Attachment A
Subject: Detailed Responses to Questions from June 2022 City Council Study Session
Submitted by: Andre Duurvoort, Sustainability Division Manager
On June 21, the Council reviewed the Public Review Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0 and Councilmembers asked clarifying questions and provided feedback on the draft plan.
Below are responses to questions raised by Councilmembers from the June 21 Study Session.
Q: One thing that would help me is if the different actions to be collected together, e.g., in one of the appendices, rather than scrolling through the whole doc, could see everything easily.
A: See CAP 2.0 Greenhouse Gas Thresholds Draft IS-ND Initial Study, pages 15 – 28 for this listing. (https://engagecupertino.org/11845/widgets/34981/documents/31752)
Q: How to help homeowners in preparation of what will be needed as we make these changes to all-electric. If we can have funding support for residents and commercial buildings to electrify old buildings.
A: For Measure BE-2, Actions 1 to 3 commit the City to developing an existing building electrification strategy (BES) as a first step towards implementing a residential building electrification ordinance. This action is moving forward this fiscal year in the City Work Program.
Existing building electrification is relatively untested at a city scale, suggesting that a Cupertino-specific strategy is key to successful outcomes. The BES is designed to develop options, such as ordinances or incentive programs, and give special consideration to the potential equity impacts of an electrification ordinance by investigating up-front and on-bill costs of electrification to residents, potential impacts to renters, potential impacts to electrical grid resiliency (Action 1), and by specifically targeting under-represented groups for feedback on BES development (Action 3). {Appendix E, pg. 14}
In general, electrification of existing buildings presents many questions that need to be answered, especially about costs to upgrade buildings and who bears those costs. Actions 13 and 14 build the support and funding pathway to make existing building electrification possible, particularly looking at financial supports for low- or fixed-income residents of the City. Demonstrating cost effective pathways for existing building electrification will be a key step before mandatory requirements can be set. {Appendix E, pg. 18}
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. To address these GHG emissions, the City is committed to maintain its electrification ordinance for newly constructed buildings. HVAC system and hot water heaters are targeted in the CAP 2.0 due to their large contribution to residential natural gas end-uses and the cost-effectiveness associated with their replacement on burnout. {Appendix E, pg. 14, 15}
Q: BE-2 Electrify existing residential compared to BE-3 Electrify commercial buildings.
Seems like it is less strict on commercial buildings. What is the philosophy behind that, did this take into consideration structures like the Apple Headquarters?
Natural gas usage from residential buildings accounted for about 13% of GHG emissions in Cupertino in 2018. Natural gas usage from commercial buildings accounted for about 15% of GHG emissions in Cupertino in 2018. The proposed measures for both residential and commercial sectors are identical, however the timeline for the commercial electrification ordinance is phased later in the Plan. This is to allow for time for study and engagement - technologies that currently exist for electrifying the home have proven to be more difficult at the scale of large commercial, multi-family, and industrial buildings. Fortunately, for many large commercial enterprises in our region, corporate sustainability programs are moving towards decarbonization and clean energy strategies independent of government actions. This trend has proven to be durable among Silicon Valley companies and allows the City to learn from and partner with corporate actors where appropriate, while providing specific support and resources for small- and medium-sized businesses.
{Appendix E, pg. 23} To close the knowledge gap about commercial building electrification in Cupertino, Actions 1 through 4 (BE-3) develops options and opportunities associated with electrification of commercial natural gas appliances.
To address these GHG emissions, the electrification strategy will provide City Council with more analysis and options for how to address replacement of commercial equipment at time of major renovation and time of replacement. {Appendix E, pg. 20-21}
Q: Looking at City of Emeryville, believe they have installed solar on most if not all city- owned buildings, can we look into this as a policy as we are doing maintenance and upgrades on buildings.
So when we do remodeling or rebuild, we will put our 100% effort to make our City facilities a model of climate action. Another model example was Sunnyvale City Hall.
