories, and the communitywide GHG emissions forecast for years 2030 and 2040, and the proposed GHG emission reduction strategy.
2.1 Communitywide GHG Emissions Inventories
The City has completed communitywide GHG emissions inventories for years 2010 and 2018, which are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 also provides estimated 1990 emissions levels for informational purposes. As shown therein, communitywide GHG emissions declined by approximately 15 percent between 2010 and 2018, meeting or exceeding the City’s target of reducing emissions by approximately 15 percent below baseline 2010 levels by 2020 (equivalent to the State’s target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels under Assembly Bill 32).7 The most notable changes occurred in the energy and wastewater sectors due to increasing decarbonization of the Statewide electricity grid, investments in energy efficiency, and a decrease in the amount of solid waste generated.8 Table 2 City of Cupertino 1990, 2010, and 2018 Communitywide GHG Emissions Levels Sector
1990 1
(MT of CO2e)
2010
(MT of CO2e)
2018
(MT of CO2e)
Percent Change from
2010 to 2018
Transportation N/A 198,111 220,625 11%
Non‐residential Energy N/A 95,246 45,733 ‐52%
Residential Energy N/A 77,042 45,296 ‐41%
Wastewater N/A 22,591 19,635 ‐13%
Solid Waste N/A 15,185 15,709 3%
Total 402,639 408,176 346,998 ‐15%
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest ten.
1 1990 GHG emissions were estimated by back‐casting Cupertino’s total 2018 GHG emissions based on the change in the State’s GHG emissions between 2018 and 1990. 1990 GHG emissions were not estimated at the individual sector level.
Source: Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino 2019 Community GHG Inventory.
2.2 GHG Emission Reduction Strategy
To achieve the City’s long‐term aspirational goal of carbon neutrality by 2040, the Cupertino CAP Update includes a series of measures and actions that are intended to reduce communitywide GHG emissions by approximately 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (a 66 percent reduction in per‐ capita 1990 emissions levels), which provides substantial progress toward meeting the City’s longer‐ term carbon neutrality goal while also exceeding the State’s 2030 target. The CAP Update acknowledges that additional actions beyond those identified in the plan will be necessary to achieve the long‐term aspirational goal of carbon neutrality and therefore provides a mechanism for updating and adopting a new climate action plan every five to seven years in order to incorporate 7 California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. 8 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino 2018 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. 500
CC 08-16-2022
500 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
6 new measures and technologies that will further the City toward meeting its long‐term aspirational goal of carbon neutrality.
As part of the CAP Update process, the City of Cupertino has developed a comprehensive set of measures reducing communitywide GHG emissions in all sectors to achieve the City’s climate action targets. Each measure is supported by a set of actions that provide a measurable GHG emissions reduction that is supported by substantial evidence. The City has also developed a set of measures and actions for offsetting GHG emissions through carbon sequestration, established under a new sector called “Carbon Sequestration.” Measures and actions are organized according to the following hierarchy:
1. Sectors: Sectors define the GHG emissions category in which the GHG reductions will take place and include Building Energy, Transportation, Waste, Water and Wastewater, and Carbon Sequestration.9
2. Measures: Measures identify specific goals (i.e., activity data targets by 2030 and 2040) to address GHG emissions in each sector. A single measure generally addresses a subsector; for example, three measures may be established under the Transportation sector to address active transportation, shared/public transportation, and single‐passenger vehicles.
3. Actions: Actions identify the programs, policies, funding pathways, and other specific commitments that the City will implement. Each measure contains a suite of actions, which together have been designed to accomplish the measure goal.
4. Key Pillars: The actions supporting each measure have been designed around a set of key pillars. Each pillar emphasizes specific criteria that have been demonstrated to play an essential role in the implementation of the measure. Because community‐focused climate action often requires community‐level behavioral changes and buy‐in to be implementable and successful, the City must design a suite of actions that support these changes by emphasizing specific needs of the community. The key pillars included in the CAP Update are: Structural Change, Studies & Plans, Funding, Equity, Engagement, Partnerships, and Regional Collaboration. In general, the actions under a single measure should collectively address the key pillars.10 Identification of the pillars and such inclusion in the CAP Update helps plan for implementation. More information on the pillars can be found in the CAP Update.
Table 3 summarizes the GHG emissions reductions that are anticipated to be achieved by 2030 by the identified measures in the CAP Update, in addition to State laws and programs. As shown therein, implementation of State laws and programs as well as the CAP Update would reduce 2030 absolute communitywide emissions by approximately 45 percent below 1990 levels, to approximately 222,436 MT of CO2e in 2030.
9 Note that the City’s municipal measures as established in the CAP Update are not discussed in this document. While the municipal measures are important for reducing the GHG emissions of City operations and establishing the City’s operations as demonstrations of climate action leadership, they represent a minor contribution to community‐level GHG emissions reductions and are a subset of communitywide GHG emissions. For this reason, GHG emissions reductions expected from municipal measures were conservatively excluded from the analysis in this document and were not quantified as part of the CAP Update preparation process. 10 The exception is for measures and actions in the municipal sector because the City has much more leverage to enact changes at a municipal level and may not need to consider each pillar to ensure success during implementation. 501
CC 08-16-2022
501 of 1555
Climate Action Plan Summary
Draft 7
Table 3 City of Cupertino GHG Emissions Reductions by 2030 Source
Annual Emissions
(MT of CO2e)
1990 Baseline Emissions1 402,639
Business‐as‐Usual 2030 Emissions2 379,192
State Laws/Programs (47,945)
Building Energy CAP Update Measures (36,715)
Transportation CAP Update Measures (57,277)
Waste CAP Update Measures (13,288)
Water and Wastewater CAP Update Measures 0
Carbon Sequestration CAP Update Measures (1,532)
Total Emissions Reductions (156,756)
Remaining 2030 Emissions 222,436
Percent Reduction below 1990 Levels 45%
( ) denotes a negative number; numbers in table may not add to the total exactly due to rounding.
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
1 See Table 2.
2 See
Table 4.
Source: City of Cupertino Draft Climate Action Plan Update and GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence
2.3 GHG Emissions Forecast
Figure 2 and
Table 4 summarize the communitywide GHG emissions forecast under three scenarios: 1) business‐ as‐usual, 2) implementation of State laws and programs, and 3) implementation of State laws and programs and the CAP Update. As shown therein, under the business‐as‐usual scenario, communitywide GHG emissions are forecasted to increase by approximately 16 percent between 2018 and 2040 based on economic and population growth. However, with implementation of State laws and programs, communitywide GHG emissions would decline by approximately seven percent between 2018 and 2040. Furthermore, full implementation of the CAP Update alongside State laws and programs would reduce absolute communitywide GHG emissions by approximately 36 percent below 2018 levels by 2030 and by approximately 81 percent below 2018 levels by 2040. 502
CC 08-16-2022
502 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
8 Figure 2 City of Cupertino GHG Emissions Forecast, 2018 to 2045 503
CC 08-16-2022
503 of 1555
Climate Action Plan Summary
Draft 9
Table 4 City of Cupertino GHG Emissions Forecast Through 2040 Sector
2018
(MT of
CO2e/person)
2018
(MT of CO2e)
2030
(MT of
CO2e/person)
2030
(MT of CO2e)
2040
(MT of
CO2e/person)
2040
(MT of CO2e)
Business‐as‐Usual GHG Emissions
Transportation 3.49 220,625 3.66 240,232 3.70 252,825 Non‐residential
Energy 0.72 45,733 0.83 54,538 0.80 54,753
Residential
Energy 0.72 45,296 0.70 45,869 0.83 56,462
Wastewater 0.31 19,635 0.33 21,417 0.32 21,989
Solid Waste 0.25 15,709 0.26 17,136 0.26 17,593
Total 5.49 346,998 5.77 379,192 5.91 403,622
GHG Emissions After Implementation of State Laws/Programs1 Transportation 3.49 220,625 2.96 194,328 2.60 177,328 Non‐residential
Energy 0.72 45,733 0.80 52,609 0.74 50,858
Residential
Energy 0.72 45,296 0.70 45,757 0.82 55,975
Wastewater 0.31 19,635 0.33 21,417 0.32 21,989
Solid Waste 0.25 15,709 0.26 17,136 0.26 17,593
Total 5.49 346,998 5.04 331,247 4.74 323,743
GHG Emissions After Implementation of State Laws/Programs and Cupertino CAP Update Transportation2 3.49 220,625 2.09 137,052 0.21 14,127 Non‐residential
Energy 0.72 45,733 0.40 26,127 0.09 6,331
Residential
Energy 0.72 45,296 0.54 35,524 0.31 21,466
Wastewater 0.31 19,635 0.33 21,417 0.32 21,989
Solid Waste 0.25 15,709 0.06 3,848 0.06 3,916
Carbon
Sequestration 0 0 (0.02) (1,532) (0.02) (1,577)
Total 5.49 346,998 3.39 222,436 0.97 66,253
( ) denotes a negative number
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
State laws and programs include State vehicle fuel efficiency standards, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and triennial updates of Title
24. Source: Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Through 2040 GHG Forecasts. 504
CC 08-16-2022
504 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
10 At this time, the State has codified a target of reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2030 SB 32) and has developed the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan to demonstrate how the State will achieve the 2030 target and make substantial progress toward the 2050 goal of an 80 percent reduction in 1990 GHG emission levels set by EO S‐3‐05. The recently signed EO B‐55‐18 identifies a new goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 and supersedes the goal established by EO S‐3‐05. The State is also working on the 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which will lay out a path to achieve carbon neutrality by no later than 2045.
While State and regional regulations related to energy and transportation systems, along with the State’s Cap and Trade program, are designed to be set at limits to achieve most of the GHG emissions reductions needed to achieve the State’s long‐term targets, local governments can do their fair share toward meeting the State’s targets by siting and approving projects that accommodate planned population growth and projects that are GHG‐efficient. The Association of Environmental Professional (AEP) Climate Change Committee recommends that CEQA GHG analyses evaluate project emissions in light of the trajectory of State climate change legislation and assess their “substantial progress” toward achieving long‐term reduction targets identified in available plans, legislation, or EOs.
The City has adopted a longer‐term goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2040 and has proposed the CAP Update as a pathway to make progress toward this goal. Implementation of the CAP Update would achieve an approximately 45 percent reduction in communitywide GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 203011 and an approximately 84 percent reduction in communitywide GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2040.12 Therefore, the City’s longer‐term target of carbon neutrality and the associated CAP Update establish a trajectory that provides GHG emissions reductions greater than those required by SB 32 for 2030. Because SB 32 is considered an interim target toward meeting the State long‐term goals, implementation of the Cupertino CAP Update would make substantial progress toward meeting the State’s long‐term goal. Avoiding interference with, and making substantial progress toward, these long‐term State targets is important because these targets have been set at levels that achieve California’s fair share of international emissions reduction targets that will stabilize global climate change effects and avoid the adverse environmental consequences described in Appendix A (EO B‐55‐18).
11 (402,639 MT of CO2e – 222,436 MT of CO2e) / 402,639 MT of CO2e = 45 percent reduction 12 (402,639 MT of CO2e – 66,253 MT of CO2e) / 402,639 MT of CO2e = 83 percent reduction 505
CC 08-16-2022
505 of 1555
Regulatory and Legal Setting
Draft 11
3 Regulatory and Legal Setting
The following regulations, executive orders, and case law pertain to the analysis of GHG emissions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
3.1 Relevant CEQA Guidelines Sections
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the California Natural Resources Agency has adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted CEQA Guidelines, which were last updated in December 2018, provide general regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions and climate change impacts.
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions generated by a proposed plan/project would be significant if the plan/project would:
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and/or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a plan/project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a plan/project are limited. As discussed in Appendix A, the adverse environmental impacts of cumulative GHG emissions, including sea level rise, increased average temperatures, more drought years, and more large forest fires, are already occurring. As a result, cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change are significant. Therefore, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b), the analysis of GHG emissions under CEQA typically involves an analysis of whether a plan or project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).
The following sections of the CEQA Guidelines (last updated on December 28, 2018) pertain to the creation of significance thresholds and the analysis of a plan/project’s GHG emissions.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)
The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area.
Thresholds of significance, as defined in Section 15064.7(a), may assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may cause a significant impact. When using a threshold, the 506
CC 08-16-2022
506 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
12 lead agency should briefly explain how compliance with the threshold means that the project’s impacts are less than significant. Compliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project’s environmental effects may still be significant.13
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4
(a) The determination of the significance of GHG emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency shall make a good‐faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to Quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project; and/or Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance‐based standards. (b) In determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change. A project’s incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to Statewide, national or global emissions. The agency’s analysis should consider a timeframe that is appropriate for the project. The agency’s analysis also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and State regulatory schemes. A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment:
The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (see, e.g., section 15183.5[b]). Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long‐term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.
(c) A lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its selection of a 13 2022 CEQA Guidelines.
507
CC 08-16-2022
507 of 1555
Regulatory and Legal Setting
Draft 13
model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.14 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7
(a) A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non‐compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. (b) Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence. Lead agencies may also use thresholds on a case‐by‐case basis as provided in Section 15064(b)(2). (c) When adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.
(d) Using environmental standards as thresholds of significance promotes consistency in significance determinations and integrates environmental review with other environmental program planning and regulation. Any public agency may adopt or use an environmental standard as a threshold of significance. In adopting or using an environmental standard as a threshold of significance, a public agency shall explain how the particular requirements of that environmental standard reduce project impacts, including cumulative impacts, to a level that is less than significant, and why the environmental standard is relevant to the analysis of the project under consideration. For the purposes of this subdivision, an “environmental standard” is a rule of general application that is adopted by a public agency through a public review process and that is all the following:
a quantitative, qualitative or performance requirement found in an ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, plan or other environmental requirement; adopted for the purpose of environmental protection;
addresses the environmental effect caused by the project; and, applies to the project under review.15
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5
(a) Lead agencies may analyze and mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions at a programmatic level, such as in a general plan, a long‐range development plan, or a separate plan to reduce GHG emissions. Later project‐specific environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by reference that existing programmatic review. Project‐specific environmental documents may rely on an EIR containing a programmatic analysis of GHG emissions as provided in section 15152 (tiering), 15167 (staged EIRs) 15168 (program EIRs), 14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
508
CC 08-16-2022
508 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
14 15175–15179.5 (Master EIRs), 15182 (EIRs Prepared for Specific Plans), and 15183 (EIRs Prepared for General Plans, Community Plans, or Zoning). (b) Plans for the Reduction of GHG Emissions. Public agencies may choose to analyze and mitigate significant GHG emissions in a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions or similar document. A plan to reduce GHG emissions may be used in a cumulative impacts analysis as set forth below. Pursuant to sections 15064(h)(3) and 15130(d), a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted plan or mitigation program under specified circumstances.
Plan Elements. A plan for the reduction of GHG emissions should:
(A) Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; (B) Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable;
(C) Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area;
(D) Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project‐by‐project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; (E) Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; (F) Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
Use with Later Activities. A plan for the reduction of GHG emissions, once adopted following certification of an EIR or adoption of an environmental document, may be used in the cumulative impacts analysis of later projects. An environmental document that relies on a GHG reduction plan for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project. If there is substantial evidence that the effects of a particular project may be cumulatively considerable, notwithstanding the project’s compliance with the specified requirements in the plan for the reduction of GHG emissions, an EIR must be prepared for the project. (c) Special Situations. As provided in Public Resources Code sections 21155.2 and 21159.28, environmental documents for certain residential and mixed use projects, and transit priority projects, as defined in section 21155, that are consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in an applicable sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy need not analyze global warming impacts resulting from cars and light duty trucks. A lead agency should consider whether such projects may result in GHG emissions resulting from other sources, however, consistent with these Guidelines.16
16 Ibid.
509
CC 08-16-2022
509 of 1555
Regulatory and Legal Setting
Draft 15
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c)
Consistent with section 15126.4(a), lead agencies shall consider feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring or reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions. Measures to mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions may include, among others:
Measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead agency’s decision;
Reductions in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F; Off‐site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project’s emissions;
Measures that sequester GHGs;
In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, long range development plan, or plans for the reduction of GHG emissions, mitigation may include the identification of specific measures that may be implemented on a project‐by‐project basis. Mitigation may also include the incorporation of specific measures or policies found in an adopted ordinance or regulation that reduces the cumulative effect of emissions.17
3.2 Relevant State and Regional GHG Reduction Targets
Executive Order S-03-05
On June 1, 2005, the governor issued EO S‐03‐05, which established a statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and created the Climate Action Team. The 2020 GHG reduction target contained in EO S‐03‐05 was later codified by Assembly Bill (AB) 32.
Assembly Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” which was signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the State’s goal of reducing Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHG emissions to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of Statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 Statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e. The Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008 and included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap‐and‐ Trade) have been adopted since approval of the Scoping Plan.18 In May 2014, CARB approved the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2013 Scoping Plan update defined CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and set the groundwork to reach post‐2020 Statewide goals. The update highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the 17 Ibid.
18 CARB. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 2008. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. 510
CC 08-16-2022
510 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
16 “near‐term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the State’s longer‐term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. 19
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, the governor issued EO B‐30‐15, which established Statewide GHG emission reduction targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The 2030 GHG emissions reduction target contained in EO B‐30‐15 was later codified by SB 32.
Senate Bill 32
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed SB 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the Statewide reduction of GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap‐and‐Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently adopted programs and policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383.
The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project‐level thresholds for land use development.
Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with Statewide per capita goals of six MT of CO2e by 2030 and two MT of CO2e by 2050. As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan‐level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State.20
Senate Bill 375
SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy categorized as “transit priority projects” would receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing
On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) was assigned targets of a 7 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2035. ABAG adopted the 2050 RTP (Plan Bay Area 2050) in October 2021, which includes the region’s SCS and meets the requirements of SB 375.21 19 CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. May 15, 2014. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf. 20 CARB. 2017. 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. 21 Association of Bay Area Governments. October 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050. 511
CC 08-16-2022
511 of 1555
Regulatory and Legal Setting
Draft 17
Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, the governor issued EO B‐55‐18, which established a new Statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing Statewide GHG emission reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100. EO B‐55‐18 also tasks CARB with including a pathway toward the EO B‐55‐18 carbon neutrality goal in the next Scoping Plan update.
3.3 Relevant GHG Emissions Analysis Case Law
Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (Case No. 070448) The Third District Court of Appeal decision in the Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville case was published on August 19, 2013. This decision evaluated the methodology used to analyze GHG emissions in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for a Wal‐Mart Supercenter development project that included replacing an existing Wal‐Mart store with a Wal‐Mart Supercenter in Oroville in Butte County. The EIR used consistency with the AB 32 emissions reduction target as its significance threshold for evaluating the project’s GHG emissions and compared the magnitude of the proposed project’s emissions to statewide 2004 emission levels as part of the analysis. The Court found that EIR applied “a meaningless, relative number to determine insignificant impact” rather than evaluating the project’s emissions in light of the AB 32 emissions reduction target. The Court also found that the EIR “misapplied the [AB] 32 threshold‐of‐significance standard by [1] failing to calculate the GHG emissions for the existing Wal‐Mart and [2] failing to quantitatively or qualitatively ascertain or estimate the effect of the Project’s mitigation measures on GHG emissions.” The Court determined that the EIR could and should have performed these quantifications to adequately evaluate the project’s GHG emissions using the AB 32 emissions reduction target.
Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2018-00043084-CU-TT-CTL) The Fourth District Court of Appeal decision in the Sierra Club v. County of San Diego case was published on October 29, 2014. This decision evaluated the adequacy of the CAP prepared by the County of San Diego to satisfy Mitigation Measure CC‐1.2 of the program EIR prepared for its 2011 General Plan. To reduce GHG emissions impacts of the 2011 General Plan to a less‐than‐significant level, Mitigation Measure CC‐1.2 required the preparation of a CAP that would include “more detailed GHG emissions reduction targets and deadlines” and that would “achieve comprehensive and enforceable GHG emissions reduction of 17 percent (totaling 23,572 MT of CO2e) from County operations from 2006 by 2020 and 9 percent reduction (totaling 479,717 MT of CO2e) in community emissions from 2006 by 2020.” The Court found the CAP did not include enforceable and feasible GHG emission reduction measures that would achieve the necessary emissions reductions; therefore, the CAP did not meet the requirements of Mitigation Measure CC‐1.2 and would not ensure that the mitigation measure would reduce GHG emissions to a less‐than‐significant impact.
In addition, the Court found that the County failed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the CAP and its associated thresholds of significance under CEQA. 512
CC 08-16-2022
512 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
18 Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Case No. 217763)
The California Supreme Court’s decision in the Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife case was published on November 30, 2015. This decision evaluated the methodology used to analyze GHG emissions in an EIR prepared for the Newhall Ranch development project that included approximately 20,885 dwelling units with 58,000 residents on 12,000 acres of undeveloped land in Los Angeles County. The EIR used a business‐as‐usual approach to evaluate whether the project would be consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The Court found there was insufficient evidence in the record of that project to explain how a project that reduces its GHG emissions by the same percentage as the business‐as‐usual reduction identified for the State to meet its Statewide targets supported a conclusion that project‐level impacts were below the level of significance.
The California Supreme Court suggested regulatory consistency as a pathway to compliance by stating that a lead agency might assess consistency with the State’s GHG reduction goals by evaluating for compliance with regulations designed to reduce GHG emissions. This approach is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b), which provides that a determination of an impact is not cumulatively considerable to the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements implementing a Statewide, regional, or local plan to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions. The Court also found that a lead agency may rely on numerical and efficiency‐based thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, if supported by substantial evidence.
Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego/Sierra Club, LLC v.
County of San Diego (Case No. 072406)
The Fourth District Court of Appeal decision in the Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego case (published on September 28, 2018) evaluated the County of San Diego’s 2016 Guidance Document’s GHG efficiency metric, which establishes a generally applicable threshold of significance for proposed projects. The Court held that the County of San Diego is barred from using its 2016 Guidance Document’s threshold of significance of 4.9 MT of CO2e per service person per year for GHG analysis. The Court stated that the document violated CEQA because it was not adopted formally by ordinance, rule, resolution, or regulation through a public review process per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b). The Court also found that the threshold was not supported by substantial evidence that adequately explained how a service population threshold derived from Statewide data could constitute an appropriate GHG metric to be used for all projects in unincorporated San Diego County. Nevertheless, lead agencies may make plan‐ or project‐specific GHG emissions threshold determinations.
513
CC 08-16-2022
513 of 1555
Determining Consistency with the CAP
Draft 19
4 Determining Consistency with the CAP
As discussed in Chapter 2, Climate Action Plan Summary, upon public adoption of the CAP Update IS‐ND and approval of the CAP Update by City Council, the Cupertino CAP Update will be a qualified GHG emission reduction plan per the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 for year 2030 and can, therefore, be utilized to streamline the GHG emissions analysis for plans and projects with buildout years through 2030. Projects that are consistent with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions in the CAP Update can utilize the City’s CEQA GHG Checklist to demonstrate consistency with the CAP Update’s GHG emissions reduction strategy, and if consistent, can tier from the environmental review contained in the CAP Update IS‐ND. In doing so, these projects would result in less‐than‐significant GHG emissions and not result in a cumulatively considerable GHG emissions impact. The following process (see Figure 3) shows how to demonstrate a plan/project’s consistency with the CAP Update’s GHG emissions reduction strategy and, thereby, tier from the IS‐ND for the CAP Update. This approach is consistent with the recommendations of the AEP Climate Change Committee for tiering from qualified GHG reduction plans that demonstrate substantial progress toward meeting the next milestone Statewide planning reduction target (i.e., a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 as set forth by SB 32).
Figure 3 Determining Consistency with the Cupertino CAP 514
CC 08-16-2022
514 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
20 Step 1: Consistency with Demographic Forecasts and Land Use Assumptions The demographic forecasts of the CAP Update are based on both 2050 Plan Bay Area and the 2015‐ 2040 Cupertino General Plan. If a plan/project is consistent with the existing (2015‐2040) General Plan land use and zoning designation(s) of the plan area/project site as identified in the City’s General Plan Land Use/Community Character Element adopted in 2014, then the plan/project is consistent with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions of the CAP Update and can move on to Step 2. In this case, the plan/project’s associated GHG emissions were accounted for in the GHG emissions forecasts included in the CAP Update and are within the scope of this plan’s analysis of communitywide GHG emissions. Accordingly, the analysis of the plan/project’s GHG emissions in its CEQA document should include a reference to the plan/project’s consistency with the existing (2015‐2040) General Plan land use and zoning designation(s) of the plan area/project site and should explain the aforementioned connection between the existing (2015‐2040) General Plan land use and zoning designation(s) and the GHG emissions forecasts in the CAP Update. Then, proceed to Step 2.
If a plan/project is not consistent with the existing (2015‐2040 ) General Plan land use and zoning designation(s) of the plan area/project site but would result in equivalent or fewer GHG emissions as compared to existing on‐site development or the development anticipated for the site under the City’s existing (2015‐2040) General Plan, then the plan/project would still be within the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions of the CAP Update and can move on to Step 2. To provide substantial evidence for this determination, GHG emissions generated under existing conditions/existing (2015‐2040) General Plan buildout and the proposed project need to be quantified and included in the CEQA analysis. See Chapter 6, Quantifying GHG Emissions, for guidance on quantifying GHG emissions for existing conditions/existing (2015‐2040) General Plan buildout and the proposed plan/project. In this case, the analysis of the plan’s/project’s GHG emissions in its CEQA document should include a quantitative comparison of the proposed plan’s/project’s GHG emissions and GHG emissions generated by existing on‐site development or the development anticipated for the site under the City’s existing (2015‐2040) General Plan. The analysis should clearly explain how the plan/project’s emissions are equivalent or less than those generated by existing on‐site development or the development anticipated for the site under the City’s existing (2015‐2040) General Plan. Then, proceed to Step 2.
If a plan/project is not consistent with the existing (2014) General Plan land use and zoning designation(s) of the plan area/project site and would result in either new development of undeveloped land or redevelopment with higher GHG emissions than existing on‐site development or than the development anticipated for the site under the City’s existing (2015‐2040) General Plan, the plan/project cannot use the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist to tier from the adopted IS‐ND for the CAP Update. Instead, the plan/project’s GHG emissions can be evaluated using the quantitative GHG thresholds described in Chapter 5, Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds, to evaluate the significance of the plan/project’s GHG emissions. This method can also be utilized for projects with a post‐2030 buildout year. 515
CC 08-16-2022
515 of 1555
Determining Consistency with the CAP
Draft 21
Step 2: Consistency with CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist The City has prepared the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist for plans and projects to ensure they are consistent with the measures of the CAP. A project applicant can utilize the checklist to show that the plan/project includes all applicable measures of the CAP Update. Projects that use the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist are not required to quantify reductions from the measures included on the checklist, because the reductions from applicable measures have already been quantified at a programmatic level in the CAP Update.
If a plan/project is consistent with the applicable measures on the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist, then the plan/project can tier from the programmatic GHG emissions environmental review included in the adopted IS‐ND for the CAP Update pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1).
A plan/project that is consistent with all applicable measures of the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist would result in less‐than‐significant GHG emissions and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions and climate change. In this case, the analysis of a plan or project’s GHG emissions in its respective CEQA review document should include a summary of the plan/project’s consistency with applicable measures of the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist and an explanation with substantial evidence of why any measures in the checklist are not applicable to the plan/project.
516
CC 08-16-2022
516 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
22 5 Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds
As discussed in Chapter 4, Determining Consistency with , if a plan/project is not consistent with the existing (2014) General Plan land use and zoning designation(s) of the plan area/project site or has a post‐2030 buildout year, then the plan/project cannot use the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist to tier from the adopted IS‐ND for the CAP Update. Instead, the significance of the plan/project’s GHG emissions can be evaluated using quantitative GHG thresholds derived from the assumptions of the CAP Update. If the plan’s/project’s emissions are at or below the applicable threshold, the plan/project can tier from the existing programmatic environmental review contained in the adopted programmatic IS‐ND for the CAP Update if it has a pre‐2030 buildout year.
In doing so, these plans/projects would result in less‐than‐significant GHG emissions and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions and climate change. For plans/projects with post‐2030 buildout years, emissions at or below the thresholds for 2040, which equate to net zero MT of CO2e per year, would be considered less‐than‐significant, and the plans/projects would not result in a cumulatively considerable GHG emissions impact. The following sections provide an explanation of the methodology used to calculate the thresholds, guidance on how to utilize the thresholds, and justification for use of these thresholds.
5.1 Threshold Calculation Methodology
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 does not establish a specific quantitative threshold of significance for evaluating GHG emissions associated with a proposed plan or project. Lead agencies have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, and in establishing those thresholds, a lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies, or suggested by other experts, as long as the threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]). The following methodology is consistent with guidance provided by the AEP Climate Change Committee in 2016 for establishing GHG emissions efficiency thresholds using the local jurisdictional GHG inventory and demographic forecasts.22 An efficiency threshold is a threshold expressed as a per‐person metric (e.g., per resident, per employee, or per service person). Efficiency thresholds are calculated by dividing the allowable GHG emissions inventory in a selected calendar year by the resident, employee, or service population in that year. The efficiency threshold identifies the quantity of GHG emissions that can be generated on a per‐person basis without significantly impacting the environment.
Locally appropriate, plan‐ and project‐specific GHG emissions efficiency thresholds were derived from the GHG emissions forecasts calculated for the CAP Update. These thresholds were created to comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and interpretive GHG emissions analysis case law, which are summarized in Chapter 3, Regulatory and Legal Setting. The City of Cupertino GHG emissions efficiency thresholds were calculated using the emissions forecasts with all emissions sectors included, because plans and projects would generate vehicle trips, consume energy and water, and produce wastewater and solid waste, thereby generating emissions in all categories.
Efficiency thresholds were calculated for year 2030 to provide GHG emissions thresholds for new development in line with the State’s next milestone target for year 2030. 22 AEP. 2016. Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California. https://califaep.org/docs/AEP‐2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf. 517
CC 08-16-2022
517 of 1555
Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds
Draft 23
GHG emissions efficiency thresholds would be used during the CEQA review process for new residential, non‐residential, and mixed‐use plans and projects. Therefore, forecasted GHG emissions in the CAP Update were disaggregated into existing development and new development for each threshold year. Furthermore, forecasted GHG emissions for new development were further disaggregated into residential and non‐residential development for each threshold year for the purpose of calculating thresholds specific to new residential, non‐residential, and mixed‐use projects. The results of the disaggregation of the GHG emissions forecast are presented in Figure 4 and Table 5, which summarizes the total amount of GHG emissions expected to be generated by existing, new residential, and new non‐residential development for threshold year 2030.
Figure 4 Allowable GHG Emissions from Existing and New Development in 2030 518
CC 08-16-2022
518 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
24 Table 5 GHG Emissions Forecast for 2030 by Type of Development (MT of CO2e) Source
2030
Existing
Development
New Development
Residential Non‐Residential
Baseline GHG Emissions 346,998 5,174 27,020
State Laws/Programs 42,491 707 4,746
CAP Update Building Energy Measures 32,178 562 3,974 CAP Update Transportation Measures 51,893 1,178 4,206 CAP Update Waste Measures 12,182 316 790
CAP Update Carbon Sequestration Measures 1,497 10 25
Remaining Total GHG Emissions 206,756 2,400 13,279
See Appendix B for calculations.
Table 6 summarizes the demographic projections for the City of Cupertino that were used in calculating GHG efficiency thresholds for year 2030. As shown in Table 6, the numbers of residents, employees, and service persons are all anticipated to increase between 2018 and 2030.
Table 6 City of Cupertino Demographic Projections
Metric 2018 Estimate 2030 Forecast
Net Increase from New
Development
(2018‐2030)
Residents 63,228 65,690 2,462
Employees 31,677 37,830 6,153
Service Population1 94,905 103,520 8,615
1 Per the method used by the City Sustainability Department, the service population is equal to the residential population plus the number of employees.
Source: Cupertino, City of. 2022. Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Forecast.
5.2 GHG Thresholds and Use
The GHG efficiency thresholds for residential, non‐residential, and mixed‐use projects built prior to December 31, 2030 are presented in Figure 5 and Table 7. If a plan’s or project’s emissions do not exceed the applicable threshold, then it is considered consistent with the Cupertino CAP Update and its GHG emissions impacts (both project‐ and cumulative‐level) would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions and climate change and would, therefore, be less than significant. If a plan’s or project’s emissions exceed the applicable threshold, then mitigation measures must be identified and respective GHG emissions reduction calculations included within the respective CEQA review document in order to reduce plan or project GHG emissions to at or below the applicable threshold level. These thresholds are applicable to the following plan and project types proposed in Cupertino:
Residential. Single‐family dwellings, multi‐family dwellings, boarding house, caretaker quarters, fraternities and sororities, high‐occupancy residential uses, continuing care communities, mobile‐home parks, or any combination of these uses.
Non‐residential. All Commercial uses (including office and retail uses), all lodging uses, all public and quasi‐public uses, elderly and long‐term care, hospice in‐patient facilities, family day cares, residential care facilities, supportive and/or transitional housing, sports and entertainment 519
CC 08-16-2022
519 of 1555
Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds
Draft 25
assembly facilities, all industry, manufacturing & processing, and wholesaling uses that are not subject to BAAQMD stationary source permitting or the State cap‐and‐trade program, or any combination of these uses.
Mixed‐use. A combination of at least one residential and at least one non‐residential land use specified above.
Figure 5 City of Cupertino GHG Efficiency Thresholds
Table 7 Cupertino Locally Applicable Plan/Project CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 2030
(New Development)
Residential Non‐Residential Mixed‐Use
GHG Emissions Forecast
(MT of CO2e per year)1
206,756 2,400 13,279
Demographic Metric2 2,462 new residents 6,153 new
employees
8,615 new service
people
GHG Efficiency Threshold
(MT of CO2e per year)
0.97 per resident 2.16 per employee 1.82 per service
person
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
1 See Table 5.
2 Demographic estimates are for new plans or projects only and were calculated using the forecasts in Table 6. 520
CC 08-16-2022
520 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
26 5.3 Justification for Thresholds
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)(1), “the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)(2) states, “When using a threshold, the lead agency should briefly explain how compliance with the threshold means that the project’s impacts are less than significant.” Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b) states “Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence.” Therefore, the key considerations when developing thresholds of significance are 1) the thresholds’ basis on scientific and factual data; 2) demonstration of how compliance with the thresholds reduces project impacts to a less‐than‐significant level; 3) support of the thresholds by substantial evidence; and 4) adoption of the thresholds by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process. The following subsections address these four key considerations.
Basis of Scientific and Factual Data
As discussed in Section 5.1, Threshold Calculation Methodology, the quantitative thresholds were developed using data from the City’s 2010 and 2018 communitywide GHG inventories and the GHG emissions forecasts for year 2030. These inventories and forecasts were developed by the City in compliance with all relevant protocols and guidance documents, including the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Local Government Operations Protocol, the Global Protocol for Community Scale GHG Emissions, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories. Furthermore, the inventories and forecasts are based on locally appropriate data for Cupertino provided by Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), CARB, California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), and the San Jose‐ Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility.23 Therefore, the emission inventory and forecast data underlying the thresholds is both scientific and factual.
As discussed in Section 2.3, GHG Emissions Forecast, implementation of the Cupertino CAP Update will achieve a 45 percent reduction in 1990 emissions levels by 2030. Therefore, this local target is more stringent than the State’s target of a 40 percent emission reduction in 1990 levels by 2030 and makes substantial progress toward achieving the State’s long‐term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. The quantitative thresholds are tied directly to the level of GHG emissions anticipated for new development in the CAP Update for year 2030. As a result, because the CAP Update is consistent with the State’s 2030 GHG emission target, the quantitative thresholds are also consistent with the next State milestone GHG emission reduction target for 2030 and the State’s long‐term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. The State’s GHG emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2045 are set at the levels scientists say are necessary to meet the Paris Agreement goals to reduce GHG emissions and limit global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius by 2100 in order to avoid dangerous climate change (CARB 2017; EO B‐55‐18). Therefore, the City’s emission reduction targets that inform the CAP Update and the associated quantitative thresholds are based on scientific and 23 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Forecast. 521
CC 08-16-2022
521 of 1555
Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds
Draft 27
factual data on the level of emissions reductions necessary to ensure the City does not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact of climate change.
Reduction of Plan or Project Impacts to a Less-than-Significant Level As shown in Table 5 in Section 5.1, Threshold Calculation Methodology, implementation of the Cupertino CAP Update would reduce communitywide emissions by 45 percent by 2030. The quantitative thresholds are tied directly to the level of GHG emissions anticipated for new development in the CAP Update for year 2030. Therefore, the thresholds are consistent with the City’s local emission reduction target, which is consistent with the State’s GHG emission reduction targets. As mentioned in the preceding subsection, the State’s GHG emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2045 are set at the levels scientists say are necessary to meet the Paris Agreement goals to reduce GHG emissions and limit global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius by 2100 in order to avoid dangerous climate change (CARB 2017; EO B‐55‐18). Therefore, the quantitative thresholds are set at the level necessary to ensure the City does not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact of climate change. As a result, plans and projects with GHG emissions at or below the quantitative thresholds would also not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impacts of climate change, and plan/project impacts would be less than significant.
Support of Substantial Evidence
Substantial evidence regarding the calculation of the quantitative GHG emissions thresholds is provided in Section 5.1, Threshold Calculation Methodology. The following subsections provide additional evidence of how the GHG emissions thresholds are locally appropriate and plan‐ or project‐specific and how the thresholds distinguish between existing and new development.
Use of Local Data
The quantitative thresholds were developed using the City’s communitywide GHG emissions forecast for year 2030 and are therefore specific to the City of Cupertino. The thresholds are directly tied to the population and employment growth anticipated by the City’s 2015‐2040 General Plan Land Use/Community Character Element as well as to the City‐specific GHG emission reduction measures that the City has proposed to reduce communitywide and per capita emissions. In addition, the magnitude of local GHG emission reductions achieved by State legislation/policies (i.e., vehicle fuel efficiency standards, the Renewable Portfolio Standard [RPS], and Title 24) was estimated based on City‐specific growth and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) forecasts. As a result, these locally appropriate thresholds directly address the concerns raised in the Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego/Sierra Club, LLC v. County of San Diego (2018) case, because they are based on local GHG emissions data rather than Statewide GHG emissions data.
Disaggregation of Existing versus New Development
The quantitative thresholds were developed by disaggregating the City’s business‐as‐usual GHG emissions forecasts for year 2030 into emissions forecasts for existing and new development, which are shown in Table 5 in Section 5.1, Threshold Calculation Methodology. The emissions reductions specific to new development achieved by State legislation/policies and the CAP Update were then subtracted from the business‐as‐usual forecast to determine GHG emissions “caps” for new residential and new non‐residential development for year 2030. These “caps” were then divided by the numbers of residents, employees, and service persons forecasts for new development to 522
CC 08-16-2022
522 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
28 determine efficiency thresholds for residential, non‐residential, and mixed‐use development, respectively. Therefore, these thresholds directly address the concerns raised in the Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) case regarding the different rates of GHG emissions reductions anticipated for new development as compared to existing development in order to meet the specified GHG reduction target.
