CC Resolution No. 22-098 CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds CAP 2.0 Adopted 2022RESOLUTION NO. 22-098
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ADOPTING THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 AND CEQA GHG
EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
WHEREAS, the Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element of the
City of Cupertino's General Plan Strategy ES -1.1.1 directs the City to "[a]dopt,
implement, and maintain a Climate Action Plan to attain greenhouse gas emission
targets consistent with state law and regional requirements"; and,
WHEREAS, in 2006, the State of California adopted the Global Wa:ming
Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), which created a statewide greenhouse gas
emissions requirement and goal to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and in
2016, California Senate Bill 32 established a new greenhouse gas reduction target
of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; and,
WHEREAS, in January 2014, the Cupertino City Council adopted a Climate
Action Plan which put Cupertino on a path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
response to climate change; and,
WHEREAS, in September 2018, the Governor of the State of California
issued Executive Order B-55-18, establishing a statewide goal to achieve carbon
neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain
net negative emissions thereafter; and,
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2018, the Cupertino City Council adopted a
climate emergency declaration, calling for a mobilization effort to end citywide
greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible, and recognizes the need for an
organized and equitable transition away from fossil fuels used in buildings and
transportation; and,
WHEREAS, as part of the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 City Work Program, City
Council directed staff to prepare an update to the greenhouse gas reduction plan,
to be known as the Climate Action Plan 2.0 (CAP 2.0); and,
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2020, the Sustainability Commission
recommended the City Council direct staff to update the Climate Action Plan with
the following goals and vision statement:
Resolution No. 22-098
Page2
1. Achieve community-wide carbon neutrality no later than the year 2040
2. Achieve negative net carbon emissions after the year 2045
3. Achieve carbon neutrality in city-owned facilities and operations no
later than the year 2030
4. Establish a mid-term 2030 carbon emissions target of 50% below a 2010
baseline
5. Establish a Zero Waste Community target date of 2035
6. Adopt the following vision to guide the update process:
a. Equity: Activate and celebrate the multiracial character of
Cupertino. Take every effort to include traditionally under-
represented voices and those who might be displaced by climate
hazards in the planning and selection of strategies, as well as
business, faith groups, neighborhoods, and schools. Create a plan
that reflects the diversity of the city and sets us on a path towards ·
a more welcoming and inclusive City.
b. Innovation: Develop measures in short-term and long-term
action plans that position Cupertino as a leader in climate
innovation and technological development, new ways of
working and studying, and commit to educating the community
on innovative strategies at least once a year.
c. Urgency and Flexibility: Establish a frequent cadence of updates
to the near-term action plans, with the aim to both focus
community resources and stay flexible in a fast-moving world.
Work with haste commensurate with the Climate Emergency
Declaration that Council adopted in 2018 and the unprecedented
opportunity that climate and waste plans present to our
community by taking bold steps in the early planning horizon.
d. Resilience and Adaptation: Establish climate adaptation
measures such as green infrastructure and protecting
biodiversity that keeps Cupertino residents and businesses safe,
productive, and happy while climate risks accelerate. And,
WHEREAS, the Sustainability Commission established a public outreach
subcommittee to organize and review public engagement in the preparation of the
CAP 2.0; and
WHEREAS, the City organized a series of noticed workshops and public
engagement events to obtain direction with respect to the community's goals
regarding the design of emissions reductions strategies within the City; and,
Resolution No. 22-098
Page 3
WHEREAS, the CAP 2.0 includes a greenhouse gas emission inventory and
forecast, analysis and quantification of greenhouse gas reduction measures and
targets, and the CAP 2.0 also set forth a general process for implementation,
monitoring and reporting of progress, and meaningful community engagement;
and,
WHEREAS, the CAP 2.0 includes a set of strategies, goals, em1ss10n
reduction targets, City actions, supporting measures, and adaptation strategies
based on regional and local climate planning expertise, the knowledge and
experience of City staff and consultants, and the input of the Sustainability
Commission, City Council and the public; and,
WHEREAS, the GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report
quantifies greenhouse gas emissions thresholds of significance which were created
on the basis of the best available science and factual evidence, and provides
guidance for future projects to reduce GHG emissions to less-than-significant
levels; and,
WHEREAS, the CAP 2.0 meets the criteria of Section 15183.5 of the State
CEQA Guidelines and therefore is a California Environmental Quality Act
Qualified Climate Action Plan; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
1. Based on the above facts, the City Council makes the following
findings:
A. The adoption of this CAP 2.0 and GHG Emissions Thresholds is
consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, and is in the best
interests of the public's convenience and general welfare; and
B. The CAP 2.0 and GHG Emissions Thresholds are consistent with
the goals and vision statement recommended by the Sustainability
Commission in November 2020; and
C. The following GHG emissions thresholds are applicable to new
developments until the year 2030 or when new GHG emissions
thresholds are adopted by the City, were developed on the basis
Resolution No. 22 -0 98
Page4
of sci entific and factual data, reduce future project GHG impacts
to a less-than-significant level, are supported by substantial
evidence, were developed through a public review process, and
are hereby adopted by resolution:
1. GHG Efficiency Threshold of 0.97 MT of CO2e per
resident for residential new development; and
11. GHG Efficiency Threshold of 2.16 MT of CO2e per
employee for non-residential new development; and
m. GHG Efficiency Threshold of 1.82 MT of CO2e per
service person for mixed-use new development
2. The City Council h ereby ADOPTS the Cupertino CAP 2.0 and CEQA
GHG Emissions Thresholds
