CC 06-21-2022 Item No.1 Study Session Draft Climate Action Plan 2.0_Written CommunicationsCC 06-21-2022
Item No. 1
Study Session
Draft Climate
Action Plan 2.0
Written Communication
From:Gilee Corral
To:City Clerk
Cc:Andre Duurvoort
Subject:FW: Update to Comments on CAP
Date:Monday, June 20, 2022 2:19:30 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image005.png
image008.png
image003.png
image007.png
image004.png
image006.png
image001.png
Update to Comments made on May 15, June 19, 2022.pdf
Hi City Clerk’s Office,
Please see below and attached for written communications from Gary Latshaw for tomorrow’s
Council Study Session on the CAP 2.0.
Thanks,
Gilee
Gilee Corral
Climate and Utilities Analyst
City Manager's Office
GileeC@cupertino.org
408) 777-1364
From: Gary Latshaw <glatshaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 1:31 PM
To: Gilee Corral <GileeC@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: Update to Comments on CAP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Yes. Thanks, Gary
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:06 AM Gilee Corral <GileeC@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hi Gary,
Did you want the attached updated comments to be submitted as Written Communications for
the June 21 Council Study Session?
Thanks,
Gilee
Gilee Corral
Climate and Utilities Analyst
City Manager's Office
GileeC@cupertino.org
408) 777-1364
From: Gary Latshaw <glatshaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 7:23 AM
To: Gilee Corral <GileeC@cupertino.org>; Andre Duurvoort <AndreD@cupertino.org>
Subject: Update to Comments on CAP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Gilee and Andre - Please find them attached. I will be out of town during the next CAP public
meeting.
For convenience, I have pasted the material here:
In my comments on May 15th, I recommended changing the emission factor for natural gas (NG).
I recommended that the value in the CAP was off by a factor of 2.45, which was based on a NG
system leakage of 4.52%. With the help of Cupertino Staff Gilee Corral, I found the Draft CAP
assumed a leakage rate of 0.3%[i]. This is a very low value.
I recommend, again, using the value I calculated. I also suggest you add a section on the indoor
and outdoor health effects of using natural gas.
Other values in the literature are:
A series of earlier studies coordinated by EDF and hundreds of other researchers indicated that
the U.S. oil and gas system leaked on average 2.3% of all the gas it produced. That’s about 60%
more than the leakage rate reported by EPA, at 1.4%[ii]. These values do not appear to consider
the leakage with the installations in the buildings or local distribution.
Although it is impossible to relate the leakage from specific sites that is given in
cubic feet per unit time, the amounts of the loss are staggering. Also, as a
combustible chemical, NG is associated with substantial loss of life and injury:
Between January 2010 and November 2017, the nation’s natural gas
transportation network leaked a total of 17.55 billion cubic feet of
mostly methane gas. That’s enough to heat 233,000 homes for an
entire year, and it’s got the same global warming potential as the
carbon dioxide emitted from a large coal-fired power plant over the
course of a year. That’s enough to heat 233,000 homes for an
entire year, and it’s got the same global warming potential as the
carbon dioxide emitted from a large coal-fired power plant over the
course of a year. Pipeline incidents took nearly 100 lives, injured close
to 500 people and forced the evacuation of thousands during that time,
while costing about $1.1 billion[iii].
In addition to the leakage/emission factor issue, the CAP should discuss the harmful effects of
natural gas on air quality indoor and outdoor. The recent UCLA study shows the combustion of
natural gas contributes to the formation on smog at the same level as the emissions of light duty
vehicles in the LA basin.[iv]
i] Appendix B, “This methodology assumes a 0.3% natural gas leakage rate, a natural gas energy density of 1028
btu/scf, a natural gas density of 0.8 kg/m3, 93.4% CH4 content in natural gas, and 1% CO2 content in natural
gas.”
ii] Storrow, Benjamin, Methane Leaks Erase Some of the Climate Benefits of Natural Gas, E&E News May 5,
2020,
iii] Thompson, Jonathan, A map of $1.1billion in natural gas pipeline leaks, High Country News, November
29,2017
iv] Effects pf Residential Gas Appliances on Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality and Public Health in California,
UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Department of Health Sciences, April 2020
Fight for Renewable Energies! Save the global ecology; create jobs; eliminate dependence on
foreign oil; reduce military requirements
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.