Selection of Sector-Specific Thresholds
The quantitative thresholds are separated into three categories – residential, non‐residential, and mixed‐use – which are intended to apply to the three main types of development projects in Cupertino. These thresholds were calculated by disaggregating the City’s business‐as‐usual GHG emissions forecasts for new development in year 2030 into emissions forecasts for new residential and new non‐residential development, which are shown in Table 5 in Section 5.1, Threshold Calculation Methodology. The emissions reductions specific to new residential and new non‐ residential development achieved by State legislation/policies and the CAP Update were then subtracted from the business‐as‐usual forecast to determine “caps” of emissions for new residential and new non‐residential development for year 2030. These emissions “caps” were then divided by the numbers of residents and employees forecast for new development in year 2030 to determine efficiency thresholds for residential and non‐residential projects, respectively. For mixed‐use development, the residential and non‐residential emissions “caps” were summed, then divided by the service population forecast for new development in year 2030 to determine an efficiency threshold for mixed‐use projects. As a result, these project‐specific thresholds directly address the concerns raised in the Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) case, because they are specific to each development project type.
Adoption via Public Review Process
In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b), this guidance document and the quantitative thresholds contained herein will be presented to the City Council for formal adoption via resolution through a public review process, which will include an opportunity for public input.
The public review process for these City of Cupertino CEQA GHG Thresholds and Guidance will specifically occur via public review of and comment on a joint CAP Update and CEQA GHG Thresholds and Guidance Draft IS‐ND. The opportunity for public comment will also be available at a public hearing (i.e., City Council meeting) considering adoption of the CAP Update and CEQA GHG Thresholds and Guidance. This process directly addresses the concerns raised in the Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego/Sierra Club, LLC v. County of San Diego (2018) case regarding formal adoption of new CEQA thresholds and how lead agencies should afford the opportunity for public review and input prior to adoption and use.
523
CC 08-16-2022
523 of 1555
Quantifying GHG Emissions
Draft 29
6 Quantifying GHG Emissions
There are a variety of analytical tools available to estimate project‐level GHG emissions, including the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod),24 which is a free, publicly available computer model developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with various air quality districts throughout the State. Alternative tools may be used to quantify emissions if they can be substantiated. In general, the most current version of CalEEMod should be used to calculate total emissions for discretionary development projects. The analysis should focus on carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) because these are the GHGs that most development projects would generate in the largest quantities. Fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluorides, should also considered for the analysis. Emissions of all GHGs should be converted into their equivalent global warming potential in terms of CO2 (CO2e). Calculations should be based on the current methodologies recommended by the CAPCOA and the BAAQMD.25, 26
6.1 Construction GHG Emissions
Construction activities emit GHGs primarily though combustion of fuels (mostly diesel) in the engines of off‐road construction equipment and in on‐road construction vehicles and in the commute vehicles of the construction workers. Smaller amounts of GHGs are emitted indirectly through the energy required for water used for fugitive dust control and lighting for the construction activity. Every phase of the construction process, including demolition, grading, paving, and building, emits GHG emissions in volumes proportional to the quantity and type of construction equipment used. Heavier equipment typically emits more GHGs per hour of than lighter equipment because of its engine design and greater fuel consumption.
BAAQMD recommends quantifying and disclosing construction‐related GHG emissions and making an impact level determination. CalEEMod generates a default construction schedule and equipment list based on the plan‐/project‐specific information, including land use, project size, location, and construction timeline.27 In general, if specific applicant‐provided information is unknown, the default construction equipment list and phase lengths are the most appropriate inputs. However, if more detailed site‐specific equipment and phase information (i.e., data from the project applicant) is available, the model’s default values can (and should) be overridden.28 24 The most current available version of CalEEMod should be used. As of February 2022, CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 is the most current version and should be used to quantify project‐level emissions. 25 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). January 2008.
26 BAAQMD. 2022. “CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update.” https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans‐and‐climate/california‐environmental‐ quality‐act‐ceqa/updated‐ceqa‐guidelines.
27CAPCOA. 2020. California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide: Version 2020.4.0. Prepared by BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's‐guide.
28Ibid.
524
CC 08-16-2022
524 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
30 6.2 Operational GHG Emissions
CalEEMod estimates operational emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 generated by area sources, energy use, vehicle trips (i.e., mobile sources), waste generation, and water use and conveyance.
Operational emissions should be calculated for year 2030, rather than the plan/project buildout year, in order to provide an appropriate comparison of project emissions to the year 2030 threshold.
Area Source Emissions
Area sources include GHG emissions that would occur from the use of landscaping equipment, hearths, and woodstoves, which emit GHGs associated with the equipment’s fuel combustion. The landscaping equipment emission values in CalEEMod are derived from the 2011 Off‐Road Equipment Inventory Model.29 Emission rates for combustion of wood and natural gas for wood stoves and fireplaces are based on those published by the U.S. EPA in Chapter 1.9 of AP‐42.
Typically, no adjustments to landscaping equipment inputs are necessary. The number of hearths and woodstoves should be adjusted to reflect the project design.
Energy Use Emissions
GHGs are emitted on‐site during the combustion of natural gas for cooking, space and water heating, and decorative uses and off‐site during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels in power plants. CalEEMod estimates GHG emissions from energy use by multiplying average rates of residential and non‐residential energy consumption by the quantities of residential units and non‐ residential square footage entered in the land use module to obtain total projected energy use. This value is then multiplied by electricity and natural gas GHG emission factors applicable to the plan/project location and utility provider. Building energy use is typically divided into energy consumed by the built environment and energy consumed by uses that are independent of the building, such as plug‐in appliances. Non‐building energy use, or “plug‐in energy use,” can be further subdivided by specific end‐use (refrigeration, cooking, office equipment, etc.). In California, Title 24 governs energy consumed by the built environment, mechanical systems, and some types of fixed lighting.
Electricity emissions are calculated by multiplying the energy use by the carbon intensity of the utility district per kilowatt hour.30 Projects would be served either by SVCE or by PG&E. The specific energy intensity factors (i.e., the amount of CO2, CH4, and N2O per kilowatt‐hour) for the applicable utility should be used in the calculations of GHG emissions.
As of publication of this guidance document, the current iteration of Title 24 included the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. In accordance with Section 150.1(b)14 of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, all new residential uses three stories or less must install photovoltaic (PV) solar panels that generate an amount of electricity equal to expected electricity usage. The calculation method contained in Section 150.1(b)14 of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards should be utilized to estimate the number of kilowatts of PV solar panels that would be required for a residential project three stories or less. In addition, modeling should account for local regulations 29Ibid.
30Ibid.
525
CC 08-16-2022
525 of 1555
Quantifying GHG Emissions
Draft 31
pertaining to mandatory solar provisions.31 Online resources can be used to determine the amount of kilowatt‐hours that would be generated per year by the required solar PV system.32 The energy reduction achieved by on‐site PV solar panels should be included in CalEEMod. Future updates to Title 24 as they relate to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards should be incorporated into CalEEMod as applicable.
Mobile Source Emissions
CalEEMod quantifies mobile source emissions generated by vehicle trips associated with the proposed plan/project. If available, plan/project‐specific trip generation rates or VMT data should be input in CalEEMod.
Water and Wastewater Emissions
The amount of water used, and the amount of wastewater generated by a plan/project generate indirect GHG emissions. These emissions are a result of the energy used to supply, convey, and treat water and wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with energy use, the wastewater treatment process itself can directly emit both CH4 and N2O.
The indoor and outdoor water use consumption data for each land use subtype comes from the Pacific Institute’s (2003) Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California.
33 Based on that report, a percentage of total water consumption is dedicated to landscape irrigation, which is used to determine outdoor water use. Wastewater generation is similarly based on a reported percentage of total indoor water use.
New development will be subject to CalGreen, which currently requires a 20 percent increase in indoor water use efficiency and the use of water‐efficient irrigation systems. Thus, in order to account for compliance with CalGreen, a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use and the use of water‐efficient irrigation systems should be included in the water consumption calculations for new residential, non‐residential, and mixed‐use development. Future updates to Title 24 as they relate to CALGreen water efficiency requirements should be incorporated into CalEEMod as applicable.
Solid Waste Emissions
The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from the transportation of waste, anaerobic decomposition in landfills, and incineration. To calculate the GHG emissions generated by solid waste disposal, the total volume of solid waste is calculated using waste disposal rates identified by CalRecycle. The methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste are based on the IPCC method, using the degradable organic content of waste. Users should contact the City's Sustainability Department to obtain the City’s most recent solid rate diversion rate to be included in the calculation of solid waste GHG emissions.
31 In 2020, the City Council will consider adoption of the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, which may include solar requirements for other types of land uses.
32 Zientara, Ben. 2019. ”How much electricity odes a solar panel produce?” Last updated: November 6, 2019. https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar‐basics/how‐much‐electricity‐does‐a‐solar‐panel‐produce/. 33CAPCOA. 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide: Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's‐guide.
526
CC 08-16-2022
526 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
32 Plan or Project Design Features
Users should use the “Mitigation” tabs to include project design features applicable to the plan/project.34 These features often include increased density, improved destination accessibility, proximity to transit, integration of below market rate housing, unbundling of parking costs, provision of transit subsidies, implementation of alternative work schedules, use of energy‐ and/or water‐efficient appliances, use of reclaimed and/or grey water, and installation of water‐efficient irrigation system. Users should consider the applicability of these features to the plan/project and review the CAPCOA Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (2010) publication to ensure that the chosen features are relevant and feasible in light of the plan/project.35 Residents, Employees, and Service Populations
The quantitative thresholds presented in Chapter 5, Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds, are expressed in terms of per resident for residential projects, per employee for non‐residential projects, and per service person for mixed‐use projects. Estimates of the resident, employee, or service population for a plan/project should be based on substantial evidence. Data provided by the applicant as well as the following resources may be utilized in estimating resident and employee populations:
City of Cupertino Sustainability Department. Users should refer to the California Department of Finance website (https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e‐5/) for the most recent estimate of persons per household in Cupertino. This estimate can be multiplied by the number of proposed residential units to estimate a plan/project’s resident population. Proposed Number of Beds. For projects such as group homes, assisted living facilities, nursing homes, or similar uses, the number of beds can be used to determine the resident population. United States Green Building Council. The United States Green Building Council has published a summary of building area per employee by business type. These rates, which are expressed in terms of square feet per employee, can be utilized to estimate the number of employees a plan/project would require. This document is included as Appendix C. 34 “Mitigation” is a term of art for the modeling input and is not equivalent to mitigation measures that may apply to the CEQA impact analysis.
35 CAPCOA. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. August 2010. http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf. 527
CC 08-16-2022
527 of 1555
Quantifying GHG Emissions
Draft 33
6.3 Modeling GHG Emissions from Existing Land Use
For a plan/project that would result in a change in the plan area/project’s site General Plan land use designation, emissions anticipated for the existing (2015‐2040) General Plan land use designation must be calculated in conjunction with emissions for the proposed plan/project to demonstrate whether the plan/project would be more or less GHG‐intensive than development anticipated for the existing (2015‐2040) General Plan land use designation for the site. In this case, GHG emissions should be reported for both the existing and proposed scenarios.
Emissions anticipated for the existing land use should be quantified using the methods described in Section 6.1, Construction Emissions, and Section 6.2, Operational Emissions with consistent assumptions between the two scenarios as applicable. Any emission reduction credits applied to the proposed plan/project scenario that are related to State legislation/policies (e.g., the RPS, vehicle standards, Title 24) or the plan area/project site location (e.g., proximity to transit, destination accessibility, etc.) should also be applied to the existing scenario.
Emission reduction credits that are specific to the proposed plan/project (e.g., use of recycled water, increased density, installation of energy and/or water‐efficient appliances, integration of below market rate housing, etc.) should only be included for the proposed plan/project scenario. In addition, care should be taken to identify any emission reduction credits that might be unique to the existing land use designation that would not apply to the proposed plan/project. For example, if the existing land use designation allows for single‐family residences and the proposed land use designation would allow for only commercial uses, then the existing scenario should include the emission reduction credit associated with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards requirements for PV solar panels on residential uses that are three stories or less whereas the proposed plan/project scenario should not include this credit unless PV solar panels are included as a plan/project design feature.
528
CC 08-16-2022
528 of 1555
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
34 7 Moving into the Future
Full implementation of the Cupertino CAP Update will reduce communitywide GHG emissions by approximately 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 84 percent by 2040, which would leave a gap of approximately 66,253 MT of CO2e per year in 2040 that will need to be addressed to achieve carbon neutrality. This gap represents emissions that could be addressed by laws, regulations, policies, programs, and ordinances set forth by the federal and State governments, regional agencies, and local partners. The gap also represents the uncertainty that the City faces in taking a leadership role in addressing a challenge that has not been previously solved.
Cupertino is committed to embracing that uncertainty, striving toward constant learning, engaging in systemic change using the tools and actions that local governments are uniquely suited to carry out, and positioning itself to take full advantage of future innovations, technologies, and policies and legislation that may be undertaken at the State and federal level. Technological innovation, clean‐tech innovation, and changes to climate related policy and regulation occur rapidly. Several of the State’s most successful environmental policy initiatives, including the RPS, also had a gap between what was known at the time of adoption and eventual successful implementation. By committing to the ambitious target of carbon neutrality by 2040, Cupertino intends to catalyze innovation, invite resources from funding sources and partners, and provide climate leadership.
The CAP Update acknowledges that additional actions beyond those identified in the plan will be necessary to achieve carbon neutrality and, therefore, provides a mechanism for updating and adopting a new climate action plan every five to seven years in order to incorporate new measures and innovative technologies that will further Cupertino toward meeting its goal of carbon neutrality.
As the CAP is updated, the associated CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist will also be updated as needed to incorporate new pillars, measures, and/or foundational actions that discretionary development projects will need to incorporate, as applicable, to demonstrate consistency with the latest CAP. At the time at which the City identifies measures to achieve its carbon neutrality goal in totality, the City will adopt those measures in a public process following CEQA review, at which time that updated CAP will become a qualified GHG emission reduction plan for projects with post‐2030 buildout years. However, the quantitative thresholds included in this guidance document will not need to be updated, because residential, non‐residential, and mixed‐ use projects with post‐2030 buildout years will still need to achieve GHG emissions equivalent to zero MT of CO2e per year to demonstrate consistency with the Cupertino CAP.
Finally, if future amendments or updates of the Cupertino General Plan Land Use/Community Character Element occur, then these amendments or updates will be incorporated into future updates of the Cupertino CAP to ensure that project applicants can continue to utilize the streamlining process, which is partly dependent on a plan’s/project’s consistency with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions based on the General Plan Land Use/Community Character Element to the greatest extent practicable.
529
CC 08-16-2022
529 of 1555
Appendix A
Overview of GHG Emissions and Climate Change
530
CC 08-16-2022
530 of 1555
This page intentionally left blank.
531
CC 08-16-2022
531 of 1555
Appendix B
GHG Threshold Calculations
532
CC 08-16-2022
532 of 1555
This page intentionally left blank.
533
CC 08-16-2022
533 of 1555
Appendix C
United States Green Building Council Building Area per Employee by Business Type Rates36 36 United States Green Building Council. 2008. “Building Area per Employee by Business Type.” May 13, 2008. 534
CC 08-16-2022
534 of 1555
This page intentionally left blank.
535
CC 08-16-2022
535 of 1555
Cupertino Climate Action Plan Update and
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds
Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration
prepared for
City of Cupertino
City Manager’s Office
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95104
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
August 5, 2022
536
CC 08-16-2022
536 of 1555
537
CC 08-16-2022
537 of 1555
Table of Contents
Final Initial Study– Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
Initial Study ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Plan Title.................................................................................................................... 1 Lead Agency/Plan Sponsor and Contact..................................................................................... 1 Plan Location and Physical Setting ............................................................................................. 1 Existing Sustainability Setting..................................................................................................... 5 General Plan Designation and Zoning.......................................................................................13 Description of Plan ..................................................................................................................13 Cumulative Projects Scenario...................................................................................................35 Required Approvals .................................................................................................................35 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.....................................................................................36 Determination................................................................................................................................. 36 1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................38 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..............................................................................42 3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................46 4 Biological Resources.....................................................................................................52 5 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................58 6 Energy..........................................................................................................................62 7 Geology and Soils.........................................................................................................66 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...........................................................................................72 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................76 10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................82 11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................. 88 12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................90 13 Noise............................................................................................................................92 14 Population and Housing................................................................................................98 15 Public Services............................................................................................................100 16 Recreation..................................................................................................................102 17 Transportation ...........................................................................................................104 18 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................108 19 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................112 20 Wildfire ......................................................................................................................118 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................120 References....................................................................................................................................122 List of Citations......................................................................................................................122 List of Document Preparers ...................................................................................................126 538
CC 08-16-2022
538 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds ii
Tables
Table 1 Cupertino 2018 Communitywide GHG Emissions Levels................................................14 Table 2 Cupertino CAP Update GHG Emissions Reduction Measures and Actions......................15 Table 3 Cupertino GHG Emissions Forecasts Through 2040.......................................................31 Table 4 Cupertino GHG Emissions Projections and Targets........................................................32 Table 5 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure................................................93 Table 6 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration...................................95 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ........................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Plan Location.................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3 Cupertino Forecast Scenarios through 2040 – Per Capita GHG Emissions......................30 Figure 4 Cupertino Forecast Scenarios through 2040 – Absolute Total GHG Emissions...............31 Figure 5 Determining CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Methodology ............................................34 Appendices
Appendix A Sources, Health Effects, and Typical Controls Associated with Criteria Pollutants Appendix B Description of Greenhouse Gases of California Concern 539
CC 08-16-2022
539 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 1
Initial Study
Proposed Plan Title
Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update and CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Thresholds Lead Agency/Plan Sponsor and Contact
Lead Agency/Plan Sponsor
City of Cupertino
City Manager’s Office
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Contact Person
Andre Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager
(408) 777-3362
[email protected]
Plan Location and Physical Setting
The Cupertino CAP Update and CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds apply to all areas and plans and projects within the City of Cupertino limits. Figure 1 shows the regional location, and Figure 2 shows the plan location.
Regional Location and Setting
The City of Cupertino is approximately 11 square miles located within Santa Clara County in the San Francisco Bay Area. Cupertino lies within the Silicon Valley area, which is located approximately 42 miles south of San Francisco and includes the Cities of Cupertino, San Jose, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Redwood City, and Sunnyvale.1 Cupertino is bordered by the Cities of Sunnyvale and Los Altos to the north, City of San Jose to the east, City of Saratoga to the south, and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west.
Regional vehicular access to Cupertino is provided via Interstate 280 (I-280), West Valley Freeway (State Route [SR] 85), and the Lawrence Expressway. The City is also served by public transit provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA). SCVTA provides bus connections to nearby Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Rail, Amtrak, and Caltrain stations. SCVTA bus routes with stops in Cupertino include:
Route 23 connecting to San Jose, Mountain View, and Palo Alto; Route 25 connecting to San Jose and De Anza College;
Route 26 connecting to the Eastridge Transit Center;
1 Cupertino, City of. 2022. About Cupertino. Available: <https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/about-cupertino>. Accessed February 4, 2022.
540
CC 08-16-2022
540 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 2 Route 36 connecting to East San Jose;
Route 51 connecting to the Ames Research Center;
Route 53 connecting to the Santa Clara Transit Center and Sunnyvale Rail Station; Route 55 connecting to the Sunnyvale Rail Station and Great America Rail Station; and Express 101 connecting to the Winchester Rail Station and Palo Alto. 2 Local Setting
Cupertino is the eighth most populous city in Santa Clara County, with a population of 60,381 according to the 2020 U.S. Census.