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular 111.eeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16 th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Members of the City Council
Paul, Chao, Moore, Wei, Willey
None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
Darcy Pau
City of Cu
ATTEST:
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Date
Date
8/30/22
Resolution No. 22-098
Page 5
City of Cupertino
Climate Action Plan 2.0
August 16, 2022
Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0
Prepared By
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
and
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, CA 94612
August 16, 2022
Climate Action Plan 2.0 i
Table of Contents
1 Vision and Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 12
1.1 Cupertino CAP 2.0 Vision Statement ............................................................................... 12
1.2 Cupertino Declaration of Climate Emergency ................................................................. 15
2 Scientific Context and Impacts .................................................................................................... 16
2.1 Climate Change Science ................................................................................................... 16
2.2 Climate Change Impacts in Cupertino .............................................................................. 20
3 Climate Action History ................................................................................................................. 27
3.1 Progress to Date ............................................................................................................... 27
4 Current and Projected GHG Emissions ........................................................................................ 30
4.1 Cupertino GHG Emissions Inventory ................................................................................ 30
4.2 Cupertino GHG Emissions Forecasts ................................................................................ 33
5 Fair Share of GHG Emissions Reductions ..................................................................................... 38
5.1 International Context ....................................................................................................... 38
5.2 State Context and Timeline/Emissions Targets ............................................................... 39
5.3 Cupertino Context and Timeline/Emissions Targets ........................................................ 40
6 Community Voices ....................................................................................................................... 44
6.1 One Climate ..................................................................................................................... 44
6.2 Engagement Events & Feedback Summary ..................................................................... 48
7 A Different Kind of Plan ............................................................................................................... 50
7.1 Regional Climate Efforts, Solutions, and Partnerships .................................................... 50
7.2 Ambitious Timeline .......................................................................................................... 51
7.3 Reduction Strategy Framework ....................................................................................... 51
7.4 Key Pillars of Climate Action ............................................................................................ 53
7.5 Co-Benefits of GHG Reduction Measures ........................................................................ 54
8 Cleaning the Air (Renewable Energy and Electrification) ............................................................ 56
8.1 Context ............................................................................................................................. 56
8.2 Measures and Actions Detail ........................................................................................... 57
9 Connecting Communities (Transportation, Land Use) ................................................................ 74
9.1 Context ............................................................................................................................. 74
9.2 Measures and Actions Detail ........................................................................................... 75
10 Getting to Zero Waste ................................................................................................................. 94
10.1 Context ............................................................................................................................. 94
10.2 Measures and Actions Detail ........................................................................................... 96
11 Working with Nature ................................................................................................................. 107
11.1 Context ........................................................................................................................... 107
11.2 Measures and Actions Detail ......................................................................................... 109
12 Adaptation and Resilience ......................................................................................................... 119
12.1 Context ........................................................................................................................... 119
12.2 Adaptation Measures and Actions ................................................................................. 123
City of Cupertino
ii
13 Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 129
13.1 Monitoring, Tracking, and Reporting ............................................................................. 129
13.2 Funding .......................................................................................................................... 130
13.3 Looking Forward ............................................................................................................ 130
14 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 131
15 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 132
Tables
Table ES-1 Targets Versus Greenhouse Gas Reductions ............................................... 7
Table ES-2 CAP 2.0 GHG Emissions Reduction Measures Overview ........................... 10
Table 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) Criteria Addressed in CAP Update .................. 14
Table 2 Cupertino 2018 GHG Emissions Inventory Summary ................................................ 32
Table 3 BAU Emissions Forecast (MT CO2e) ........................................................................... 34
Table 4 Adjusted Forecast (MT CO2e) ..................................................................................... 35