408-499-3006
Fight for Renewable Energies! Save the global ecology; create jobs; eliminate dependence on foreign
oil; reduce military requirements
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.
408-499-3006
Update to Comments for the Cupertino Draft Climate Action Plan
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.
19 June 2020
In my comments on May 15th, I recommended changing the emission factor for natural gas
NG). I recommended that the value in the CAP was off by a factor of 2.45, which was based on
a NG system leakage of 4.52%. With the help of Cupertino Staff Gilee Corral, I found the Draft
CAP assumed a leakage rate of 0.3%i. This is a very low value.
I recommend, again, using the value I calculated. I also suggest you add a section on the
indoor and outdoor health effects of using natural gas.
Other values in the literature are:
A series of earlier studies coordinated by EDF and hundreds of other researchers indicated that
the U.S. oil and gas system leaked on average 2.3% of all the gas it produced. That’s about 60%
more than the leakage rate reported by EPA, at 1.4%ii. These values do not appear to consider
the leakage with the installations in the buildings or local distribution.
Although it is impossible to relate the leakage from specific sites that is given in cubi c feet per
unit time, the amounts of the loss are staggering. Also, as a combustible chemical, NG is
associated with substantial loss of life and injury:
Between January 2010 and November 2017, the nation’s natural gas
transportation network leaked a total of 17.55 billion cubic feet of
mostly methane gas. That’s enough to heat 233,000 homes for an
entire year, and it’s got the same global warming potential as the
carbon dioxide emitted from a large coal-fired power plant over the
course of a year. That’s enough to heat 233,000 homes for an
entire year, and it’s got the same global warming potential as the
carbon dioxide emitted from a large coal-fired power plant over the
course of a year. Pipeline incidents took nearly 100 lives, injured close
to 500 people and forced the evacuation of thousands during that time,
while costing about $1.1 billioniii.
In addition to the leakage/emission factor issue, the CAP should discuss the harmful effects of
natural gas on air quality indoor and outdoor. The recent UCLA study shows the combustion of
natural gas contributes to the formation on smog at the same level as the emissions of light
duty vehicles in the LA basin.iv
i Appendix B, “This methodology assumes a 0.3% natural gas leakage rate, a natural gas energy density of 1028
btu/scf, a natural gas density of 0.8 kg/m3, 93.4% CH4 content in natural gas, and 1% CO2 content in natural gas.”
ii Storrow, Benjamin, Methane Leaks Erase Some of the Climate Benefits of Natural Gas , E&E News May 5, 2020,
iii Thompson, Jonathan, A map of $1.1billion in natural gas pipeline leaks, High Country News, November 29,2017
iv Effects pf Residential Gas Appliances on Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality and Public Health in California , UCLA
Fielding School of Public Health, Department of Health Sciences, April 2020
From:Neil Park-McClintick
To:City Clerk
Subject:Please support Item 17 (Stevens Creek Corridor Study) + add more land use language to the CAP 2.0
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 1:20:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am a community member in Cupertino who would like City leadership to be as ambitious as
possible on tackling climate change. In particular, I strongly believe The Climate Action Plan
2.0 (CAP 2.0) needs more language and suggestions on housing policy and land use reform.
Currently, the land use chapter (Chapter 9) has almost no land use suggestions, despite it
being called the land use chapter. Additionally, I strongly believe Cupertino should join San
Jose and Santa Clara in the Stevens Creek Corridor Study (Item 17).
Staff's research shows that 60% of Cupertino emissions are transportation! Our ask to
Cupertino leadership is simple: We absolutely need ALL four of the following to maximize our
small city’s impact on mitigating transportation emissions and to transform our city and region
for the better:
1. Bold steps toward universal building electrification (currently supported in CAP 2.0). We are
excited by the bold plans concerning electrification of buildings in Cupertino.