3 Cupertino is located within a valley, with the most intensive development in the flat valley floor and sparse development in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. Cupertino is characterized by a suburban development pattern, with predominantly single-family residential subdivisions and distinct commercial and employment centers. Cupertino has four major mixed-use corridors centered around Homestead Road, Wolfe Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. These corridors have historically been the center of retail, commercial, office, and multi-family housing in Cupertino, and connect residential neighborhoods to major employment centers, schools and colleges, civic uses, parks, highways and freeways, and adjacent cities. Cupertino also contains the headquarters for a variety of small, medium and large software, technology, and biomedical companies, including Apple Inc.4 Cupertino is characterized by a temperate climate with relatively dry summers and wet winters. The warmest months of the year in Cupertino are July and August, and the coldest months of the year are December and January. The annual average daily maximum temperature is 81.4 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), while the annual average daily minimum temperature is 41.7°F. Average monthly rainfall measured in the local area since 1951 varies from to 0 inch in July to 2.8 inches in January and February.
5 2 Cupertino, City of. 2022. How to Get Around. Available: <https://www.cupertino.org/visitors/visiting-cupertino/getting-around>.
Accessed February 4, 2022.
3 U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. Quick Facts: Cupertino City, California. Available:
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/cupertinocitycalifornia/PST045221>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 4 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element. Available:
<https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/docview.aspx?dbid=0&id=873201&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 5 Iowa State University. 2022. Iowa Environmental Mesonet: San Jose Station. Available:
<https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/monthlysum.php?station=SJC&network=CA_ASOS >. Accessed February 7, 2022. 541
CC 08-16-2022
541 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 3
Figure 1 Regional Location
542
CC 08-16-2022
542 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 4 Figure 2 Plan Location
543
CC 08-16-2022
543 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 5
Existing Sustainability Setting
Cupertino Sustainability and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Efforts The City has actively implemented a variety of environmental programs since 2014 contributing to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions. The following is a listing of Cupertino’s primary sustainable and climate protection programs and policies:
General Plan Environmental Resources & Sustainability Element adopted (2014) U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (2015) Climate Action Plan adopted (2015)
Joined Compact of Mayors, a coalition of Mayors and city officials worldwide committing to reduce local GHG emissions and enhance resilience to climate change (2015) Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted (2016)
Joined Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), a Community Choice Energy opt-in program (2016) Zero Waste Policy adopted (2017)
Cupertino Reach Code adopted, requiring all electric new construction (2019) Diesel Free by 2033 Resolution adopted (2019)
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Ordinance adopted (2021) The City has also taken several additional sustainability actions, such as tree planting, solar projects, and electric vehicle (EV) charger installation at City facilities, as further detailed in the CAP 2.0 Appendix F, Existing Programs and Accomplishments.6
Regional Sustainability and GHG Reduction Efforts
In coordination with Santa Clara County, the State of California, and the federal government, the City of Cupertino has committed to implementing regional and State policies related to GHG emissions reduction. As follows is a summary of the existing regional GHG emissions reduction efforts, which the Draft Cupertino CAP Update is intended to be consistent with or exceed.
Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region
In October 2021, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) jointly adopted Plan Bay Area 2050, which serves as the Bay Area regional longrange plan and identifies how the Bay Area would meet its GHG emission reduction targets. Plan Bay Area is also considered the ABAG/MTC Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). In accordance with SB 743, Plan Bay Area includes elements designed to encourage the type of land-use development to preserve affordable housing, improve economic mobility, enhance the transit network to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, and reduce hazard risks including through adaptation to sea level rise and reducing GHG emissions.7 6 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Draft Climate Action Plan Update. Available: <https://engagecupertino.org/climate-action>. Accessed February 7, 2022.
7 ABAG-MTC. 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050. Available: <https://www.planbayarea.org/finalplan2050>. Accessed February 10, 2022. 544
CC 08-16-2022
544 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) encourages local governments to adopt a GHG Reduction Strategy that is consistent with AB 32 goals. The GHG Reduction Strategy may streamline environmental review of community development projects. According to the BAAQMD, if a project is consistent with a GHG Reduction Strategy, then it can be presumed that the project will not have significant GHG impacts. This approach is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5:
Lead agencies may analyze and mitigate the significant impacts of GHG emissions at a programmatic level, such as…a plan to reduce GHG emissions. Later project-specific environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by reference that existing programmatic review. Project-specific environmental documents may rely on an [Environmental Impact Report] containing a programmatic analysis of GHG emissions.
Santa Clara Countywide Transportation Plan
In 2014, the Santa Clara County Transportation Valley Transportation Authority adopted the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 to provide the County with a long-range plan for establishing the vision and priorities for transportation over a 25-year planning horizon. The VTP seeks to facilitate and support an integrated, multi-modal transportation system in order to improve mobility and access for all segments of the population and promote environmental sustainability. The plan identifies 371 projects across the county including transit capacity improvements, express lane and highway improvement projects, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and operations and maintenance.
Projects identified for Cupertino include widening McClellan Road widening to provide bike lanes, adding bike lanes to Miller Avenue, completing the Saratoga Creek bike trail extension, and construction a new bicycle and pedestrian bridge crossing over the Union Pacific railroad tracks. 8 Santa Clara County Climate Roadmap 2030
Santa Clara County is currently developing the Climate Roadmap 2030 which will outline actions the County and partners will take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Roadmap will serve to align existing efforts to reduce GHG emissions among Cities that have already adopted CAPs, prioritize actions in unincorporated areas of the County, and help leverage and facilitate regional partnerships to further encourage sustainable and resilient communities. The County aims to use the Roadmap as a tool to increase coordination and collaboration in efforts to reach shared sustainability goals.
The Roadmap will include the following:
A countywide greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast An online interactive map tool that will provide a comprehensive overview of the cities, organizations, institutions, and companies working on climate action in Santa Clara County Community and partner input
An implementation roadmap9
8 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). 2014. Valley Transportation Plan 2040. Available: <http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/VTP2040_final_hi%20res_030315.pdf>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 9 Santa Clara County. 2022. Climate Roadmap 2030. Available: <https://sustainability.sccgov.org/climate-roadmap-2030>. Accessed February 7, 2022.
545
CC 08-16-2022
545 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 7
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Community Choice Energy
SVCE is the community-owned electricity provider for several south bay cities including Cupertino.
SVCE developed its Decarbonization Strategy and Programs Roadmap with extensive community input to help guide community electrification, which entails switching from relying on fossil fuel use in homes, buildings and transportation to electricity from renewable sources. By 2030, SVCE programs aim to cut energy-related pollution in half from the 2015 baseline. That equates to preventing two million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e) from being released into the environment each year.
State Sustainability and GHG Reduction Efforts
As follows is a summary of existing State GHG emissions reduction efforts, which the Cupertino CAP Update is intended to be consistent with or exceed.
Senate Bill 1078, Renewable Portfolio Standards
In 2002, SB 1078, established the California Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS) Program and was accelerated in 2006 by SB 107, requiring that 20 percent of retail electricity sales be composed of renewable energy sources by 2010. EO S-14-08 was signed in 2008 to further streamline California's renewable energy project approval process and increase the State's RPS to the most aggressive in the nation at 33 percent renewable power by 2020.
Assembly Bill 1493, Pavley Bill Vehicle Efficiency Standards In 2002, the California State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1493 (aka “the Pavley Bill”), which directs the CARB to adopt standards that will achieve "the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles," taking into account environmental, social, technological, and economic factors. In September 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the “Pavley” regulations to reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016.
The Pavley Bill is considered to be the national model for vehicle emissions standards. In January of 2012, CARB approved a new emissions control program for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025.
The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs and the requirement for greater numbers of zero emission vehicles into a single package of standards called Advanced Clean Cars.
Assembly Bill 117, Community Choice Aggregation
Assembly Bill 117 establishes the creation of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) that fosters clean and renewable energy markets. CCA allows cities and counties to aggregate the buying power of individual jurisdictions. The California CCA markets were created as an answer to the brownouts and energy shortages of the early 2000s. AB 117 was passed in 2002 as an answer to California’s increased energy independency by incorporating more alternative and renewable energy sources into its energy portfolio. With AB 117, municipalities can provide alternative energy choices to their local carrier (e.g., the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, PG&E). Marin Clean Energy was the first CCA in the State of California to go online with a 50 percent to 100 percent clean energy portfolio in 2010. In 2016, SCVE began supplying South Bay communities, including Cupertino, with renewable energy-sourced electricity. CCAs are governed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
SB 790 further ensures fair and transparent competition by creating a code of conduct and guiding principles for entrants into the CCA field.
546
CC 08-16-2022
546 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 8 California Executive Order S-3-05
In 2005, the California governor issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, which identifies Statewide GHG emissions reduction targets to achieve long-term climate stabilization as follows:
Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020
Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 In response to EO S-3-05, California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) created the Climate Action Team (CAT), which in March 2006 published the Climate Action Team Report (the “2006 CAT Report”). The 2006 CAT Report identified a recommended list of strategies that the State could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various State agencies to ensure that the emission reduction targets in EO S-3-05 are met and can be met with existing authority of the State agencies. The strategies include the reduction of passenger and light duty truck emissions, the reduction of idling times for diesel trucks, an overhaul of shipping technology/infrastructure, increased use of alternative fuels, increased recycling, and landfill methane capture, among others.
California Assembly Bill 32, California Global Warming Pollution Solutions Act In 2006, the California legislature signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32 – the Global Warming Solutions Act – into law, requiring a reduction in Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and California Air Resources Board (CARB) preparation of a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 required CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of Statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 Statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MTCO2e.
California Senate Bill 375, Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act In 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 375) enhanced the State’s ability to reach AB 32 targets by CARB to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the State’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to prepare a sustainable community’s strategy (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet such regional GHG emissions reduction targets for inclusion in the respective regional transportation plan (RTP).
On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. ABAG was assigned targets of a ten percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 2020 and a nineteen percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 2035.
California Climate Change Scoping Plan
In 2008, CARB approved the original California Climate Change Scoping Plan, which included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-andTrade) have been adopted and implemented since approval of the Scoping Plan. 547
CC 08-16-2022
547 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 9
California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan of 2008
In September 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted California’s first Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, presenting a single roadmap to achieve maximum energy savings across all major groups and sectors in California. The Strategic Plan was subsequently updated in January 2011 to include a lighting chapter. The Strategic Plan sets goals of all new residential construction and all new commercial construction in California to be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020 and 2030, respectively. In 2018, the California Energy Commission voted to adopt a policy requiring all new homes in California to incorporate rooftop solar. This change went into effect in January 2020 with the adoption of the 2019 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Code and is a step towards the State achieving its goal of all residential new construction being ZNE by 2020. Additionally, the Strategic Plan sets goals of 50 percent of existing commercial building to be retrofit to ZNE by 2030 and all new State buildings and major renovations to be ZNE by 2025.
Senate Bill X7-7, Water Conservation Act
In 2009, SB X7-7, also known as the Water Conservation Act, was signed, requiring all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency. This legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water use by 20 percent by2020.
Senate Bill 97, CEQA Guidelines for Addressing GHG Emissions The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to review the environmental impacts of proposed projects, including General Plans, Specific Plans, and specific kinds of development projects. In February 2010, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the recommended amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions. The amendments were developed to provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis, mitigation, and effects of GHG emissions in draft CEQA documents.
Senate Bill 2X, Electricity Sourced from Renewable Energy In 2011, SB 2X was signed, requiring California energy providers to buy (or generate) 33 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020.
Assembly Bill 341, Commercial Recycling
AB 341 directed the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. As of July 2012, businesses are required to recycle, and jurisdictions must implement a program that includes education, outreach, and monitoring. AB 341 also set a Statewide goal of 75 percent waste diversion by the year 2020.
California Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2013)
In 2013, CARB approved the first update to the California Climate Change Scoping Plan. The 2013 Scoping Plan Update defined CARB climate change priorities for the next five years and set the groundwork to reach post-2020 Statewide GHG emissions reduction goals. The 2013 Scoping Plan Update highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the State’s 548
CC 08-16-2022
548 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 10 longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use.10 Senate Bill 1275, Charge Ahead Initiative
In 2014, Senate Bill 1275 established a State goal of one million zero-emissions and near-zeroemissions vehicles in service by 2020 and directed CARB to develop a long-term funding plan to meet this goal. SB 1275 also established the Charge Ahead California Initiative requiring planning and reporting on vehicle incentive programs and increasing access to and benefits from zeroemissions vehicles for disadvantaged, low- and moderate-income communities and consumers.
Senate Bill 1826, Recycling of Organic Material
AB 1826 was signed in 2014 to increase the recycling of organic material. GHG emissions produced by the decomposition of these materials in landfills were identified as a significant source of emissions contributing to climate change. Therefore, reducing organic waste and increasing composting and mulching are goals set out by the AB 32 Scoping Plan. AB 1826 specifically requires jurisdictions to establish organic waste recycling programs by 2016, and phases in mandatory commercial organic waste recycling over time.
California Executive Order B-30-15
In 2015, the California governor issued Executive Order B-30-15, which established a Statewide midterm GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Senate Bill 350, Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 In 2015, SB 350 established new clean energy, clean air, and GHG reduction goals for 2030 and beyond. SB 350 codified Governor Brown’s aggressive clean energy goals and established the State 2030 GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. To achieve this goal, SB 350 increases California’s renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 (legislation originally enacted in 2002) to 50 percent by 2030. Renewable resources include wind, solar, geothermal, wave, and small hydroelectric power. In addition, SB 350 requires the State to double State-wide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030 from a base year of 2015.
Assembly Bill 197, State Air Resources Board GHGs Regulations In 2016, AB 197, a bill linked to SB 32, increased legislature oversight over CARB and directs CARB to both prioritize disadvantaged communities in its climate change regulations and evaluate the costeffectiveness of measures it considers. AB 197 requires CARB to protect the State’s most impacted and disadvantaged communities [and] consider the social costs of the emissions of GHGs when developing climate change programs. The bill also adds two new legislatively appointed non-voting members to CARB, increasing the Legislature’s role in CARB’s decisions.
California Senate Bill 32, California Global Warming Pollution Solutions Act Update In 2016, the California legislature signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) into law, extending AB 32 by requiring further reduction in Statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other 10 CARB. 2013. Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available:
<https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf>.
Accessed August 3, 2022.
549
CC 08-16-2022
549 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 11
provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently adopted policies and policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383 (see below).
Senate Bill 1383, Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. The bill requires the strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:
Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels SB 1383 also requires CalRecycle, in consultation with the CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. The bill further requires 20 percent of edible food disposed of at the time to be recovered by 2025.
California Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017)
In 2017, CARB approved the second update to the California Climate Change Scoping Plan. The 2017 Scoping Plan put an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally-appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with Statewide per-capita goals of six MTCO2e by 2030 and two MTCO2e by 2050.11 As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects, because they include all GHG emissions sectors in the State.
California Executive Order B-55-18
In 2018, the California governor issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a new Statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing Statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 32.
For more information on the Senate and Assembly Bills, Executive Orders, and Scoping Plans discussed above, and to view reports and research referenced above, please refer to the following websites: www.climatechange.ca.gov and www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm.
Senate Bill 100, The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018 In September 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, requiring that the State’s load serving entities (including energy utilities and community choice energy programs) must procure energy generated 100 percent from Renewables Portfolio Standard for eligible renewable resources by 2045. 11 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available:
<https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm>. Accessed February 3, 2022. 550
CC 08-16-2022
550 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 12 California Code of Regulations Title 24 (California Building Code) Updated every three years through a rigorous stakeholder process and most recently in 2019, Title 24 of the CCR requires California homes and businesses to meet strong energy efficiency measures, thereby lowering their energy use. Title 24 contains numerous subparts, including Part 1 (Administrative Code), Part 2 (Building Code), Part 3 (Electrical Code), Part 4 (Mechanical Code), Part 5 (Plumbing Code), Part 6 (Energy Code), Part 8 (Historical Building Code), Part 9 (Fire Code), Part 10 (Existing Building Code), Part 11 (Green Building Standards Code), Part 12 (Referenced Standards Code). The California Building Code is applicable to all development in California. (Health and Safety Code §§ 17950 and 18938(b).)
The regulations receive input from members of industry, as well as the public, with the goal of "[r]educing of wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy." (Pub. Res.
Code § 25402.) These regulations are carefully scrutinized and analyzed for technological and economic feasibility (Pub. Res. Code § 25402(d)) and cost effectiveness (Pub. Res. Code § 25402(b)(2) and (b)(3)).
PART 6 – BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
CCR Title 24 Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards is updated periodically to incorporate and consider new energy-efficiency technologies and methodologies as they become available. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate compliance with the current Building Energy Efficiency Standards through submission and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the CEC. Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy efficient compared to the 2016 standards, and residential homes will be 7 percent more energy efficient. When accounting for the electricity generated by the solar photovoltaic system, residences would use 53 percent less energy compared to homes built to the 2016 standards. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, adopted on May 9, 2018, became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Standards move toward cutting energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of three stories and less. The 2019 Standards focus on four key areas: 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements. Under the 2019 Standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy-efficient compared to the 2016 Standards, and single-family homes will be seven percent more energy-efficient. When accounting for the electricity generated by the solar photovoltaic system, single-family homes would use 53 percent less energy compared to homes built to the 2016 standards.
PART 11 – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to CCR Title 24 as Part 11 first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 CBC). The 2019 CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of non-residential and residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers (I and II) with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions 551
CC 08-16-2022
551 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 13
must enforce the minimum mandatory Green Building Standards and may adopt additional amendments for stricter requirements.
The mandatory standards require:
20 percent reduction in indoor water use relative to specified baseline levels; 50 percent construction/demolition waste diverted from landfills; Inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; Low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and particleboards;
Dedicated circuitry to facilitate installation of EV charging stations in newly constructed attached garages for single-family and duplex dwellings; and Installation of EV charging stations at least three percent of the parking spaces for all new multifamily developments with 17 or more units.
Similar to the compliance reporting procedure for demonstrating Building Energy Efficiency Standards compliance in new buildings and major renovations, compliance with the CALGreen water-reduction requirements must be demonstrated through completion of water use reporting forms for new low-rise residential and non-residential buildings. Buildings must demonstrate a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the overall baseline water use as identified in CALGreen or a reduced per-plumbing-fixture water use rate.
General Plan Designation and Zoning
The CAP Update would be implemented throughout the City and would occur in all General Plan designations and in all zoning designations.
Description of Plan
2022 CAP Update
The Cupertino CAP Update incorporates the many climate protection programs noted above, including the Cupertino 2015 CAP, that the City has in place and will continue to reduce GHG emissions. The City has developed the CAP Update in order to achieve a number of objectives, including a safer future and enhanced quality of life for the community, new economic opportunities through green jobs, enhanced social equity and citizen engagement on the issue of climate change, and reduced obstacles for building affordable housing. The CAP Update provides a foundation for future development efforts in the Cupertino community. It is anticipated that environmental documents for future development projects will identify and incorporate applicable GHG reduction measures from the CAP Update.