A: The project team decided to focus on community-based Measures in this update to the Climate Action Plan 2.0. Once the CAP 2.0 is adopted by City Council, the Sustainability Division will take lead to adapt the plan and internalize it into City operations. The key areas for City operations are to renovate the existing facilities which utilize the most fossil fuels, such as the Quinlan Community Center and City Hall, as well as addressing the vehicle fleet and availability of electric vehicle charging ports. Some of these needs are being addressed in the existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Q: Native plantings: can we have some policy and funding for both residents and commercial corridor owners to convert to native plantings. E.g., Stevens Creek, have ornamental grass or turf, a way to help convert a percentage to native plantings with drip irrigation rather than just have the commercial properties turn off their water and have the turf die and not be watered. If we have a current effort, would like to hear about this.
A: The City is currently piloting a similar use of staff time in the Climate Victory Gardens Pilot program to provide technical and administrative support directly to property owners who wish to remove lawns and install drought-tolerant gardens. The City also took action last summer to waive certain planning fees for projects that will remove grass and replace with drought-tolerant plantings. Action 14 (BE-2) commits the City to continued use of staff time to support residents to apply for all available rebates and to get unbiased technical advice. {Appendix E, pg. 18}
Q: Public comment: Concern about converting lawns to non-permeable surface, need groundwater to recharge aquifers to restore them. Can that be put into consideration? Not only conservation, but also don’t want to convert surface to concrete.
A: Several initiatives and existing policies are in place considering non-permeable surfaces, including a rebate program that will pay residents to install permeable surfaces for their driveways.
1 Turf grass typically requires large amounts of water throughout the growing season, while native or climate-adapted plants are usually more drought resistant, require less water, and provide an ecosystem including water, food, and shelter for native birds, insects, and other kinds of wildlife. Following the success of the program in converting residential and commercial turf in Cupertino, Action 8 (WW-1) commits the City to expanding this program and partnering with Valley Water to make the program regional. {Appendix E, pg. 64-65}
Q: TR-2: Achievability about the 29% public transit mode share in TR-2. I think it is very aspirational, what is our current share public transit, thinks it is 7% now at the most, do we have data on that. A big question, what transit options even exist to take them to their job locations. Some analysis. Big issue for Cupertino residents is that we do not have
1 https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment-sustainability/water/stormwater-pollution- prevention/clean-water-rebates
enough transit except a few bus lines which keep getting moved and getting reduced by VTA.
A: 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. Approximately 2% of trips are conducted by public transit today. The project team believes that setting an aggressive target for transit and active mode share is an important feature of the CAP 2.0.
The City recognizes the reality that increasing public transit mode share on this order of magnitude in California has only been accomplished in a handful of large, dense cities.
Given this, the City recognizes that Measure TR-2 presents a stretch goal and may be difficult to achieve. There is potentially a large upside to set aggressive reach goals within the CAP 2.0 - cities with bold targets are better positioned for future funding. For example, the City was just awarded $8.5 million from the State to expand upon the Via Shuttle program2, with the express purpose of improved connections to regional rail and increasing services for disadvantaged communities and seniors.
There is also little risk in setting a reach goal for transit in the CAP 2.0. Plans are expected to change and adapt as local challenges are encountered during implementation of the plan. 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. Under this lower bound scenario, Cupertino would not meet its aggressive local GHG target (decrease per capita GHG emissions 50% below 2010 levels). However, the City would still exceed the State-minimum target (SB 32).
These scenarios and the complete analysis are detailed in Appendix E, Table 12. Therefore, at a minimum, Cupertino expects to exceed the state level target regardless of the performance of Measure TR-2.
{Appendix E, pg. 38-41}
{Appendix E, pg. 50}
Q: Follow up from speaker’s comment on Valley Water – just toured advanced water purification center with VM Chao – we received a recommendation report, this is timely.
Valley Water is providing a water efficient new development ordinance with 17 measures. We don’t have to adopt all of them but Valley Water can provide TA to adopt parts of it. Regional partnership is really, really important. A major part of CAP is water.
We need to work with other cities and regional entities to develop real action items.
A: Action 1 (WW-1) commits the City to bringing this same water efficient new development model ordinance for the consideration of the City Council. In addition, actions 2-4 commit the City to working with Santa Clara Valley Water to engage with the
2 https://www.cupertino.org/Home/Components/News/News/5664/26?backlist=%2f 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.