Table 5 Mass-based GHG Reduction Target Pathway (MT CO2e) ........................................... 41
Table 6 Per Capita GHG Reduction Target Pathway (MT CO2e/person)................................. 42
Table 7 Targets Versus GHG Reductions ................................................................................ 43
Table 8 CAP Update Engagement Summary ........................................................................... 48
Table 9 Measure BE-1 Actions ................................................................................................ 58
Table 10 Measure BE-2 Actions ................................................................................................ 61
Table 11 Measure BE-3 Actions ................................................................................................ 67
Table 12 Measure BE-4 Actions ................................................................................................ 70
Table 13 Measure BE-5 Actions ................................................................................................ 72
Table 14 Measure TR-1 Actions ................................................................................................ 76
Table 15 Measure TR-2 Actions ................................................................................................ 81
Table 16 Measure TR-3 Actions ................................................................................................ 84
Table 17 Measure TR-4 Actions ................................................................................................ 89
Table 18 Measure TR-5 Actions ................................................................................................ 93
Table 19 Measure W-1 Actions ................................................................................................. 97
Table 20 Measure W-2 Actions ............................................................................................... 102
Table 21 Measure W-3 Actions ............................................................................................... 106
Table 22 Measure CS-1 Actions .............................................................................................. 110
Table 23 Measure CS-2 Actions .............................................................................................. 113
Table 24 Measure WW-1 Actions ........................................................................................... 115
Table 25 Measure WW-2 Actions ........................................................................................... 118
Table 26 Measure AR-1 Actions .............................................................................................. 123
Table 27 Measure AR-2 Actions .............................................................................................. 125
Table 28 Measure AR-3 Actions .............................................................................................. 127
Climate Action Plan 2.0 iii
Table 29 Measure AR-4 Actions .............................................................................................. 128
Figures
Figure ES 1. Cupertino Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, 2018 ............................................... 4
Figure ES 2. Forecasted Emissions per Capita by Sector for the Baseline Year 2018, and
Projected for 2030 and 2040 .................................................................................................... 6
Figure ES 3. Per Capita Baseline Emissions Compared to Forecast Scenario and Target
Pathway to Carbon Neutrality .................................................................................................. 7
Figure ES 4 Expected 2040 Impact by Sector From CAP 2.0 Measures....................... 9
Figure 1. Community Concerns about Climate Hazards ................................................................ 26
Figure 2. Selected Milestones in Cupertino’s Climate Action History ........................................... 27
Figure 3. Cupertino Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, 2018 .................................................. 31
Figure 4. Baseline Emissions Compared to Forecast Scenarios ..................................................... 36
Figure 5. Emissions Reduction Gap Between Forecasted Emissions and State Targets................ 40
Figure 6. Baseline Emissions per Capita Compared to Forecast Scenarios and Target Pathway
to Carbon Neutrality ............................................................................................................... 43
Figure 7. Zero Waste Management Heirarchy .............................................................................. 95
Figure 8. Global Surface Temperature Change Relative to 1850-1900 in Five Different
Emissions Scenarios .............................................................................................................. 120
Figure 9. Climate Hazards Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................. 121
Appendices
A Climate Regulatory Context
B GHG Inventory and Forecasts Methodology
C Public Engagement Results
D GHG Measures Emissions Reductions Evidence
E Existing Programs and Accomplishments
City of Cupertino
4
Executive Summary
Cupertino is leading an effort to take meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and mitigate climate change impacts. The goal is to improve the wellbeing of the
community by preparation of this communitywide Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0. The
following is a high-level summary of GHG emissions levels, projected emissions levels,
established emissions targets, and GHG reduction and climate adaptation measures for
Cupertino to achieve the targets.
Cupertino Current GHG Emissions Inventory
The 2018 Community Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory for Cupertino indicates
that total emissions were 346,998 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e),
which translates into approximately 5.48 MT CO2e per person. Figure ES-1 below shows the
share of total emissions for each sector of the community.
Figure ES 1. Cupertino Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, 2018
On-road
transportation,
60%
Building energy
natural gas, 25%
Wastewater, 6%
Solid waste, 4%
Off-road vehicles
and equipment, 4%
Building energy
electricity, 1%
Climate Action Plan 2.0 5
Cupertino Projected GHG Emissions Forecasts
Future Cupertino GHG emissions levels are projected based on current emissions, job
growth, and estimated population growth trends. Established State regulations that will
take effect during the period will reduce the expected emissions and are incorporated into
the projections. Cupertino’s future emissions are projected to be 5.04 MT CO2e/person in
2030 and 4.74 MT CO2e/person in 2040. The total forecasted emissions per community sector
are shown for each target year in Figure ES-2 below.