In response to the 2017 California Climate Change Scoping Plan, the City updated its baseline 2010 inventory and prepared a comprehensive, communitywide GHG emissions inventory update for the 2018 calendar year. The GHG emissions inventory update was completed in compliance with all relevant protocols and guidance documents, including U.S. Community Protocol, Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), the Global Protocol for Community Scale GHG Emissions (GPC), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories. In 2018, Cupertino’s total GHG emissions were estimated to be 346,998 MTCO2e. The Cupertino 2018 552
CC 08-16-2022
552 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 14 communitywide GHG emissions inventories is summarized in Table 1. Table 2 also provides estimated 1990 GHG emissions levels for informational purposes. As shown therein, communitywide GHG emissions declined by approximately 15 percent between 2010 and 2018. The most notable changes occurred in the energy and wastewater sectors due to increasing decarbonization of the state electricity grid, investments in energy efficiency, and a decrease in the amount of solid waste generated.12
Table 1 Cupertino 2018 Communitywide GHG Emissions Levels Sector
1990
(MT of CO2e)1
2010
(MT of CO2e)
2018
(MT of CO2e)
Percent Change
from 2010 to 2018
Transportation N/A 198,111 220,625 11%
Non-residential Energy N/A 95,246 45,733 -52%
Residential Energy N/A 77,042 45,296 -41%
Wastewater N/A 22,591 19,635 -13%
Solid Waste N/A 15,185 15,709 3%
Total 402,639 408,176 346,998 -15%
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest ten.
1 1990 GHG emissions were estimated by applying a change factor to Cupertino’s 2018 GHG emissions equivalent to the change in the State’s GHG emissions between 2018 and 1990. 1990 GHG emissions were not estimated at the individual sector level.
Source: Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino 2019 Community GHG Inventory.
Compared with the 2015 CAP, the 2022 CAP Update puts more emphasis on building and vehicle electrification and alternative transportation modes (walking, biking, public, and shared transit).
Measures from the 2015 CAP Update were removed and replaced with new foundational actions and supporting measures. The CAP Update builds upon the goals of the 2015 CAP and is based on the more recent inventory for the City.
The CAP Update is organized into five categories of GHG emissions reduction efforts, each of which includes measures and foundational actions. These categories are building energy, transportation, waste, water/wastewater, and carbon sequestration. Altogether, these measures and actions are intended to reduce communitywide GHG emissions output to 3.39 MT of CO2e per person (equivalent to 222,867 MT of CO2e in total emissions) by 2030, which would represent a 66% reduction below 1990 per capita levels and 50% below 2010 per capita levels by 2030. This would exceed the SB 32 State GHG emissions target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 as well as provide substantial progress toward meeting the City carbon neutrality goal by 2040 while exceeding in time the State carbon neutrality goal of 2045. However, full implementation of the 2022 CAP Update would leave a gap of approximately 0.82 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e) per person per year (equivalent to 57,435 MT CO2e in total emissions) that would still need to be addressed to achieve carbon neutrality. As such, the CAP Update acknowledges that additional actions beyond those identified in the plan will be necessary to achieve carbon neutrality and, therefore, provides a mechanism for updating and adopting a new climate action plan in the future.
This allows for certainty in the updated schedule, ensures that the carbon neutrality work is directly tied to the City’s financial decision making and prioritization process and allows for constant 12 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino 2018 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. 553
CC 08-16-2022
553 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 15
integration of learning, best practices, and new measures and technologies to further the City toward meeting its goal of carbon neutrality.
Furthermore, in order to execute the CAP Update, City staff would implement the following administrative actions: regularly update the GHG Inventory and Climate Action Plan; monitor and report CAP implementation; ensure transparency by reporting GHG and CAP information to public disclosure programs; and develop a program for new development to illustrate consistency with the CAP Update. The climate action categories, measures, and foundational actions of the CAP Update are listed below in Table 2.
Table 2 Cupertino CAP Update GHG Emissions Reduction Measures and Actions Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
Building Energy
Measure BE-1: Reduce non-SVCE usage rate to 2% for residential and 10% for commercial by 2030 and maintain through 2040
BE-1.1 Work with SVCE to conduct an annual analysis of non-SVCE and direct access usage rates in the City of Cupertino to understand why residents and businesses opt out of SVCE or use direct access electricity.
2030: 0.012
2040: 0.004
BE.1-2 Investigate feasibility of adopting an energy benchmarking program in Cupertino.
Evaluate similar programs and determine how energy data would be reported and reviewed, if standards could be set to require energy efficiency improvements, and how much staff time would be required to maintain the program.
BE-1.3 Establish an energy benchmarking program in Cupertino that requires large commercial entities (over 10,000 square feet) to report their energy usage and energy procurement details.
BE.1-4 Develop a program to provide SVCE green energy for rental units and households in the Below Market Rate (BMR) rental and ownership programs. 2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
BE-1.5 Develop a local education program detailing and promoting the benefits of opting in to SVCE service.
BE.1-6 Partner with local community organizations that focus on climate and other social causes to promote the cost efficiency and benefits of SVCE. Solicit applications from among the community to take part in SVCE's Innovation Onramp Program. 554
CC 08-16-2022
554 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 16 Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
Measure BE-2: Electrify existing residential buildings to reduce annual residential natural gas usage from 129 therms per person in 2018 to at most 71 therms per person in 2030 and 16 therms per person in 2040 BE-2.1 Develop a residential building electrification strategy (RBES) to aid in development of a residential building electrification ordinance which:
1. Includes a detailed existing building analysis to understand current natural gas end uses and scenarios to electrify
2. Includes an electrification costs analysis that explores the up-front costs of electrification as well as ongoing energy costs for the end user (homeowners, landlords, and renters) after electrification
3. Considers impacts to renters, renter/landlord dynamics
4. Identifies potential impacts to electrical grid resiliency
5. Identifies and develops protections against potential equity concerns/impacts of electrification
6. Identifies funding and financing opportunities for residential electrification Identifies the City staff resources needed to enforce a new electrification ordinance
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
BE-2.2 Identify and partner with local community-based organizations with connections to low-income and fixed income people, historically underserved communities, elders, disabled individuals with access needs to assist in development of the RBES.
BE-2.3 Conduct engagement efforts for the public and targeted low-income and fixed income people, historically underserved communities, elders, disabled individuals with access needs during development of the RBES to understand the community's concerns around electrification.
BE-2.4 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 either electrification of appliances or a disconnect from the gas system at time of replacement and major renovation. 2030: 0.290
2040: 0.566
BE-2.5 Define equity metrics for ordinance enforcement based on feedback from lowincome and fixed income people, historically underserved communities, elders, disabled individuals with access needs. Equity metrics should be designed to prevent displacement and ensure that end-user energy costs for low-income populations will not be greater after electrification than before. Design compliance support programs such as technical assistance to help permit applicants with compliance.
BE-2.6 Enforce ordinance compliance through a comprehensive permitting compliance program, to be developed based on the results of the feasibility study in Action 1.
Structure the program to include, as determined necessary, routine training of staff, dedicating staff time to building inspections, charging fees for noncompliance, providing easy to understand compliance checklists online and with permit applications, and facilitating permitting online. Evaluate the effectiveness of the program on a biannual basis to avoid potential issues such as reduced permit application rates.
BE-2.7 Actively participate in regional permit streamlining efforts for all-electric building upgrades, EV charging, and battery storage.
2030: Supportive
555
CC 08-16-2022
555 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 17
Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
BE-2.8 Work with the local contractors, realtors, homeowner associations, and labor unions to develop a comprehensive building code and compliance training program, including hosting workforce development trainings discussing the benefits and technical requirements of electrification. Consider working with regional partners to maintain a database of qualified contractors and consultants for electrification retrofits.
2040: Supportive
BE-2.9 Commit to electrifying the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) rental and housing stock at a neighborhood level by 2040. Establish a plan and schedule for implementing this action by 2024.
BE-2.10 Create a dedicated fund to support BMR rental and housing upgrades, to be supported by grants using an existing regional program (e.g., BayREN Home +).
BE-2.11 Work with PG&E to identify opportunities for natural gas infrastructure pruning to redirect PG&E dollars allocated for pipeline maintenance to electrification retrofit projects instead and reduce the chance of stranded assets. Stranded assets are functional natural gas infrastructure with ongoing maintenance costs that has become obsolete due to electrification. Work with PG&E to identify additional funding as needed for the abandonment/removal of the infrastructure. Consider piloting this approach with a group of municipal facilities.
BE-2.12 Collaborate with the County and other cities in the region to advocate for regulatory changes at the state and federal level to allow neighborhood level electrification and natural gas pruning. Consider also supporting federal carbon pricing proposals in the City’s legislative platform.
BE-2.13 Seek out funding partnerships with local financiers and work with partners such as SVCE and BayREN to fund a program specifically for decarbonization retrofits, such as a local turnkey retrofit program that leverages existing funding, which offers low-cost financing of electrification and energy efficiency retrofits for residents and local businesses.
BE-2.14 Develop a program dedicated to understanding, streamlining, and expanding energy and electrification turnkey, rebate, and financing programs (e.g., PACE, CHEEF, and utility-offered incentive programs). Staff would also be responsible for supporting residents with rebate applications, with a focus on low-income residents.
Measure BE-3: Electrify existing commercial buildings to reduce annual commercial natural gas usage from 119 therms per person in 2018 to at most 90 therms per person in 2030 and 54 therms per person in 2040 BE-3.1 Inform and facilitate energy master planning work around electrification for commercial business owners and large developers. Build a partnership with and distribute technical support to the business community (e.g., local business associations) to with the aim of identifying, piloting, and scaling large energy efficiency and electrification projects.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
BE-3.2 Develop a commercial building electrification strategy (CBES), building on the existing Baseline Buildings Study from SVCE (2020), with a detailed commercial natural gas usage analysis, analysis to potential impacts to the local commercial sectors, and electrification costs analysis to aid in development of a commercial building electrification ordinance.
556
CC 08-16-2022
556 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 18 Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
BE-3.3 Conduct engagement efforts for the commercial sector during development of the CBES to understand potential concerns and barriers to commercial electrification.
Engage with BAAQMD in the development of the CBES in order to coordinate on the approach to emergency power and baseload power generation systems which commonly use natural gas.
BE-3.4 Conduct outreach to small businesses and minority-owned businesses to understand potential equity impacts of the ordinance.
BE-3.5 By 2024, adopt an electrification ordinance for existing commercial buildings to be implemented through the building permit process, which bans expansion of natural gas infrastructure, requires electrification of natural gas appliances at time of major renovation and time of replacement where technologically feasible (exceptions can be made where all-electric alternatives to do not exist or are a significant cost burden, to be further defined based on results of the CBES). 2030: 0.190
2040: 0.366
BE-3.6 Enforce existing buildings electrification ordinance compliance through the same permitting compliance program and with same staff as for residential building electrification.
BE-3.7 Conduct engagement efforts for the commercial sector to identify ways the City can support commercial battery storage installations and improve local grid resiliency beyond what will be required in the 2022 California Building Energy Code's commercial battery storage and solar installation requirements. 2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
BE-3.8 Work with SVCE and PG&E to develop or expand commercial rebate program and incentivize commercial all-electric retrofits and battery storage installations.
BE-3.9 Create a program to generate interest and secure partnerships among local business and institutions for the purpose of seeking out grants or initiatives.
Leverage this program to facilitate funding opportunities for commercial business electrification.
BE-3.10 Develop a program that funnels Cupertino businesses into the SVCE Innovation Onramp grant program or similar grant offerings.
Measure BE-4: Require new residential and commercial development to be all-electric at time of construction BE-4.1 Adopt an electrification ordinance for new residential and commercial development which requires developers to build all-electric at time of construction. Actively maintain the electrification ordinance through each triannual code cycle. 2030: 0.067
2040: 0.221
Measure BE-5: Support Apple in continuing to procure biofuel for the fuel cell located in Cupertino BE-5.1 Energy consumption by Apple facilities is significant in Cupertino. Coordinate with Apple during preparation of future community inventories to ensure that Apple is continuing to procure biofuel for their Apple Park fuel cell through a legitimate book and claim process and that the data is reflected correctly in Cupertino’s community inventory according to the latest inventory guidance and protocols from CARB and ICLEI.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
557
CC 08-16-2022
557 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 19
Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
BE-5.2 Develop requirements for future commercial projects with fuel cells, stationary generators, or other natural gas equipment that cannot be electric to coordinate with the City and procure biofuel or other carbon-free fuel for operation of the equipment. Coordinate this action with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which conducts regular analysis on carbon-free alternatives to diesel generators under the Diesel-Free by ‘33 program.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
BE-5.3 Work with the City’s natural gas provider, ABAG POWER, to develop market alternatives to natural gas that provide legitimate carbon reduction opportunities, such as renewable diesel fuels or bio-based fuels. Consider purchasing these fuels at a price premium.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
Transportation
Measure TR-1: Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15% of bicycle mode share by 2030 and 23% by 2040
TR-1.1 As part of the City’s active transportation planning, identify priority projects to connect neighborhoods with commercial areas via bike/ped paths, repainted roadways, and e-bike share.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
TR-1.2 Collaborate with the County, VTA, and SVCE to connect Cupertino's bicycle network to cross-jurisdiction bicycle superhighways and other e-bike networks as feasible.
TR-1.3 Engage the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Safe Routes to School network, and community groups to identify additional short-term and long-term bikeway and pedestrian infrastructure improvement projects to implement.
TR-1.4 Ensure there is equitable access to safe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in all areas of the city. Prioritize new bicycle and pedestrian facilities (e.g., bike paths, bike parking, sidewalks) in areas with underdeveloped facilities and also in areas with low-income populations.
TR-1.5 Continue to implement the 2018 Pedestrian Plan and the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan's prioritized list of projects, with accelerated completion of all planned bike paths by 2030.
2030: 0.048
2040: 0.071
TR-1.6 Repaint arterial, minor collector, and major collector roads (as mapped in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan) without existing designated bike lanes to include bike lanes and limit existing car lanes/travel where determined to be feasibly safe.
TR-1.7 Conduct a pilot program, including a plan for pilot implementation, that designates the road space on select streets specifically for bikes and is closed to through-traffic motor vehicles. As part of the plan, consider location and extent of pilot program based on transportation data analysis, and develop success tracking metrics to inform potential pilot expansion.
TR-1.8 Evaluate and update the City's Zoning Code, Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, and California Green Building Code to ensure the City requires installation of accessible, shaded, and secure bicycle parking for new commercial development and retrofits.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
558
CC 08-16-2022
558 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 20 Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
TR-1.9 Improve the bike/e-bike parking network to reduce theft and increase rider attraction. This would include surveying existing bike parking facilities throughout Cupertino and developing a plan to improve these with preference given to improving bike/e-bike parking facilities near public transit stops to improve and expand access to transit (i.e., first and last-mile access) TR-1.10 Design a micro-mobility program that that explores expansion of the use of electric bikes and scooters and shared micro mobility options.
TR-1.11 Bring an e-bike share or e-scooter share to Cupertino with focus on placing hubs near neighborhood entry points and commercial areas. Adopt an ordinance to allow and manage the mobility share.
TR-1.12 Pilot a program to provide free or reduced-price access to e-bikes or other micro mobility options to low-income residents and students.
TR-1.13 Establish a program for researching and obtaining grant funding for bike and pedestrian network expansion.
Measure TR-2: Implement public and shared transit programs to achieve 29% of public transit mode share by 2030 and maintain through 2040
TR-2.1 Develop a plan for on-demand community shuttle (Via-Cupertino) expansion and designated streets for transit based on data collected by the City. 2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
TR-2.2 Include public transit in the designated streets pilot program in Measure TR-1 (Action 7).
2030: 0.269
2040: 0.256
TR-2.3 Aggressively expand the on-demand community shuttle to meet shared transit goals and support vulnerable populations: secure funding to support transition to an all-electric fleet, maintain bike racks on all fleet vehicles, increase service and coverage, wheelchair accessibility, and offer free or deeply subsidized passes to students attending Cupertino schools and low-income individuals. 2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
TR-2.4 Partner with VTA and neighboring cities to develop high-capacity transit service along the Stevens Creek Boulevard/I-280 corridor
TR-2.5 Conduct a free public transit pilot program that provides free public transit on VTA and the Via-Cupertino Shuttle to students, foster youth, and unhoused youth in Cupertino.
TR-2.6 Require medium to large-sized employers (25 employees or more) to develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. TDM plans should include subsidies for employees to bike, walk, or carpool, and provide free transit passes for all employees.
TR-2.7 Require new multi-family development projects to install a car share or provide ebikes/e-scooters to each new tenant.
TR-2.8 Establish a program for supporting regional transportation coordination for improving region-wide service, such as establishing prioritized service, obtaining grant funding for service expansion or headway reductions. 559
CC 08-16-2022
559 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 21
Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
Measure TR-3: Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption13 to 35% for passenger vehicles and 20% for commercial vehicles by 2030 and 100% for all vehicles by 2040 TR-3.1 Conduct a survey of existing publicly accessible electric vehicle chargers, their locations, and their kilowatt hour charging speed and identify a prioritized list of locations for new electric vehicle charging stations with particular consideration for equitable distribution of chargers to residents of multi-family homes, lowincome and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs.
2030: 0.039
2040: 1.1263
TR-3.2 Leverage public and private partnerships to add 719 new publicly accessible Level 2 and 3 electric vehicle charging stations to the City by 2030.
TR-3.3 Review electric vehicle infrastructure reach code for new development and consider re-adoption of the reach code or strengthening electric vehicle installation requirements at next code cycle.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
TR-3.4 Create a local reach code ordinance for installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure at existing multi-family and commercial sites. Work with SVCE on model code development and coordinate efforts with other SVCE cities.
TR-3.5 Continue to maintain and advertise a streamlined electric vehicle infrastructure permitting process in accordance with SB 1236 and SB 970.
TR-3.6 Investigate commercial vehicle fleets in Cupertino and identify businesses/employers to target for accelerating zero emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption.
2030: 0.118
2040: 0.697
TR-3.7 Work and collaborate with local businesses/employers to develop and implement a plan for City-supported accelerated fleet electrification. As part of the plan, identify opportunities for accelerated fleet electrification and promote zeroemission vehicle (ZEV) adoption within major private and employee fleets in Cupertino.
TR-3.8 Support zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) car share companies in coming to Cupertino; collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions and the County to do the same to create a larger connected network of ZEV car share.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
TR-3.9 Establish affordable, zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) car share to serve affordable housing and/or multifamily developments with a priority to target renters, residents in multi-unit housing, low-income and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs.
TR-3.10 Review zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption rates based on demographics of Cupertino to identify ways to improve ZEV adoption among renters, low-income and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs. Based on the results, conduct targeted outreach to groups to identify barriers and concerns of potential ZEV drivers. Work with communitybased organizations to target outreach and program planning to reduce barriers for ZEV adoption among groups with low participation rates. 13 For the purposes of this document and the Cupertino CAP Update, ZEV adoption refers to percent of vehicles registered in Cupertino that are ZEV.
560
CC 08-16-2022
560 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 22 Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
TR-3.11 Coordinate with community-based organizations, agencies, and non-profits to conduct zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) education events for renters, low-income and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs that would include information on costs/benefits of owning ZEVs, steps on how to receive incentives for ZEVs, and other benefits.
TR-3.12 Work with SVCE and PG&E to incentivize electric vehicle charger installations through on-bill financing.
TR-3.13 Identify and implement incentives for commercial fleet electrification. This could include local tax breaks.
Measure TR-4: Refocus transportation infrastructure away from single-occupancy gasoline and diesel passenger vehicles to support the bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, and ZEV goals of Measures TR-1, TR-2, and TR-3 TR-4.1 Conduct public outreach and analysis of the potential community impacts and benefits of implementing disincentive-based policies for driving gasoline and diesel single passenger vehicles. Explore options such as limiting parking options, increased local taxes (income tax, gasoline tax, or car registration tax), and transportation network company (TNC) user taxes.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
TR-4.2 In addition to general public outreach, conduct targeted outreach to students, low-income and fixed income people, historically underserved communities, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs during analysis of the disincentive-based transportation policies to understand the community's potential concerns.
TR-4.3 Define equity metrics for implementation of disincentives based on feedback from students, low-income and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs and structure the disincentive programs to meet these metrics.