Q: Also from the speaker comments: One thing we could expand is to tie the Housing Element to the CAP, because it has everything to do with electrification, saving water, public transit. I don’t know how we can tie them together. Maybe more detailed plan when we have our Housing Element General Plan amendments.
A: The CAP 2.0 is a city-wide plan developed with the guidance of the General Plan – Environment and Sustainability Element. All city-wide plans cross-reference and “speak” to one another as specific projects are carried out in the future. The main driver of sustainability into all future developments, including housing, are the building codes, programs and services that will result from implementation of the CAP 2.0. Measures BE-1 and BE-2, for example, contemplate changes to the building codes which will require increasing electrification not only for new construction, but for remodels as well in the future. Another example of how the CAP 2.0 ties into future housing developments is by the creation of a GHG streamlining checklist, which is a tool that developers and City planners can use to align the development with the Measures in the CAP 2.0. This topic is explained further in the next question. {Appendix E, pg. 70}
Q: CEQA – for new development, having this CAP CEQA-qualified, going to the Appendix G Checklist from CEQA, will this allow a developer to go to the GHG portion of the checklist, and be able to check off less than significant with mitigation incorporated? Is this the idea behind this? Would like the CAP to include more information about this CEQA issue to explain it better to the public. Like to hear more about what it means to be a CEQA qualified plan in the future.
A: This topic was presented to the Cupertino Environmental Review Committee to seek guidance on the CEQA approach. In response to this question, the project team has uploaded that presentation and staff report to the project website at www.cupertino.org/climateaction
. The Cupertino General Plan – Environment and
Sustainability Element requires that the Climate Action Plan be “qualified.” This means the project team takes the extra step of providing a rigorous calculation of the greenhouse gas reduction potential of the CAP and preparing CEQA environmental documents for the CAP itself. This work can then be referenced by future projects, such as a construction project, to “streamline” their environmental permitting. This streamlining feature of the CAP 2.0 is limited to the GHG section, which is only one of the many environmental topics that must be studied under CEQA. This streamlining feature is designed to better align GHG analysis and sustainability outcomes across many future projects where applicable.
Once the CAP 2.0 is adopted by Council, the project team will create a GHG checklist. If a future project can demonstrate compliance with this checklist, the City can quickly ensure that the Climate Action Plan has been considered in the design of that project.
The City still retains all options of review if the streamlined GHG checklist approach is not suitable for a certain project, including the use of GHG reduction thresholds which are contained in the CAP 2.0 CEQA documentation.
See Appendix E, Introduction, for further description of the CEQA qualification.
See also CAP 2.0 Greenhouse Gas Thresholds Draft IS-ND Initial Study, pages 32-33 for a more detailed description.
(https://engagecupertino.org/11845/widgets/34981/documents/31752 )
Q: The person from Sierra Club mentioned the gas fuel cell, I don’t understand what is that, could staff help clarify that and is it possible to consider that.
A: A fuel cell is a stationary machine that produces electricity on-site using a fuel, typically natural gas or biofuel. This machine provides electric power to the Apple headquarters campus and is supplied with a normal gas pipeline. 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). Under this certification, Apple agreed to directly purchase renewable fuels to power their fuel cell.
The fuel cell asset at the Apple headquarters consumes a relatively large amount of fuel.
Using standard carbon accounting methods, both Cupertino and Apple record this portion of energy consumption as carbon-free. This process is verified annually through Apple’s regular sustainability reporting. Therefore, as a key action towards decarbonization of the City, Cupertino will track the GHG reduction benefits of Apple’s biofuel purchases (Action 1, BE-5). As part of this action, Cupertino will continue to verify and review Apple’s reporting methodologies each year. This process is similar to the carbon accounting for clean electricity provided to our residents by Silicon Valley Clean Energy, which allows us to demonstrate that most of our electricity is carbon-free.
Action 2 (BE-5) proposes that the City not only continue to verify this arrangement, but also develop a strategy to address how biofuels could fit into a carbon-neutral City of the future.
This is an emerging topic in carbon accounting that will be pursued with maximum transparency, as it affects multiple City issue areas, such as our plan to sequester carbon using compost under SB1383.
{Appendix E, pg. 27}