Cupertino GHG Emissions Targets
The Cupertino CAP 2.0 has targeted communitywide carbon neutrality by 2040 in line with
the emergency climate declaration made by the City Council in 2018 and in support of state
and international climate goals. In order to achieve this, the following targets have been set
for Cupertino’s future emissions: 3.39 MT CO2e per person by 2030 and 0.00 MT CO2e per
person by 2040. The emissions reduction pathway over the coming decades is illustrated in
Figure ES-3, below. Together, the measures and actions in the CAP 2.0 provide Cupertino
with the GHG reductions necessary to achieve Cupertino’s 2030 climate action target as
shown in Table ES-1. However, the 2040 GHG emissions reductions quantified are not yet
enough to meet the City’s longer-term 2040 climate action target of carbon neutrality. This
CAP 2.0 aims to establish new systems that are resilient and equitable and make substantial
progress towards 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.
The Cupertino climate action
targets are more aggressive than
the state-level goals. The
community and City Council have
consistently demonstrated climate
action leadership and put forward
resources to set an example.
Chapter Five has all the details on
goal-setting and the target path to
a carbon-neutral city.
City of Cupertino
6
Figure ES 2. Forecasted Emissions per Capita by Sector for the Baseline Year 2018, and
Projected for 2030 and 2040
Transportation
Transportation Transportation
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commerical/
Industrial Commerical/
Industrial Commerical/
Industrial
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
2018 2030 2040
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(
M
T
C
O
2
e
p
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
)
Climate Action Plan 2.0 7
Figure ES 3. Per Capita Baseline Emissions Compared to Forecast Scenario and Target
Pathway to Carbon Neutrality
Table ES-1 Targets Versus Greenhouse Gas 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 3.39 0.97
Target Anticipated to be Met? Yes
No; substantial
progress
demonstrated
Adjusted Forecast
Target Pathway
5.48 MT CO2e per capita
3.39 MT CO2e per capita
CAP 2.0 Plan
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(
M
T
C
O
2
e
p
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
)
City of Cupertino
8
Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation
The City has identified six hazards of concern: adverse air quality impacts, extreme heat,
extreme precipitation/storm flooding, wildfire, drought, and sea level rise. Several impacts
of these hazards are being felt now and are projected to intensify in the future. Based on an
analysis of potential impacts and the City’s adaptive capacity, Cupertino is most vulnerable
to adverse air quality impacts and extreme heat, and the City has medium vulnerability to
drought, wildfire, and extreme precipitation/storm flooding. Cupertino is least vulnerable to
sea level rise, however indirect effects from sea level rise may be felt in the region.
To protect people, assets, and natural systems, the City is engaging in climate adaptation.
This is defined as responding to actual or expected climate impacts, with the goal of
mitigating harms or taking advantage of opportunities. Further information on climate
adaptation, our vulnerability assessment, and adaptation measures are found in Chapter 12.
Cupertino CAP 2.0 Measures to be Implemented by 2030
Implementation of the following suite of measures would result in Cupertino achieving its
2030 target of 3.39 MT CO2e per person. Additional measures will be required as part of
future CAP update to attain the longer-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2040.1
Each measure is supported by a suite of actions that will help to achieve the completion of
that measure. The measures and actions have
been designed using principles called key
pillars that ensure that changes are robust,
effective, and inclusive.
Key pillars include partnerships, equity,
financing, structural change, and engagement
and are discussed in more detail in Section 7.4
of the CAP 2.0. The measures and actions have
been assessed by the community throughout
the CAP 2.0 update process.
1 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.