TR-4.4 Develop a plan and timeline for allowing developers to build housing without offstreet parking if it is close to frequent transit service, to be implemented at a time when frequent transit options are more available in Cupertino.
TR-4.5 As part of future updates to the General Plan, conduct a traffic pattern study to identify commercial areas of the city to severely limit or eliminate parking for single-passenger gasoline and diesel vehicles.
TR-4.6 Conduct a study of citywide parking minimums and based on available transportation options, travel demand, and land use, consider parking maximums and potentially charging for public parking spaces.
TR-4.7 Identify options for funding active and public transit programs through a local tax starting in 2023 (e.g., income tax, local gasoline tax, or gasoline/car registration tax). Ensure any tax or fee is designed to have low to no impact on low-income residents (e.g., includes a rebate for CARE/FERA customers, or has progressive fee levels based on income bracket/value of the car).
561
CC 08-16-2022
561 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 23
Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
TR-4.8 Implement a user tax on Transportation Network Companies (TNC), taxi companies, and other private transportation services, which would put a small fee on the use of these services to generate funds to pay for transit and mobility infrastructure. Exceptions to a user tax may be made for private transportation services that demonstrably reduce VMT.
TR-4.9 Track the results of the CAP's driving disincentive programs - parking limitations, increased local taxes (income tax, gasoline tax, or car registration tax), and TNC user taxes - and share these results with neighboring jurisdictions and the County to collaborate on extending these programs within the County.
Measure TR-5: Electrify or otherwise decarbonize 34% of off-road equipment by 2030 and 35% by 2040 TR-5.1 Investigate commercial off-road equipment fleets in Cupertino and identify fleets with highest decarbonization potential.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
TR-5.2 Partner with BAAQMD to expand rebate and incentive programs for upgrading off-road equipment and switching to biofuels or electric equipment.
TR-5.3 Partner with SVCE and the County of Santa Clara to incentivize electrification of landscaping equipment and other off-road equipment types such as construction machinery.
TR-5.4 By 2025, develop an ordinance to ban local operation of gasoline and dieselpowered off-road equipment by 2030 to improve public health, reduce noise, and reduce local GHG emissions. This ordinance can build upon the noise ordinance which regulates landscaping equipment. Include allowance for biofuels(i.e., renewable diesel) for equipment for which zero emission alternatives are not available in the ordinance.
2030: 0.098
2040: 0.102
Waste
Measure W-1a: Implement SB 1383 requirements and reduce communitywide landfilled organics 75% by 2025 and inorganic waste 35% by 2030 and reduce all waste 90% by 2040 W-1a.1 Partner with local community organizations and businesses to implement all required activities under SB 1383.
2030: 0.202
2040: 0.200
W-1a.2 Route collected landfilled waste through a materials recovery facility (MRF) to increase diversion before final disposal. Continue financial support for low-income residents to offset increase trash rates.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
W-1a.3 Work with contracted hauler to develop and implement a comprehensive monitoring and quality control program with a focus on consumer behavior change.
W-1a.4 Encourage businesses to educate their employees about organic waste diversion and proper sorting annually by providing training resources and rebate program to fund employee time for training.
W-1a.5 Establish relationships with multi-family (MF) property owners/managers to develop signage for their properties to encourage food waste diversity. Go doorto-door at each MF unit yearly to provide supplies and education for proper sorting.
562
CC 08-16-2022
562 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 24 Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
W-1a.6 Conduct targeted, multi-lingual, culturally appropriate, and geographically diverse waste diversion educational and technical assistance campaigns based on outcomes of the waste characterization study and comprehensive monitoring and quality control program. Topics could include proper sorting, reduce smell/mess, where does the material go after it leaves the curb, methane from food waste in landfill.
W-1a.7 Partner with schools, retirement communities, and other large institutions to create waste diversion and prevention programs/procedures/plans.
W-1a.8 Work with hauler to determine data necessary to meet zero waste goals and establish protocol for regular collection and reporting of associated metrics.
W-1a.9 Implement enforcement and fee for incorrectly sorted materials with sensitivity to shared collection.
W-1a.10 Conduct construction and demolition (C&D) feasibility study to determine if the City can expand C&D waste diversion requirements and if feasible create a deconstruction ordinance to require reuse of materials.
W-1a.11 Conduct waste characterization studies every 4-5 years to inform programs and policies. Leverage waste characterization data to understand the waste stream and create a plan to increase diversion and reduce contamination.
W-1a.12 Understand alternatives to three waste streams disposal and fill in waste generation gaps by collecting data from take-back locations (grocery stores, auto shops, carpets, mattresses, battery collection, etc).
W-1a.13 Increase access to recycling facilities such as California Refund Value (CRV) redemption and extended producer responsibility (EPR) take-back programs.
W-1a.14 Monitor and report recycling activity, including the number of materials recycled, programmatic achievements, and the strength of commodity markets. Produce reports to the City Council as needed to inform future zero waste planning.
W-1a.15 Add extra bulky-item pickup service for low- and medium-income residents at a subsidized cost to help minimize illegal dumping and increase access to bulky item disposal.
W-1a.16 Conduct a study about textiles recycling opportunities that can be rolled out across Cupertino.
Measure W-2: Reduce overall waste disposed to garbage, recycling, and compost per capita by 15% by 2035 W-2.1 Conduct a consumption-based GHG emissions inventory to understand the community’s worst consumption habits and emission reduction potential and provide educational materials on a closed-loop circular economy. 2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
W-2.2 Based on results of the consumption-based emissions inventory, create a plan to achieve the objective of zero growth of waste generation. Consider reusable diaper service, plant-based diets, etc.
W-2.3 Consider creation of upcycle/resell shop to increase access to items for reuse and create jobs.
563
CC 08-16-2022
563 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 25
Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
W-2.4 Conduct targeted, multi-lingual, culturally appropriate, and geographically diverse waste prevention educational and technical assistance campaigns based on a waste characterization study. Outreach topics can include food waste prevention, edible food recovery strategies, proper storage, how to fix clothes/electronics, how to donate, reusable alternatives, effects of overconsumption, sustainable consumption habits, buying second hand, buying durable, sharing, repurposing.
W-2.5 Create a training/education program that is free and accessible to all residents and employees to learn about waste prevention and diversion strategies and effects of overconsumption.
W-2.6 Expand edible food recovery program to all restaurants and food generating businesses and create incentives for small businesses who otherwise could not participate.
W-2.7 Fund edible food recovery organizations so they can expand and manage increased volume. Leverage CalRecycle support for projects that prevent food waste or rescue edible food.
W-2.8 Work with the business community to design and promote extended producer responsibility such as take-back programs.
W-2.9 Consider a fee at point of use for single-use food ware by food service providers.
Fee would be waived for individuals who are dependent on these products for health reasons.
W-2.10 Partner with local organizations, schools, and libraries to establish pop-up repair cafesfor commonly broken and easily repaired items.
W-2.11 Increase bans on "problem materials." Ban items without means of recycling or recycling markets, such as sale of polystyrene, produce bags, plastic packaging, straws, plastics #4-7, mixed materials.
W-2.12 Create a requirement for large events to use an event waste management service.
This could be included as a condition before the City issues a special event permit.
W-2.13 Work with the business community to design and promote extended producer responsibility such as take-back programs.
564
CC 08-16-2022
564 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 26 Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
Water/Wastewater
Measure WW-1: Reduce per capita water consumption 15% compared to 2019 levels by 2030 and maintain through 2040
WW-1.1 Adopt an ordinance for installation of dual-plumbing water systems that utilize greywater for irrigation at new residential construction, including ADUs, and in major retrofits. In doing so the City will:
Engage with builders and developers to provide information on the new requirements for residential new construction
Develop and adopt an ordinance based on the available model ordinances 2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
WW-1.2 Work with Santa Clara Valley Water to develop an enhanced public engagement campaign that promotes water efficiency rebates from Santa Clara Valley Water (Greywater, Laundry to Landscape program), including educating residents on the benefits of dual-plumbing greywater systems, low-flow fixtures, and their connection to climate resilience and GHG emissions reductions. Ensure that all outreach and education is in multiple languages.
WW-1.3 Perform targeted outreach to households with low-income and fixed income people, communities of color, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs to provide free water conservation devices through the Santa Clara Valley Water.
Ensure that all outreach and education is in multiple languages.
WW-1.4 Work with schools to educate youth about water conservation.
WW-1.5 Continue to provide rebates or other funding to low- and medium-income homes for installing laundry to landscape, rainwater catchment system, and low-flow appliances
WW-1.6 Work with Santa Clara Valley Water and Cupertino’s three water retailers to provide Wi-Fi connected meters that citizens can check on phones and computers.
WW-1.7 Partner with Santa Clara Valley Water to support a brackish water/desalinization program, as feasible.
WW-1.8 Expand the Climate Victory Gardens pilot to an ongoing program and work with Santa Clara Valley Water to expand to a regional service.
Measure WW-2: Support the SJ-SC RWF in implementing GHG emissions reduction projects WW-2.1 Establish a program or function for supporting SJ-SC RWF in obtaining grant funding for methane capture or other GHG reduction infrastructure. Explore opportunities related to methane capture and conversion to biofuel through the state's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
WW-2.2 Collaborate with the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga, and the County to advocate and support GHG reductions at the SJ-SC RWF. Explore opportunities to scale beyond regional coordination. 565
CC 08-16-2022
565 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 27
Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
Carbon Sequestration
Measure CS-1: Increase carbon sequestration through tree planting by developing and implementing an Urban Forest Management Plan
CS-1.1 Identify and partner with local community-based organizations with connections to low-income and fixed income people, historically underserved communities, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs to assist in development of an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) to ensure equity is prioritized as part of the plan.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
CS-1.2 Conduct an urban heat island study to assist in identifying priority areas in Cupertino for planting new trees.
2030:0.006
2040: 0.006
CS-1.3 Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) based on the City’s tree canopy assessment that identifies the framework and strategy for expanding the tree canopy in Cupertino. As part of the UFMP development effort, identify a tree canopy expansion goal. Ensure the sustainability of the urban forest (including all existing and new trees) by including in the UFMP plans for continued tree maintenance and protection, attention to safety, resident engagement, and the planting of native and climate-appropriate trees.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
CS-1.4 Review the Tree Protection Ordinance and ensure that trees are protected with the Housing Element Update. Ensure any trees that may be removed to accommodate new housing are replaced with at least a 2:1 ratio.
CS-1.5 Establish a program for obtaining grant funding for development of UFMP and tree planting.
Measure CS-2: Leverage the carbon sequestration potential of open space and carbon removal CS-2.1 Study opportunities to create new natural areas in existing open spaces, parklands, and fields with native species, biodiverse ecology, higher carbon sequestration potential and improved recreational connectivity for the community.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
CS-2.2 Expand community gardens program beyond McClellan Ranch Preserve. Continue to prioritize locating new gardens in high-density housing areas. Program goals include promoting healthy living through access to healthy food, creating a secure place where residents can strengthen community bonds, and providing education on safe organic gardening practices.
CS-2.3 Study options to invest in carbon drawdown removal in a way that is appropriate for Cupertino. The study should include a review of the Oxford Carbon Drawdown Principles and identify if there exist any investments within or outside of Cupertino that make sense to contribute to for carbon drawdown.
CS-2.4 Develop an embodied carbon emissions policy and ordinance that encourages or requires carbon to be sequestered in building materials such as mass timber framing or low-carbon concrete.
566
CC 08-16-2022
566 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 28 Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
Measures W-1b: Meet or exceed the SB 1383 recycled organics products procurement requirements and sequester or avoid at least 0.018 MT CO2e per person by through 2045 W-1b.1 Develop partnerships with local community organizations and businesses to implement all required recycled organics products procurement activities under SB 1383.
2030: 0.018
2040: 0.018
567
CC 08-16-2022
567 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 29
Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
Climate Adaptation
Measure AR-1: Increase usage of natural infrastructure solutions such as bioswales, rainwater storage systems, and permeable pavements to enhance infrastructure resiliency.
AR-1.1 Prioritize opportunities to focus green stormwater infrastructure improvements in vulnerable communities including areas with a large proportion of renters, lowincome areas, and in communities of color. 2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
AR-1.2 Develop one or more demonstration projects which can be used to educate the community about these techniques.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
Measure AR-2: Bolster emergency preparedness and response by integrating climate adaptation and improving climate-related communications.
AR-2.1 By 2023, create Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to track pollutants from the Air Quality Monitoring Program and incorporate regular reporting of air quality KPIs into CAP reports and live interactive public dashboards. 2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
AR-2.2 Provide wildfire smoke guidance and protocols for municipal employees to ensure their safety when air quality is poor.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
AR-2.3 Integrate the vulnerability assessment results into emergency preparedness, management, response, and early warning systems.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
AR-2.4 Partner with the County of Santa Clara Vector Control District and Public Health Department to develop and enhance disaster and emergency early warning systems that incorporate objective data and information for potential health threats such as heat-illness, illnesses complicated by adverse air quality, and inundation and precipitation events.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
AR-2.5 Develop new educational materials that cover each climate hazard identified in the vulnerability assessment. Provide these materials in at least three different languages and several formats for the widest audience.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
Measure AR-3: Strengthen Community Capacity and Resilience through Education, Resources, and Policies AR-3.1 Educate communities about the health risks of climate hazards and engage them in strengthening community resilience such as block-level climate resilience training and resilience hubs.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
AR-3.2 Enroll 400 households by the end of Phase 2 to participate in a climate resiliency block training program. The curriculum will include household preparedness planning as well as basic education on climate hazard awareness. 2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
AR-3.3 Bring policies for the City Council to consider that would achieve Gold ratings in all categories set forth by the County of Santa Clara Healthy Cities Index. 2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
568
CC 08-16-2022
568 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 30 Action
ID # Measures and Respective Supporting Actions
Anticipated per
Capita GHG
Emissions Reduction
(MT of CO2e)1
Measure AR-4: Update the Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan in Coordination with the County of Santa Clara.
AR-4.1 Update the Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan in Coordination with the County of Santa Clara.
2030: Supportive
2040: Supportive
Note: MT of CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Source: Compiled by Rincon based on information contained in the Cupertino Draft CAP Update.
Figure 3, Figure 4 and Table 3 summarize the communitywide GHG emissions forecast under three scenarios: 1) business-as-usual, 2) implementation of State laws and programs, and 3) implementation of State laws and programs as well as the CAP Update. As shown therein, under the business-as-usual scenario, communitywide GHG emissions are forecasted to increase by approximately 5 percent per capita (or 9 percent in terms of absolute total emissions) between 2018 and 2030 based on anticipated economic and population growth. With implementation of State laws and programs, Cupertino communitywide GHG emissions would decline by approximately 8 percent per capita (or 5 percent in terms of absolute total emissions) between 2018 and 2030. And with full implementation of the Cupertino CAP Update alongside State laws and programs, Cupertino communitywide GHG emissions would decline by approximately 38 percent per capita (or 36 percent in terms of absolute total emissions) between 2018 and 2030.
Figure 3 Cupertino Forecast Scenarios through 2040 – Per Capita GHG Emissions 569
CC 08-16-2022
569 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 31
Figure 4 Cupertino Forecast Scenarios through 2040 – Absolute Total GHG Emissions Table 3 Cupertino GHG Emissions Forecasts Through 2040
Sector
2018
(MT of
CO2e/person)
2018
(MT of
CO2e)
2030
(MT of
CO2e/person)
2030
(MT of
CO2e)
2040
(MT of
CO2e/person)
2040
(MT of
CO2e)
Business-as-Usual GHG Emissions
Transportation 3.49 220,625 3.66 240,232 3.70 252,825
Non-residential
Energy 0.72 45,733 0.83 54,538 0.80 54,753
Residential Energy 0.72 45,296 0.70 45,869 0.83 56,462
Wastewater 0.31 19,635 0.33 21,417 0.32 21,989
Solid Waste 0.25 15,709 0.26 17,136 0.26 17,593
Total 5.49 346,998 5.77 379,192 5.91 403,622
GHG Emissions After Implementation of State Laws/Programs1 Transportation 3.49 220,625 2.96 194,328 2.60 177,328
Non-residential
Energy 0.72 45,733 0.80 52,609 0.74 50,858
Residential Energy 0.72 45,296 0.70 45,757 0.82 55,975
Wastewater 0.31 19,635 0.33 21,417 0.32 21,989
Solid Waste 0.25 15,709 0.26 17,136 0.26 17,593
570
CC 08-16-2022
570 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 32 Sector
2018
(MT of
CO2e/person)
2018
(MT of
CO2e)
2030
(MT of
CO2e/person)
2030
(MT of
CO2e)
2040
(MT of
CO2e/person)
2040
(MT of
CO2e)
Total 5.49 346,998 5.04 331,247 4.74 323,743
GHG Emissions After Implementation of State Laws/Programs and Cupertino CAP Update Transportation2 3.49 220,625 2.09 137,052 0.21 14,127
Non-residential
Energy 0.72 45,733 0.40 26,127 0.09 6,331
Residential Energy 0.72 45,296 0.54 35,524 0.31 21,466
Wastewater 0.31 19,635 0.33 21,417 0.32 21,989
Solid Waste 0.25 15,709 0.08 5,349 0.08 5,336
Carbon
Sequestration 5.49 346,998 (0.01) (425) (0.01) (425)
Total 3.49 220,625 3.43 225,044 1.01 68,825
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents; () denotes a negative number State laws and programs include State vehicle fuel efficiency standards, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and triennial updates of Title 24.
Source: Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Through 2040 GHG Forecasts.
Table 4 shows the 2030 GHG emissions and targets for Cupertino, including the expected emissions once the measures listed in Table 2 are implemented.
Table 4 Cupertino GHG Emissions Projections and Targets Description
Emissions
(MT of
CO2e/person)
Emissions
(MT of
CO2e total)
1990 Emissions 6.37 402,639
2030 BAU Emissions 5.77 379,192
2030 Adjusted Emissions with State Laws/Programs Implemented 5.04 331,247 State 2030 Target Emissions (40% below 1990) 3.68 241,583 Cupertino 2030 Target Emissions 3.39 222,867
2030 Expected Emissions with Implementation of CAP Update 3.39 222,436 MT of CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Implementation of the CAP Update measures identified in Table 2 could result in physical changes to the environment that could potentially have an impact on the environment. While individual projects resulting from these measures have not been identified for the purposes of this document, the types of actions that could result from realization of the CAP measures are taken into account in considering potential environmental impacts that could occur through implementation of the CAP Update. For example, the use of carbon-free electricity may require the installation of new infrastructure to accommodate use and transmission of alternative and renewable fuels. Similarly, the use of electric vehicles would require the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Additionally, CAP Update implementation may require the installation of new bicycle or pedestrian facilities. These types of activities would introduce physical changes, such as the temporary presence and operation of construction vehicles and equipment during installation 571
CC 08-16-2022
571 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 33
of required facilities, and the long-term presence of new facilities such as bike and pedestrian facilities, solar arrays, and electric vehicle charging stations, which could alter pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns. Future plans or projects requiring discretionary approval would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable.
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds
In 2007, SB 97 acknowledged that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents, and in 2010 the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines gave lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. Specifically, Section 15183.5(b)(1)A-G of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations was amended to state that a qualified GHG Reduction Plan, or a Climate Action Plan, may be used for tiering and streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions in subsequent CEQA project evaluation, provided that the GHG Reduction Plan or CAP does the following:
Quantifies GHG emissions both existing and projected over a specific period of time, resulting from activities within a defined geographical area Establishes a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable
Identifies and analyzes the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area
Specifies measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level
Establishes a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
Therefore, the City of Cupertino proposes to also adopt quantitative efficiency thresholds for use in evaluating whether a plan or project’s GHG emissions would result in a potentially significant environmental impact under CEQA for plans or projects with pre-2030 buildout or initial operation years. The CEQA GHG emissions thresholds would be applied to plans or projects that cannot tier from the environmental analysis for the City’s CAP (as contained in this IS-ND) due to one of the following circumstances, which are illustrated in Figure 5:
The plan or project would not be consistent with the Cupertino General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and would result in greater GHG emissions than existing on-site development; or
The plan or project would not be consistent with the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist.