2. Emphasizing infill development (avoiding sprawl) as a key way to reduce vehicle miles
traveled in Cupertino–which constitutes the largest source of emissions in the Bay Area. This is
currently not supported by Cap 2.0
3. Transit-oriented planning. Cupertino, like most of the Bay Area, was designed around
needing to drive everywhere. Cupertino’s daytime population doubles during the day, as most
daytime residents cannot afford to live here. This forces long super commutes that are not
accounted for in the current emissions inventory conducted in CAP 2.0. We aren’t serious
about climate change if we do not focus on building housing near transit. While CAP 2.0 makes
some vague references to transit, it fundamentally focuses on electric cars and bicycles
improvements–which are in their own right important. Additionally, Cupertino must pledge its
full support and participation in the Stevens Creek corridor study, another item on the 6/21
agenda.
4. Connecting CAP 2.0 to the Housing Element update specifying how and where we will plan
for 5,000+ homes in Cupertino–and vice versa. The two must go hand-in-hand as ambitious
polic visions for the next several years.
Studies by the UC Berkeley Cool Climate California Local Government Climate Policy Tool
reveal that infill development and reducing car reliance are two of the most essential ways to
mitigate climate change for Cupertino.
But our City Council has resisted the promotion of infill development, making it difficult to build
housing in the city by enforcing harsh zoning and parking restrictions, and limiting both height
and density. This means that we are forced to build further outward to meet our needs.
Until this feedback is incorporated into CAP 2.0, I do not believe the plan is ambitious enough
for reducing transportation emissions in Cupertino.
Neil Park-McClintick
cupertinoforall@gmail.com
801 Miller Avenue
CUPERTINO, California 95014
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Jim Throop
Subject:2022-06-21 CC Mtg Study Session Climate Action Plan
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 3:57:06 PM
Attachments:CORRECTION - P 57 of 133 A - Public Review Draft Climate Action Plan 2.pdf
SUGGESTION P78 A - Public Review Draft Climate Action Plan 2-4.pdf
SUGGESTION P90 A - Public Review Draft Climate Action Plan 2-6.pdf
SUGGESTION P69 A - Public Review Draft Climate Action Plan 2-3.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please include this as written communication for the Study Session Climate Action Plan 2.0.
Dear City Council and Staff,
It is obvious that a lot of time and effort has been put into preparing this Climate Action Plan 2.0 and
I’m very grateful for the detailed explanations and data to justify the plan.
Here are my inputs so far:
1. Page 57 – CORRECTION Table 9 should read “Measure BE-1”, not BE-3.
2. Page 69, BE 3.5 – Insert at the end…”CBES to establish cost burden metrics.” This plan
mentions metrics for residential but does not indicate metrics will be used for commercial. It
should all be run on metrics with clear expectations.
3. Page 78, TR 1.9 – Should include improved bike/e-bike parking at our local commercial
centers and City Hall by adding after the word “stops” the following so it reads “stops,
commercial centers and City Hall.”
4. Page 90, TR 4.4 – Insert the word “permanent” so it reads “…frequent permanent transit
options…”. No one with a regular or part-time job is going to risk converting to public
transportation if they are not confident that the transit route/method they are going to go to
will be there next year!
5. Regardless of what the “rules” are, they should also apply to our City government. What’s
good for us is good for you, too.
Thank all of those who contributed to this plan!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Connie Cunningham
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Agenda Item 1 Study Session CAP June 21, 2022
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 4:28:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor and Councilmembers:
Question: Page 36 Title 24 is expected to reduce GHG emissions due to reduced electricity and
natural gas consumption in new residential housing units.
Please define new housing units. Does this include remodels that create a complete new
house? Or does it only count new homes that add to the housing stock of the City.
Question: Our City has a goal of over 4500 new homes in the next 8 years, and a Housing
Element is in the planning stages. Does this CAP take that planning into consideration for its
goals?
Question: I noted that Funding and Equity are separate Pillars. Therefore, I noted that not all
Equity actions had clear sources of funding identified. This is a serious ommission since
funding is critical to make these changes work.
Question: How will this plan operationalize this goal: Page 54: Affordable Housing & Local
Development
Through alignment with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this
CAP can help facilitate local development that will enhance human-centered
economic corridors and the availability of affordable housing.
A key co-benefit of a comprehensive and updated CAP is the promotion of thoughtful
development that will complement the City’s environmental goals. This is achieved by
creating a clear pathway for new development so it can align with Cupertino’s
greenhouse gas reduction plan.
I urge the Council to carefully consider how this CAP will help the City plan for
new housing.
Connie Cunningham