The CAP 2.0 measures are the
specific steps that serve two
primary purposes:
• climate mitigation through
reduced GHG emissions and,
• adaptation to those impacts
of climate change that may
be unavoidable.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 9
Figure ES 4 Expected 2040 Impact by Sector From CAP 2.0 Measures
City of Cupertino
10
Table ES-2 CAP 2.0 GHG Emissions Reduction Measures Overview
No. Measure
MT CO2e
Reduction
Per Person*
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
Re-focus transportation infrastructure away from single-
occupancy gasoline 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-1
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
2030: 0.202
2040: 0.200
W-2 Reduce overall waste disposed to garbage, recycling, and
compost per capita by 15% by 2035 Supportive
Climate Action Plan 2.0 11
No. Measure
MT CO2e
Reduction
Per Person*
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-3
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
Adaptation and Resilience Measures
AR-1
Increase usage of natural infrastructure solutions such as
bioswales, rainwater storage systems, and permeable
pavements to enhance infrastructure resiliency
Supportive
AR-2
Bolster emergency preparedness and response by
integrating climate adaptation and improving climate-
related communications
Supportive
AR-3 Strengthen community capacity and resilience through
education, resources, and policies Supportive
AR-4 Update the Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan in
Coordination with the County of anta Clara Supportive
*Measures and actions marked as “supportive” may also be quantifiable and have substantial
evidence to support their overall contribution to GHG reduction, they are not quantified for one
of several factors. Refer to Section 7 for more information.
City of Cupertino
12
1 Vision and Purpose
1.1 Cupertino CAP 2.0 Vision Statement
Vision
Cupertino envisions a future with cleaner air, resilient and renewable energy sources,
livable communities, an equitable distribution of resources, and opportunities to build and
maintain resilient homes and businesses. Climate change poses a challenge to that vision
and the effects of climate change are already impacting California communities on the local
level.
The impacts of climate change are projected to worsen over the next century if there is not a
concerted global effort to address the cause of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. The City of Cupertino recognizes the need for ambitious climate action.
On September 18, 2018, the City passed Resolution No. 18-094, declaring a climate
emergency. This resolution calls for an emergency mobilization effort to end
communitywide GHG emissions as quickly as possible, educate residents about climate
change, and advocate for a mass mobilization at the local, State, national, and global levels.
This Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0 supports that resolution and builds on the progress
achieved in Cupertino’s 2015 CAP by providing an updated roadmap of specific actions to
reduce GHG emissions, achieve the City’s target of carbon neutrality by 2040, and increase
community resilience, and capacity to adapt to the
impacts of climate change.
In addition to emission reduction strategies this
CAP 2.0 details strategies for Cupertino to prepare
for and mitigate approaching risks and charts the
course towards a prosperous and sustainable
future. By achieving carbon neutrality, Cupertino
will contribute its fair share to address the climate
crisis and support international climate goals
limiting global temperature rise. This target is
consistent with the United Nations International
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) analysis on what
is necessary to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic
global climate change. Addressing climate change
also presents Cupertino with an opportunity to
build a vibrant future aligned with the key
principles outlined below.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 13
Guiding Principles
The following principles are key to achieving the vision for the CAP 2.0 and were adopted
by the Cupertino Sustainability Commission and City Council in December of 2020:
Equity: Activate and celebrate the multiracial character of Cupertino. Take every effort
to include traditionally under-represented voices and those who might be displaced by
climate hazards in the planning and selection of strategies, as well as business, faith
groups, neighborhoods, and schools. Create a plan that reflects the diversity of the city
and sets us on a path towards a more welcoming and inclusive Cupertino.
Innovation: Develop measures in short-term and long-term action plans that position
Cupertino as a leader in climate innovation and technological development, new ways
of working and studying, and commit to educating the community on innovative
strategies at least once a year.
Urgency and Flexibility: Establish a frequent cadence of updates to the near-term action
plans, with the aim to both focus community resources and stay flexible in a fast-
moving world. Work with haste commensurate with the Climate Emergency
Declaration that Council adopted in 2018 and the unprecedented opportunity that
climate and waste plans present to our community by taking bold steps in the early
planning horizon.
Resilience and Adaptation: Establish climate adaptation measures such as green
infrastructure and protecting biodiversity that keeps Cupertino residents and businesses
safe, productive, and happy while climate risks accelerate.
Purpose
Climate Action
This CAP 2.0 will guide Cupertino towards reducing GHG emissions in a manner that
exceeds the State goal to reduce GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030,
established by California Senate Bill (SB) 32. This CAP 2.0 will also put the City on a
trajectory to meet or exceed the State goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045,
established by California Executive Order B-55-18. See Appendix A for a written description
and a timeline of relevant climate action planning regulations.
Specifically, Cupertino has a target to reduce total emissions 45 percent below 1990 levels by
2030, exceeding the State 2030 target. This translates into a GHG emissions reduction of
179,772 MT CO2e total (or 6.68 MT CO2e per person). Cupertino also has a goal of carbon
neutrality (i.e., net zero MT CO2e person) by 2040, again exceeding the State carbon
neutrality target.