572
CC 08-16-2022
572 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 34 Figure 5 Determining CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Methodology These thresholds are set at the level of GHG emissions that new development would need to achieve to be consistent with the CAP Update’s communitywide emissions reduction target of 3.39 MT CO2e per person by 2030. The efficiency thresholds, listed below, are expressed in terms of MTCO2e per service person14 and are applicable to plans or projects with pre-2030 buildout or initial operational years:
0.97 per resident
2.16 per employee
1.82 per service person15
Efficiency thresholds for beyond 2030 would be established later in conjunction with subsequent CAP Updates.
14 The service population is equal to the residential population plus half the number of jobs. 15 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino CEQA GHG Thresholds and Guidance. 573
CC 08-16-2022
573 of 1555
Initial Study
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 35
Plans or projects that do not tier from the Cupertino CAP Update IS-ND that would generate GHG emissions in excess of these thresholds would result in a potentially significant impact on the environment related to GHG emissions and climate change. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce potentially significant impacts resulting from such plans or projects. Plans or projects that are unable to reduce GHG emissions below these thresholds through implementation of identified mitigation measures would result in a significant and unavoidable environmental impact. The GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not have direct construction or operational impacts.
Cumulative Projects Scenario
For purposes of CEQA cumulative impacts analysis of the Cupertino CAP Update, the cumulative projects scenario is buildout of the Cupertino General Plan along with the in-progress Housing Element Update. The in-progress Housing Element Update buildout assumes an additional 6,000 housing units by the CAP Update horizon year of 2030. Buildout of the General Plan and in-progress Housing Element Update in Cupertino would result in an anticipated total population of 65,690 by 2030.16
Required Approvals
City of Cupertino
Required approvals include:
adoption of the CAP Update/GHG Emissions Thresholds Initial Study-Negative Declaration; approval of the CAP Update; and
adoption of a CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds resolution.
Although individual plans or projects may be implemented later under the umbrella of the CAP Update, each individual plan or project would be subject to separate environmental review under CEQA.
Other Public Agencies
The City of Cupertino has sole approval authority over the CAP Update. There are no other public agencies whose approval is required.
16 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Future GHG Emissions Forecasts Memorandum. 574
CC 08-16-2022
574 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 36 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
■ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 575
CC 08-16-2022
575 of 1555
Determination
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 37
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Lead Agency Representative Signature Date
Lead Agency Representative Printed Name Title
576
CC 08-16-2022
576 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 38 Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? □ □ ■ □
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are experienced
from a publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? c. In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The Cupertino General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identify the Santa Cruz Mountains and Montebello Foothills as the major scenic resources in the vicinity of Cupertino.17,18 However, the General Plan EIR notes that scenic views of these resources are generally limited to intermittent glimpses from major roadways such as Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead Road looking westward due to the built-out and flat nature of Cupertino. No streets or other locations within Cupertino have been designated by the City as scenic corridors or scenic 17 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan EIR. Available: <http://64.165.34.13/weblink/0/doc/391441/Electronic.aspx>. Accessed February 7, 2022.
18 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element. Available:
<https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/docview.aspx?dbid=0&id=873201&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 577
CC 08-16-2022
577 of 1555
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 39
vistas, although the General Plan does contain Policy LU-12.4, Hillside Views, that outlines the City’s goal of preserving hillside and mountain views.19,20
As policy and guidance documents, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds do not propose specific development or changes to land use and zoning that would result in impacts to scenic vistas and visual character or conflict with City policies regulating scenic resources. However, implementation of some CAP Update measures and actions may promote infrastructure development and other physical changes through policies and programs. CAP Update Actions BE2.7, BE-3.7, and BE-3.8 promote installation of small-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and battery energy storage systems to increase renewable energy generation and storage in Cupertino.
CAP Measure TR-1 encourages the installation of EV charging stations in order to support ZEV adoption. Additionally, CAP Update Measure CS-1 facilitates the expansion of the urban forest and Action CS-2.1 seeks to increase natural areas within Cupertino to support carbon sequestration, which could have a positive effect on scenic resources by adding new tree cover and green spaces.
While the CAP Update measures and actions may result in future projects that slightly alter the visual character of Cupertino, CAP Update-related projects would generally be limited to the existing developed areas of Cupertino and would be small-scale in nature. In addition, CAP Update-related projects and actions, including those identified above, would be required to adhere to City development zoning and regulations that protect aesthetic resources, including Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, which establishes the City’s Design Review process.21 Compliance with the CMC would ensure that potential future infrastructure development and redevelopment related to the CAP Update would be carefully integrated with the existing character of the Cupertino community, minimizing potential aesthetic impacts. In addition, CAP Update projects and actions would be reviewed for consistency with the Cupertino General Plan policies related to scenic resources prior to approval. Thus, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less than significant impact related to scenic vistas and visual character or scenic quality.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no officially designated state scenic highways within Cupertino. In addition, the City has not designated any local roadways as scenic corridors.22 The nearest designated state scenic highway is a portion of State Route 9 running approximately from Saratoga Avenue to Rose Avenue located two miles to the southeast of Cupertino city limits at its closest point. In addition, I-280 from the Santa Clara County line to Interstate 880 (I-880) is eligible for listing as a state scenic highway but has not been officially designated.23
Due to the distance between Cupertino and the nearest designated State scenic highway, as well as the developed nature of Cupertino and the surrounding communities, views of Cupertino from I-280 19 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan EIR. Available: <http://64.165.34.13/weblink/0/doc/391441/Electronic.aspx>. Accessed February 7, 2022.
20 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element. Available:
<https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/docview.aspx?dbid=0&id=873201&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 21 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.168. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 22 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan EIR. Available: <http://64.165.34.13/weblink/0/doc/391441/Electronic.aspx>. Accessed February 7, 2022.
23 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2022. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available:
<https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 578
CC 08-16-2022
578 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 40 are not available. The portion of I-280 that is eligible for designation as a State scenic highway passes through the northernmost area of Cupertino and the northern portions of the City are visible from this roadway. As policy and guidance documents, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds do not propose specific development or changes to land use and zoning that would result in impacts to scenic resources within a State scenic highway. However, implementation of some CAP Update measures and actions may promote infrastructure development that could alter the visual quality of future project sites.
CAP Update Actions BE-2.7, BE-3.7, and BE-3.8 promote installation of small-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and battery energy storage systems to increase renewable energy generation and storage in Cupertino. CAP Measure TR-1 encourages the installation of EV charging stations in order to support ZEV adoption. Additionally, CAP Update Measure CS-1 facilitates the expansion of the urban forest and Action CS-2.1 seeks to increase natural areas within Cupertino to support carbon sequestration. Depending on the location of future CAP Update-related projects, such infrastructure may be visible from I-280. However, discretionary development would be required to adhere to City development regulations, such as CMC Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, in order to retain character of Cupertino and minimize environmental impacts.24 In addition, discretionary development would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan prior to approval. Thus, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less-than-significant impact related to State scenic highways.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Cupertino is an urbanized community and contains many existing sources of light and glare including street and vehicle lighting, security lighting, interior and exterior building lighting, and reflective building materials. The CAP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes that could result in intensified development and associated sources of light and glare. Rather the CAP Update would promote sustainable infrastructure development and redevelopment that is complimentary to existing land uses in Cupertino. Likewise, the GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, as policy documents, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would not directly result in impacts related to light and glare. However, implementation of CAP Update Actions BE-2.7, BE-3.7, and BE3.8 promote installation of small-scale solar PV systems and battery energy storage systems to increase renewable energy generation and storage in Cupertino. Solar panels have the potential to result in new sources of glare within Cupertino if not thoughtfully designed and located. The design and location of future solar infrastructure would be complimentary to existing development in Cupertino, such as the addition of small-scale rooftop solar panels, which would reduce potential glare impacts. Furthermore, CAP Update projects and actions would be reviewed for consistency with the CCR Title 24 lighting standards (CCR Title 24 Part 6), CMC Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, and CMC Chapter 19.102, Glass and Lighting Standards, which provide requirements for exterior lighting and building materials to limit glare and light trespass, including nighttime light 24 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.168. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 579
CC 08-16-2022
579 of 1555
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 41
trespass.25,26,27 In addition, CAP Update projects or actions would be reviewed for consistency with the Cupertino General Plan and other applicable regulatory land use actions prior to approval.
Compliance with these regulations would minimize environmental impacts related to light and glare by limiting the use of highly reflective materials and requiring the shielding of exterior lighting.
Thus, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less-than-significant impact related to light and glare.
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is buildout of the Cupertino General Plan and the in-progress Housing Element Update. Buildout of the General Plan and in-progress Housing Element Update in Cupertino would result in an anticipated total population of 65,690 by 2030.28. Cumulative impacts related to scenic resources and visual character would generally be site-specific, and cumulative projects are not anticipated to contribute to cumulative aesthetic impacts with adherence to Cupertino General Plan policies and the CMC. Likewise, although increased development associated with buildout of the General Plan would result in increased sources of light and glare within Cupertino, the General Plan EIR determined that adherence to the CMC and General Plan policies would ensure that cumulative development anticipated under buildout of the General Plan would not result in significant light and glare impacts.29 Because of the developed nature of Cupertino, future infrastructure projects under the CAP Update, in combination with other cumulative projects anticipated under Cupertino General Plan buildout, would be small scale and would not adversely impact the visual character of the Cupertino community. In addition, future development in Cupertino would be required to comply with the City’s Design Review process and be reviewed against applicable Cupertino General Plan policies and City’s design standards for design quality and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics.
25 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings.
Available: <https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF_0.pdf>. Accessed February 17, 2022. 26 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.168. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 27 Ibid.
28 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Future GHG Emissions Forecasts Memorandum. 29 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan EIR. Available: <http://64.165.34.13/weblink/0/doc/391441/Electronic.aspx>. Accessed February 7, 2022.
580
CC 08-16-2022
580 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 42 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? e.1. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Cupertino is characterized primarily by urban and suburban development. Maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identify Cupertino as Urban and Built-up Land, and no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is mapped within 581
CC 08-16-2022
581 of 1555
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 43
Cupertino.30 Likewise, there are no Williamson Act contracts within Cupertino.31 Cupertino contains a few scattered areas with zoning designations of Agriculture Residential (A) primarily located near the fringes of Cupertino city limits to the southwest, northwest, and northeast.32 The Cupertino General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element includes Goal LU-12 to preserve and protect the City’s hillside and natural areas by maintaining the low-intensity residential, agricultural, and open space uses in Cupertino.33
The CAP Update measures and actions focus on electrification of buildings, improving active transportation, ZEV and public transit infrastructure, water conservation, reducing solid waste sent to landfills, and increasing carbon sequestration through additional trees and greenspace. CAP Update actions would not involve projects or policies that would result in increased development or impacts related to conversion or loss of farmland. Additionally, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning that could result in the loss of farmland or conflict with existing agricultural zoning.
Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in no impact related to degradation of agricultural resources or conversion of agricultural land to non-agriculture uses, nor would there be a conflict with existing zoning or Cupertino General Plan land use designations. c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e.2. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use? According to the General Plan EIR, Cupertino does not contain forest or timberland resources, and no parcels are zoned for Timberland Production.34,35 CMC Chapter 14.12, Protected Tree Ordinance, establishes policies, regulations, and standards to ensure tree protection within the City.36 In addition, the Cupertino General Plan contains a number of goals, policies, and strategies such as Policy LU-6.7, Heritage Trees, Strategy LU-12.3.3, Trees, and Strategy ES-2.1.5, Urban Forest, that illustrate the City’s commitment to managing and preserving Cupertino’s urban forest.
The CAP Update aligns with the Cupertino’s General Plan by including measures such as CAP Update Measure CS-1, which seeks to facilitate the implementation of an urban forest master plan to 30 California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder Map. Available at:
<https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/>. Accessed February 17, 2022. 31 Santa Clara County. 2022. Williamson Act Properties. Available at:
<https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1f39e32b4c0644b0915354c3e59778ce>. Accessed February 17, 2022.
32 Cupertino, City of. 2019. Zoning Map. Available at:
<https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/13535/637279090319370000>. Accessed February 17, 2022. 33 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element. Available:
<https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/docview.aspx?dbid=0&id=873201&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 34 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan EIR. Available: <http://64.165.34.13/weblink/0/doc/391441/Electronic.aspx>. Accessed February 7, 2022.
35 Cupertino, City of. 2019. Zoning Map. Available at:
<https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/13535/637279090319370000>. Accessed February 17, 2022. 36 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 582
CC 08-16-2022
582 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 44 increase the number of trees throughout Cupertino. The CAP Update does not include actions that would result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use, nor would it conflict with or cause the rezoning of forest, timber land, or Timberland Production areas. Likewise, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning that could result in the loss of forestland or conflict with existing zoning for forest uses. Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in no impact related to degradation of forestry resources or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, nor would there be a conflict with existing zoning.
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is buildout of the Cupertino General Plan and the in-progress Housing Element Update. Buildout of the General Plan and in-progress Housing Element Update in Cupertino would result in an anticipated total population of 65,690 by 2030.37 As Cupertino’s population grows and development intensifies in the future with buildout of the General Plan, there is the potential for loss of the limited areas of farmland within Cupertino. However, as discussed above, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds do not propose new development, including new development on farmland, and do not include any measures or actions that would significantly impact agricultural resources. Likewise, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would not involve land use or zoning changes that could result in cumulative impacts related to conversion or loss of farmland or forest land. Rather, CAP Update Measure CS-1 would ensure that the urban forest is maintained and that additional trees are planted throughout Cupertino. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in no cumulative impact related to agricultural and forestry resources.
37 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Future GHG Emissions Forecasts Memorandum. 583
CC 08-16-2022
583 of 1555
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 45
This page intentionally left blank.
584
CC 08-16-2022
584 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 46 3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard? □ □ ■ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) governs air quality in the United States and is administered by the U.S. EPA at the federal level. Air quality in California is also governed by regulations under the California CAA, which is administered by CARB at the State level. At the regional and local levels, local air districts typically administer the federal and California CAA. As part of implementing the federal and California CAA, the U.S. EPA and CARB have established ambient air quality standards for major pollutants at thresholds intended to protect public health. Cupertino is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (the Air Basin), which includes the nine Bay Area counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, southwestern Solano, and southern Sonoma. The Air Basin is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, BAAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, the Air Basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” Under State law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-attainment. BAAQMD is in nonattainment for the State and federal ozone standards, the State and federal PM2.5 (particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in size) standards, and the State PM10 (particulate matter up to 10 microns in size) standards and is required to prepare a plan for improvement.38 The sources, health effects, and typical controls associated with criteria pollutants are described in Appendix A. 38 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Available:
<http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status>. Accessed February 17, 2022. 585
CC 08-16-2022
585 of 1555
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 47
The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan provides a plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health as well as the climate. The legal impetus for the Clean Air Plan is to update the most recent ozone plan, the 2010 Clean Air Plan, to comply with State air quality planning requirements as codified in the California Health and Safety Code. Although steady progress has been made toward reducing ozone levels in the Bay Area, the region continues to be designated as non‐attainment for both the one‐hour and eight‐hour State ozone standards as noted previously. In addition, emissions of ozone precursors in the Bay Area contribute to air quality problems in neighboring air basins.
Under these circumstances, State law requires the Clean Air Plan to include all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors and reduce transport of ozone precursors to neighboring air basins.39
The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) mandate that states submit and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for areas not meeting air quality standards. The SIP includes pollution control measures to demonstrate how the standards will be met through those measures. The SIP is established by incorporating measures established during the preparation of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) and adopted rules and regulations by each local Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and AQMD, which are submitted for approval to CARB and the U.S. EPA.40 The goal of an AQMP is to reduce pollutant concentrations below the NAAQS through the implementation of air pollutant emissions controls.
The CAP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes or specific development. Rather the CAP Update would promote sustainable infrastructure development and redevelopment that is complimentary to existing land uses in Cupertino. Likewise, the GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning.
CAP Update measures and actions focus on increasing the use of renewable energy, building electrification, improving active transportation, ZEV and public transit infrastructure, increasing urban trees, and reducing waste production and water use. Implementation of CAP Update actions, such as those aimed at reducing VMT, electrifying vehicles, and reducing natural gas use through building electrification, would have co-benefits to air quality within the Air Basin, would help BAAQMD meet applicable air quality plan goals, and would generally reduce sensitive receptor exposure to pollutant concentrations. Although the purpose and intended effect of the CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions generated in Cupertino to help reduce the effects of climate change, many of its actions would also reduce criteria pollutant (i.e., air quality) emissions. CAP Update Measures BE-2 through BE-4 involve reducing the use of natural gas through building electrification of new and existing buildings, thereby reducing criteria pollutants associated with building energy use. In addition, CAP Update Measures TR-1 and TR-2 seek to improve active transportation and public transit facilities and programs in order to reduce VMT and increase the use of sustainable transportation options in Cupertino. CAP Update Measures TR-3 and TR-5 encourage the adoption of ZEVs and low-emissions off-road vehicles and equipment by enhancing EV infrastructure and providing incentives for community members and commercial fleets to purchase ZEVs and allelectric equipment such as lawnmowers and leaf blowers. Additionally, CAP Update Measure TR-4 includes actions to disincentivize the use of single-occupancy diesel and gasoline vehicles. These energy- and transportation-related strategies would reduce air quality emissions as well as GHG emissions. Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds are consistent with the 2017 39BAAQMD. 2017. Final Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area.
Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Available: <http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en>. Accessed February 17, 2022. 40 CARB. 2017. 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan. Available:
<https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016sip.htm>. Accessed February 17, 2022. 586
CC 08-16-2022
586 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 48 Clean Air Plan and would have no impact related to a conflict with or obstruction of the applicable air quality plan.
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
The GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to an increase of criteria pollutants. Likewise, the CAP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote sustainable infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the CAP Update would not result in impacts related to criteria pollutants. However, implementation of the following CAP Update actions may promote construction activities that would temporarily generate criteria pollutants during the construction phase.
CAP Update Actions BE-2.4, BE-2.6, BE-2.7, BE-2.9 through BE-2.11, BE-3.1, BE-3.5, BE-3.6, and BE3.8 promote electrification of existing residential and commercial buildings, which may require minor construction to modify the electrical and natural gas connections to existing buildings. CAP Update Actions TR-1.1 through TR-1.5 would encourage development of new bicycle infrastructure, which may involve construction activities to create new bike lanes and bike/pedestrian paths throughout Cupertino. CAP Update Actions TR-3.2, TR-3.4, and TR-3.12 would incentivize or require the installation of new EV charging stations. In addition, CAP Update Action CS-1.3 seeks to increase the number of trees throughout Cupertino, which may require the use of construction equipment for the moving and placement of trees.
Construction-related air quality impacts are generally associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction vehicles and soil hauling trucks, in addition to reactive organic gases (ROG) that would be released during the drying phase upon application of architectural coatings. However, implementation of CAP Update actions would not include largescale construction within Cupertino and would involve temporary and short-term criteria pollutant emissions. In addition, future projects would be required to comply with CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, which includes measures to reduce pollutant emissions during construction.41 As such, the CAP Update would result in low-level criteria pollutant emissions and negligible impacts to air quality. CAP Update projects or actions would also be reviewed for consistency with BAAQMD air quality regulations and other applicable local, State, and federal regulations once project details and locations are known. Thus, the construction required for implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than-significant impact related to net increase of criteria pollutants.