City of Cupertino
14
CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Streamlining
The CAP 2.0 fulfills the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) to be considered a “qualified” GHG reduction plan.2 Creating
and updating this CEQA qualified plan is in accordance with Cupertino General Plan –
Environment and Sustainability Element.
In compliance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines, local agencies must evaluate the
environmental impacts of new development projects or plans, including impacts related to
GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of projects or plans. This
process can be cumbersome for local agencies and developers alike and can result in project
delays. The CEQA Guidelines provide an option for new projects to streamline the CEQA
analysis of GHG emissions by tiering from a qualified GHG reduction plan.
This CAP 2.0 and its associated CEQA environmental assessment documentation are
consistent with the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) as summarized
in Table 1. As such, this CAP Update is considered a qualified GHG reduction plan.
Table 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) Criteria Addressed in CAP Update
2 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), “General Plan Guidelines - Chapter 8: Climate
Change,” Available: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_C8_final.pdf. Accessed November 2021.
CEQA Criteria CAP Update Chapter
Addressing Criteria
1. Quantify existing and projected GHG emissions
within the plan area Chapter 4
2.Establish a reduction target consistent with State
targets Chapter 5
3. Identify and analyze sector specific GHG
emissions from specific actions or categories of
actions anticipated within the geographic area
Chapter 4
Appendix B
4. Specify measures and actions that substantial
evidence demonstrates would collectively
achieve the specified reduction target
Chapters 8, 9,10,11
Climate Action Plan 2.0 15
If future projects are consistent with this CAP 2.0 in terms of GHG emissions construction
and operational levels as well as consistent with the questions and requirement of the
associated CAP Consistency Checklist (i.e., Cupertino CEQA GHG Checklist), future CEQA
GHG emissions impact analyses can be streamlined with a qualitative rather quantitative
CEQA GHG emissions analysis and with presumption that the project or plan’s GHG
emissions are not considered cumulatively significant under CEQA.
1.2 Cupertino Declaration of Climate Emergency
In recognition of the urgent and existential nature of climate change, the City of Cupertino
declared a climate emergency with the passage of Resolution No. 18-094 on September 18,
2018. In addition to calling for an emergency mobilization effort to halt greenhouse gas
emissions at the local level, the resolution calls on the State of California, the United States,
and all governments worldwide to initiate emergency mobilization efforts to mitigate
climate change, stop rising GHG emissions, and safely draw down carbon from the
atmosphere.
As part of the resolution the City of Cupertino committed to keeping equity central to the
climate mobilization planning process by encouraging community engagement and
participation. The development process for this CAP 2.0 and the measures are aligned with
this mission. Please refer to Chapter 6 for more detail about the planning process and how
public input was incorporated into this CAP 2.0.
CEQA Criteria CAP Update Chapter
Addressing Criteria
5. Establish a mechanism to monitor progress and
amend the plan if it is not achieving specified
emissions levels
Chapter 13
6. Adopt in a public process following
environmental review
See associated CEQA
environmental assessment
documentation
City of Cupertino
16
2 Scientific Context and Impacts
2.1 Climate Change Science
The Greenhouse Gas Effect and Climate Change Problem
Earth’s climate is largely driven by energy that comes from the sun. When solar radiation
reaches the Earth’s atmosphere, some of it is reflected into space and a portion is absorbed
by the Earth’s surface. As the Earth absorbs solar radiation, its surface heats up and re-
radiates heat back out into the atmosphere.3 While some of the heat escapes past the
atmosphere into space, gases in the atmosphere prevent the loss of some of the heat.
Without some GHGs in the atmosphere, the Earth would not be warm enough to sustain life
as we know it. This heat trapping quality of gases in Earth’s atmosphere is known as the
greenhouse effect. The gases trapping the heat are known as greenhouse gases (GHG).4
Increased levels of specific GHG in the atmosphere means that less heat escapes to space.
More heat trapped in the atmosphere leads to much more than hotter average temperatures
also known as global warming, which in turn contributes to more intense storms, drought,
extreme heat events, and sea level rise. 5 These effects are considered climate change.
Human-caused climate change is well understood and widely accepted by the scientific
community, with over 97 percent of climate scientists agreeing that the planet is warming
and human activities are the root cause.6 Human activities have raised the levels of GHGs
in the atmosphere from 280 parts per million to over 410 parts per million in the last 150
years.7 Although many changes to climate are governed by natural processes, human
activities have added GHGs to the atmosphere at a rate that is unprecedented in Earth’s
3 NASA. “The Causes of Climate Change,” Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Available:
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes. Accessed December 2021
4 UCAR. “The Greenhouse Effect | Center for Science Education,” Available:
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/greenhouse-effect. Accessed December
2021.
5 IPCC. “Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 oC. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/. Accessed December 2021.
6 NASA. “Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate Is Warming,” Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.
Available: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. Accessed December 2021.
7 J. Blunden and T. Boyer, “State of the Climate in 2020,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society 102, no. 8. 2021. Available: https://doi.org/10.1175/2021BAMSStateoftheClimate.1. Accessed
December 2021.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 17
history, leading to CO2 levels that are now higher than they have been any time in the past
800,000 years.8
Globally, climate change is already impacting both human and natural systems. Scientists
have measured shrinking ice sheets, warming, and acidifying oceans, increasing global
temperatures, less snow cover, sea level rise, and species extinction. The potential
consequences of these climate change related impacts include the flooding of low-lying
areas, reduction of fresh-water supply, adverse changes to biological resources and public
health, as well as many other adverse environmental consequences.9
Globally, a warming trend is abundantly clear, with nineteen of the hottest years on record
occurring since 2000.10 The year 2020 tied with 2016 for the hottest year on record since
record-keeping began in 1880, and these trends are consistent across numerous monitoring
agencies and data sets.11
Though climate change is a global phenomenon it has the potential to impact facets of
society on the local level including health outcomes, natural resource access, infrastructure,
emergency response, tourism, and frequency of disasters. The United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections show that a reduction in
GHG emission to carbon neutrality by mid-century is required to limit warming trends to
1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.12 In order to do this,
action must be taken at all levels of society to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
8 Ibid.
9 IPCC. “Impacts of 1.5°C of Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems,” Assessment Report 5.
2018. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-3/ Accessed December 2021.
10 NASA-GISS. “Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C): Global Mean Estimates Based on Land and
Ocean Data”. Available:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and
_Ocean_Data/graph.txt. Accessed December 2021.
11 NASA. “Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change,” Climate Change: Vital Signs
of the Planet. Available: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature. Accessed December
2021;
Climatic Research Unit (CRU). “Land Surface Air Temperature Variations Across the Globe Updated to
2019: The CRUTEM5 Data Set,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 126, no. 2. 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032352 Accessed: December 2021;
12 IPCC. “Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 oC”. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/. Accessed December 2021.
City of Cupertino
18
Source: National Resources Defense Council, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/greenhouse-
effect-101
Types of GHG Emissions
The IPCC lists the following GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide
(N2O), as well as chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, which are collectively called fluorinated gases.13
Almost all the GHGs emitted in the United States each year consist of CO2, CH4, and N2O,
13 Note: Fluorinated gases, which includes four main types: hydrofluorocarbons 8. (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), are man-made gases
that can stay in the atmosphere for centuries and contribute to the GHG effect. Center for Climate
and Energy Solutions. “Main Greenhouse Gases”. 2021. Available: https://www.c2es.org/content/main-
greenhouse-gases/. Accessed December 2021
Climate Action Plan 2.0 19
while fluorinated gases make up the remaining emissions 14. Because CO2, CH4, and N2O
comprise a large majority of GHG emissions at the community level, these are the gases
considered in this analysis.
Each GHG has a different propensity for trapping heat in the atmosphere, known as its
global warming potential (GWP). GHGs also last for different periods of time in the
atmosphere, ranging from a decade to several thousand years. Because all the GHGs have
different characteristics, a standard unit is needed to compare the potential impact of
different GHGs and allow them to be added up in an analysis. This is achieved by
converting all GHGs into the standard unit known as a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e),
based on the amount of heat one metric ton (MT) of CO2 traps in the atmosphere. GWP for
each GHG was drawn from the IPCC fifth Assessment Report 15, which represents the best
available scientific consensus and is consistent with the methodology outlined in the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan. Since CO2 is used as the reference
point for trapping heat, CO2 has a GWP of 1. Methane has a GWP of 28, meaning that each
metric ton (MT) of methane causes 28 times more warming than 1 MT of CO2. Nitrous oxide
has a GWP of 265, meaning 265 times the GWP of 1 MT of CO 2.16
Sources of GHG Emissions
The combustion of fossil fuels is the primary source of GHG emissions, decomposition of
waste, and land use change are also major contributors. It can be helpful to understand how
different sectors contribute to total emissions. The top sources of GHGs nationwide are
transportation, energy production, industrial processes, commercial and residential uses,
agriculture, and land use change.17 Fluctuations in annual GHG emissions can be attributed
to changes in the economy, the price of fuel, and land-use change. For example, nationwide
GHG emissions decreased from 2018 to 2019 by 1.7 percent. This decrease in emissions was
14 Note: Ninety-seven percent of the annual GHG emissions consist of CO2, CH4, and N2O and
fluorinated gases make up the remaining three percent of GHG emissions. US EPA. “Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks”. 2021. Available: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-
us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. Accessed: December 2021; World Resources Institute. “4 Charts
Explain Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Countries and Sectors”. 2021. Available:
https://www.wri.org/insights/4-charts-explain-greenhouse-gas-emissions-countries-and-sectors.