With respect to operational emissions, many of the CAP Update actions would have the secondary benefit of reducing criteria pollutant emissions, such as strategies aiming to increase reduce natural gas use, promote EVs, reduce on- and off-road gasoline fuel use, and reduce VMT. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would be beneficial by helping Cupertino meet applicable air quality plan goals. In addition, future CAP Update projects would be required to comply with local, regional, and State air quality regulations. Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less-than-significant impact related to criteria pollutant emissions. 41 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 17.04. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 587
CC 08-16-2022
587 of 1555
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 49
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, implementation of the CAP Update actions as described under Response 3b., above, promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that may result in temporary construction activities. Construction-related air quality impacts are generally associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction vehicles and soil hauling trucks, in addition to ROG that would be released during the drying phase upon application of architectural coatings. However, implementation of CAP Update actions would not include large-scale construction, construction-related emissions would be temporary, and construction would be required to comply with the environmental protection measures identified in CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, such as dust control and low-ROG coating requirements.42 As such, implementation of the CAP Update would result in low-level toxic air contaminant emissions associated with construction.
While the CAP Update could result in construction-related impacts related to toxic air contaminants and exposure to sensitive receptors, CAP Update projects or actions would be reviewed for consistency with BAAQMD air quality regulations and other applicable local, State, and federal regulations, such as CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, once project details and locations are known to ensure compliance. Thus, construction associated with implementation of the CAP Update would not result in substantial emissions of toxic air contaminants and exposure to sensitive receptors. No operational toxic air contaminant emissions are anticipated with implementation of the CAP Update. Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would have a less-than-significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The CARB 2005 Air Quality Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective identifies land uses associated with odor complaints which include: sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, waste transfer stations, petroleum refineries, biomass operations, auto body shops, coating operations, fiberglass manufacturing, foundries, rendering plants, and livestock operations.43 The GHG Emissions Thresholds would provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not have construction or operational impacts related to odors. The CAP Update includes Measure W-1a which seeks to reduce community landfilled organics by 75 percent by 2025 and reduce inorganic waste by 35 percent by 2030. Actions associated with this measure include implementing the organic waste diversion requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 1383, encouraging food waste diversion at residential, commercial and institutional developments, and increasing access to recycling facilities and programs. As such, the CAP Update could result in minor odors related to organic waste collection. However, green waste collection bins and compost application are not identified on the list of “Sources of Odor Complaints” (Table 1-4) as provided in 42 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 17.04. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 43 CARB. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at:
<https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf>. Accessed February 17, 2022. 588
CC 08-16-2022
588 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 50 the CARB Air Quality Land Use Handbook and would not be anticipated to result in other odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.44 Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Thresholds would not facilitate development that could create odors, and there would be a lessthan-significant impact related to odors exposure.
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is buildout of the Cupertino General Plan and the in-progress Housing Element Update. Buildout of the General Plan and in-progress Housing Element Update in Cupertino would result in an anticipated total population of 65,690 by 2030.45 Cumulative projects anticipated under Cupertino General Plan buildout could exceed applicable BAAQMD thresholds or be inconsistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. However, implementation of the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would have a less-than-significant contribution related to potential cumulative air quality impacts within the air basin and on sensitive receptors within Cupertino, given that the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in community-wide reduction of GHG emissions, energy use, single-occupancy vehicle travel, and associated air pollutant emissions. As such, implementation of the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in adverse impacts related to contribution of criteria pollutants to the air basin and exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact related to air quality.
44 CARB. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at:
<https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf>. Accessed February 17, 2022. 45 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Future GHG Emissions Forecasts Memorandum. 589
CC 08-16-2022
589 of 1555
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 51
This page intentionally left blank.
590
CC 08-16-2022
590 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 52 4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ ■ □
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ □ ■
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
591
CC 08-16-2022
591 of 1555
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 53
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Cupertino is a primarily urbanized community with limited habitat to support special status species.
However, natural areas in the western boundary of Cupertino, within the Montebello Foothills, and along Stevens Creek may provide habitat that supports special status species such as California redlegged frog, western leatherwood, white-tailed kite, and Cooper’s hawk.46 In addition, migratory and nesting birds protected by Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) may utilize trees, landscaping, and structures throughout Cupertino for nesting habitat. CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, CMC Chapter 14.12, Protected Tree Ordinance, and the Cupertino General Plan Environmental Resources Element incorporate goals and policies to protect biological resources, such as plants, trees, wildlife habitats, wetlands and rivers, and rare and endangered species in Cupertino.47, 48, 49
The GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not have construction or operational impacts related to special status species and their habitats. Likewise, the CAP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes. Rather the CAP Update would address infrastructure development and programming to reduce GHG emissions and increase sustainable practices within Cupertino. As a policy document, the CAP Update would not directly result in impacts related to wildlife species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status. However, implementation of the following CAP Update measures and actions may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment and may result in impacts to species through construction activities.
CAP Update Actions BE-2.4, BE-2.6, BE-2.7, BE-2.9 through BE-2.11, BE-3.1, BE-3.5, BE-3.6, and BE3.8 promote electrification of existing residential and commercial buildings, which may require minor construction to modify the electrical and natural gas connections to existing buildings. CAP Update Actions TR-1.1 through TR-1.5 would encourage development of new bicycle infrastructure, which may involve construction activities to create new bike lanes and bike/pedestrian paths throughout Cupertino. CAP Update Actions TR-3.2, TR-3.4, and TR-3.12 would incentivize or require the installation of new EV charging stations. In addition, CAP Update Action CS-1.3 seeks to plant additional trees throughout Cupertino, which may require the use of construction equipment for the moving and placement of trees. These actions have the potential to disturb nesting habitat for birds and raptors protected under the CFGC and MBTA. However, construction activities for future CAP Update projects would be required to comply with the provisions of the MBTA and CFCG, as well as CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, which includes requirements for nesting bird and roosting bat avoidance. Compliance with City, State, and federal 46 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan EIR. Available: <http://64.165.34.13/weblink/0/doc/391441/Electronic.aspx>. Accessed February 7, 2022.
47 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 17.04. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 48 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 49 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element. Available:
<https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/docview.aspx?dbid=0&id=873201&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 592
CC 08-16-2022
592 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 54 requirements for the protection of special status species would be required for all future CAP Update-related projects and would minimize the potential for impacts to biological resources.
Furthermore, the CAP Update measures and actions would not conflict with the CMC or objectives and policies of the Cupertino General Plan related to wildlife but would rather be consistent with and promote those policies. CAP Update measures and actions involving infrastructure development or redevelopment would generally apply to the urbanized areas of Cupertino, with little application to parks, open spaces area, or undeveloped portions of Cupertino where sensitive habitat and related species may be present. In addition, CAP Update Measure CS-1 facilitates the implementation of an urban forest master plan that would increase tree canopy throughout Cupertino and Action CS-2.1 would create new natural areas to support a biodiverse ecology and improve carbon sequestration. These measures and actions would help increase habitat for special status species and migratory and nesting birds. As such, the CAP Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on candidate, threatened, or endangered wildlife species either directly through individual take or indirectly through species habitat modification. Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less-than-significant impact related to special-status wildlife species.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Approximately 80 percent of Cupertino consists of urban land that does not support sensitive natural communities or wetlands. Sensitive natural communities within Cupertino are generally limited to the western fringes of Cupertino and include freshwater marsh, riparian scrub and forest, valley oak woodland, redwood forest, and chaparral. In addition, Stevens Creek, Calabazas Creek, Saratoga Creek, Regnart Creek, and Heney Creek run through Cupertino.50 CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, CMC Chapter 14.12, Protected Tree Ordinance, and the Cupertino General Plan Environmental Resources Element incorporate goals and policies to protect biological resources, including sensitive habitats and wetlands and in Cupertino.51, 52, 53 The GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not have construction or operational impacts related to riparian, wetland, or other sensitive habitats. Likewise, the CAP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote sustainable infrastructure development and redevelopment within urbanized areas of Cupertino, with little application to parks, open spaces area, or other locations where riparian, wetland, and sensitive habitat is located. Furthermore, CAP Update Measure CS-1 50 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan EIR. Available: <http://64.165.34.13/weblink/0/doc/391441/Electronic.aspx>. Accessed February 7, 2022.
51 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 17.04. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 52 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 53 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element. Available:
<https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/docview.aspx?dbid=0&id=873201&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 593
CC 08-16-2022
593 of 1555
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 55
facilitates the implementation of an urban forest master plan that would increase tree canopy throughout Cupertino and Action CS-2.1 would create new natural areas to support a biodiverse ecology, increase recreation opportunities, and improve carbon sequestration. These measures and actions align with the Cupertino General Plan Environmental Resources Element goals and policies related to the preservation of sensitive habitats, such as Goal ES-5 which seeks to protect riparian, natural, and sensitive habitats in the rural areas of Cupertino.
In addition, future CAP Update-related projects would be required to adhere to City development regulations and Cupertino General Plan policies, including CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, and CMC Chapter 14.12, Protected Tree Ordinance, to limit the potential for project impacts to biological resources. In addition, the location and details of future CAP Update-related projects would be reviewed for consistency with applicable local, regional, and State regulations related to sensitive habitat prior to approval. As such, the CAP Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or sensitive natural community, such as wetlands. Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would have a less-than-significant impact related to sensitive natural plant communities. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Cupertino is largely developed and offers limited habitat to provide migratory wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites. Areas that may support wildlife movement are generally limited to the western fringes of Cupertino in the Montebello Foothills, as well as the creeks and streams that traverse Cupertino including Stevens Creek, Calabazas Creek, Saratoga Creek, Regnart Creek, and Heney Creek run through Cupertino.54 CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, CMC Chapter 14.12, Protected Tree Ordinance, and the Cupertino General Plan Environmental Resources Element incorporate goals and policies to protect biological resources, including habitat that could support migratory wildlife corridors and nursery sites.55, 56, 57 For example, the Cupertino General Plan Environmental Resources Element includes Policy ES-5.4, Hillside Wildlife Migration, which seeks to maintain wildlife access to migratory corridors within the hillsides in western Cupertino.
The GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not have construction or operational impacts related to interference with species movement or wildlife nurseries. Likewise, the CAP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote sustainable infrastructure development and redevelopment within urbanized areas of Cupertino, with little application to parks, open spaces area, or other locations where habitat supporting wildlife migration and nurseries may be present. Furthermore, CAP Update Measure CS-1 facilitates the implementation of an urban forest master plan that would increase tree canopy throughout Cupertino and Action CS-2.1 would create new natural areas to 54 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan EIR. Available: <http://64.165.34.13/weblink/0/doc/391441/Electronic.aspx>. Accessed February 7, 2022.
55 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 17.04. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 56 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 57 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element. Available:
<https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/docview.aspx?dbid=0&id=873201&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 594
CC 08-16-2022
594 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 56 support a biodiverse ecology, increase recreation opportunities, and improve carbon sequestration.
These measures and actions align with the Cupertino General Plan Environmental Resources Element goals and policies related to the preservation of natural habitats, such as Goal ES-5 which seeks to protect habitats that support wildlife movement in the rural areas of Cupertino.
In addition, future CAP Update-related projects would be required to adhere to City development regulations and Cupertino General Plan policies, including CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, and CMC Chapter 14.12, Protected Tree Ordinance, to limit the potential for project impacts to biological resources. In addition, the location and details of future CAP Update-related projects would be reviewed for consistency with applicable local, regional, and State regulations related to sensitive habitat prior to approval. As such, the CAP Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on wildlife migratory corridors or nursery sites.
Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would have a less-than-significant impact related to interference with species movement or wildlife nursery use. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, as well as the General Plan Environmental Resources Element incorporate goals and policies for biological resources protection within Cupertino.58, 59 Additionally, CMC Chapter 14.18, Protected Tree Ordinance, was established to preserve trees and enhance the ecological benefit to the community by providing for the regulation of planting, management, maintenance, preservation and, where necessary, removal of trees.60
The GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not have construction or operational impacts related to biological resources.
Likewise, the CAP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote sustainable infrastructure development and redevelopment within urbanized areas of Cupertino.
The purpose and intended effect of the CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions generated in Cupertino to help reduce the effects of climate change. Implementation of proposed CAP Update measures and actions would be beneficial by helping Cupertino meet applicable local policies and ordinances for protecting biological resources, including the CMC Chapter 14.18, Protected Tree Ordinance, and the General Plan Environmental Resources Element goals. Specifically, CAP Update Measure CS-1 facilitates the implementation of an urban forest master plan that would increase tree canopy throughout Cupertino and Action CS-2.1 would create new natural areas to support a biodiverse ecology, increase recreation opportunities, and improve carbon sequestration. Future CAP Update-related projects would also be required to comply with CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Measures, and CMC Chapter 14.18, Protected Tree Ordinance, during any construction activities. As such, the CAP Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable policies for preserving biological resources and would not affect the City’s ability to attain goals and policies that protect biological resources. Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG 58 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 17.04. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 59 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element. Available:
<https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/docview.aspx?dbid=0&id=873201&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 60 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 595
CC 08-16-2022
595 of 1555
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 57
Emissions Thresholds would result in no impact related to consistency with local biological resources protection policies.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
No portion of Cupertino is currently subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, CMC Chapter 14.12, Protected Tree Ordinance, and the Cupertino General Plan Environmental Resources Element incorporate goals and policies to protect biological resources in Cupertino.61, 62, 63 The GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not have construction or operational impacts related to conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or the applicable Cupertino policies and goals related to biological resources. Likewise, The CAP Update would not facilitate specific development projects, nor would it add or enable new development that would conflict with the CMC or General Plan. Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would have no impact related to consistency with an adopted habitat or natural community conservation plan.
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is buildout of the Cupertino General Plan and the in-progress Housing Element Update. Buildout of the General Plan and in-progress Housing Element Update in Cupertino would result in an anticipated total population of 65,690 by 2030.64. As a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in any development or land use changes that could lead to cumulative impacts. Implementation of CAP Update projects, in combination with other cumulative projects anticipated under General Plan buildout, could result in impacts to biological resources during infrastructure and building construction. However, as described in Responses 4a. through 4f., above, infrastructure development or redevelopment resulting from implementation of the CAP Update would be required to comply with applicable Cupertino General Plan policies, Cupertino Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, and State and federal regulatory requirements regarding avoidance of special wildlife species and habitat. In addition, the CAP Update would not result in new building construction and contains actions that prioritize the preservation of trees and natural habitats. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact related to biological resources.
61 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 17.04. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 62 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18. Available:
<https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96144>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 63 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element. Available:
<https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/docview.aspx?dbid=0&id=873201&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 64 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Future GHG Emissions Forecasts Memorandum. 596
CC 08-16-2022
596 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 58 5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant
to §15064.5? □ □ ■ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ ■ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
According to the City’s General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, there are 13 historic sites, 14 commemorative sites, and nine community landmarks of historical significance within Cupertino. General Plan Goal LU-6 and its associated policies and strategies outline the City’s intention to preserve these historic and cultural resources.65 The GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to historical resources.
Likewise, the CAP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that would be complimentary to existing development. CAP Update projects would be required to comply with Cupertino General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element goals, policies, and programs related to the preservation of historic resources, including Policy LU-6.2, Historic Sites, and Policy LU-6.3, Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites, and Community Landmarks. These Policies require that any projects on historic sites meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and require that any projects on historic sites, commemorative sites, and community landmarks provide educational and commemorative tools on the project site to explain the historic significance of the resource. CAP Update-related projects and actions would be reviewed for compliance with applicable local, regional, and State regulations regarding cultural resources and the Cupertino General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element to avoid adverse impacts related to historic resources. Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less-thansignificant impact related to historical resources. 65 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element. Available:
<https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/docview.aspx?dbid=0&id=873201&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 597
CC 08-16-2022
597 of 1555
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Final Initial Study–Negative Declaration 59
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The Cupertino General Plan EIR identifies a number of recorded archaeological resources within Cupertino and notes the potential for undiscovered archaeological resources throughout the Santa Clara Valley area.66 General Plan Goal LU-6 and its associated policies and strategies outline the City’s intention to preserve cultural resources within Cupertino.67 In addition, CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, establishes specific requirements in Section
17.04.050(E), Cultural Resources Permit Requirements, for the protection of archaeological resources during project development.68
The GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not have construction or operational impacts related to archaeological resources.
Likewise, the CAP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that would generally be limited to previously developed and disturbed areas of Cupertino where the presence of archaeological resources is unlikely. Nonetheless, there is a possibility for archaeological sites not previously recorded to be present in areas where CAP Update projects could occur. In particular, CAP Update Actions BE-2.4, BE-2.6, BE-2.7, BE-2.9 through BE-2.11, BE-3.1, BE-3.5, BE-3.6, BE-3.8, TR-1.1 through TR-1.5, TR-3.2, TR-3.4, TR-3.12, WW-1.7, and CS-1.3 may result in small-scale construction that could expose previously undiscovered archaeological resources during ground disturbing activities.
Future CAP Update projects would be located and designed strategically to reduce ground disturbance to the maximum extent possible. In addition, CAP Update projects and actions would be reviewed for consistency with applicable local, regional, and State archeological regulations prior to final siting and construction and would be required to implement best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements.
The CMC includes specific requirements for projects in areas with no known archaeological resources, including construction crew training on the potential for the discovery of archaeological resources and requirements for the protection and investigation of any archaeological resources encountered during ground disturbance, as well as more stringent requirements for archaeological assessments for sites where known cultural resources exist. As such, archeological resources would be protected prior to and/or upon discovery and, thus, impacts would be reduced to a minimal level. Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less-thansignificant impact related to archaeological resources. c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There is a possibility of encountering unknown buried human remains throughout Cupertino. The GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not have construction or operational impacts related to human remains. Likewise, the CAP Update 66 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan EIR. Available: <http://64.165.34.13/weblink/0/doc/391441/Electronic.aspx>. Accessed February 7, 2022.
67 Cupertino, City of. 2014. General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element. Available:
<https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/docview.aspx?dbid=0&id=873201&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1>. Accessed February 7, 2022. 68 Cupertino, City of. 2022. Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 17.04. Available: < https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-97167#JD_Ch.17.04>. Accessed February 16, 2022. 598
CC 08-16-2022
598 of 1555
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan Update & CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds 60 would not involve land use or zoning changes but would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that would generally be limited to previously developed and disturbed areas of Cupertino where the presence of human remains is unlikely. However, there is the potential for future CAP Update-related projects to encounter unknown human remains during project construction activities. As established in CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, future CAP Update projects would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 regulations related to burial findings, including notification, assessment, and treatment of burial sites.
Therefore, the CAP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less-than-significant impact related to human remains.
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is buildout of the Cupertino General Plan and the in-progress Housing Element Update. Buildout of the General Plan and in-progress Housing Element Update in Cupertino would result in an anticipated total population of 65,690 by 2030.69. Planned buildout of the City of Cupertino under the General Plan would cumulatively increase the potential for adverse effects on historic and archaeological resources in Cupertino. As a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts; however, the CAP Update could incrementally contribute to this cumulative effect through small scale construction activities that could affect previously undiscovered cultural resources. Impacts to historic and archaeological resources are generally site-specific. Accordingly, as required under applicable laws and regulations, potential impacts associated with future development in Cupertino, including CAP Update-related projects, would be addressed on a case-by-case basis as project details and locations are determined. Future projects in Cupertino, including those associated with implementation of the CAP Update, would be required to comply with the Cupertino General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies and CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, that require the identification and protection of sites and structures of historical, archaeological, and cultural significance in order to avoid impacts related to cultural resources.