Accessed December 2021.
15 IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf. Accessed December 2021;
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.
16 IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf. Accessed December 2021
17 US EPA, “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Overviews and Factsheets. 2020. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed December 2021.
City of Cupertino
20
driven largely by the continued shift in electricity production as the electric power sector
moves away from using coal to natural gas and renewables, as well as a small reduction in
total energy consumption year over year.18
The main sources of GHG emissions in Cupertino are from buildings, transportation, waste,
and water. Building emissions are associated with electricity and natural gas used by
commercial, residential, and municipal buildings. Transportation emissions are generated
by fuels used to power cars, trucks, and off-road vehicles. Waste from residential,
commercial, and municipal sources generates methane emissions as material (especially
organics like food scraps and yard waste) decomposes in the landfill. Water emissions are
generated by the electricity used to transport water for residential, commercial, and
agricultural use, and emissions from wastewater treatment processes.
Opportunities to Reduce GHG Emissions
Cities are important players in reducing GHG emissions at the local level. Local government
policies and programs can affect high-emissions behaviors, help mitigate the impacts of
climate change, and prepare the community for resilience. Ways those cities can influence
climate action and emissions include strategic local land use planning, updating building
standards, and public and private partnerships that encourage behavior change. Cities can
take numerous actions to help reduce emissions such as improving building codes to reduce
energy use, incentivizing alternative transportation options to decrease fuel use, expanding
options for waste stream diversion and renewable energy sources, and educating
community members about their choices as citizens and customers.
2.2 Climate Change Impacts in Cupertino
Climate change already has impacted and will continue to impact the City of Cupertino, its
residents, businesses, and visitors. In the past few years, Cupertino has experienced severe
droughts, poor air quality from regional wildfire smoke, and local flooding from extreme
precipitation events. As the climate continues to change, many climate hazards may become
more frequent and intense. The City has performed research and public outreach to identify
which hazards are likely to impact Cupertino, the intensity of those impacts, and the City’s
capacity to adapt to these hazards. Together these metrics form a vulnerability assessment.
A companion document to this CAP 2.0 outlines the detailed methodology that was used.
18 US EPA. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,” Reports and Assessments. 2021.
Available: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks.
Accessed: December 2021.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 21
The City of Cupertino’s vulnerability assessment is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Projections and Impacts by Climate Hazard
Climate Hazard Projected Change Major Impacts
Adverse air quality
impacts
•Warmer temperatures
will increase smog and
pollutant formation
•Wildfires will deteriorate
air quality
•Pollen and dust
production will increase
•Health risks for vulnerable
groups including children
and people with pre-existing
health conditions
•Decreased outdoor
recreational opportunities
Extreme heat •Increase in extreme
heat days from 5 per
year to 11 per year by
2050 and up to 14 days
per year by 2100 (RCP
4.5)
•Maximum temperatures
increase by 1.8°C (3.3°F)
in 2050 and 2.3°C (4.2°F)
by 2100
•Heat-related illnesses and
exacerbation of pre-existing
health conditions
•Higher building operational
costs and brownouts
•Financial burden related to
replacing food, running
generators, etc.
•Decreased productivity in
work and school, stress to
natural systems, and
infrastructure deterioration
Extreme
precipitation/storm
flooding
•Extreme storm
frequency remains
similar in mid-century
but annual average
increases by 1-2 events
by late-century
•Precipitation events
(measured in
inches/day) could
increase 6-21% (up to
37% under RCP 8.5) by
2100
•Residents in high-risk areas
at risk for structural damage,
injuries, and displacement
•Disruptions to energy,
transportation, and water
infrastructure
•Flood insurance premiums
increase by $10 to $30 per
month for certain residents
City of Cupertino
22
Climate Hazard Projected Change Major Impacts
Wildfire • Longer wildfire season,
more frequent wildfires,
and greater intensity
• Across the Bay Area,
increase from 8,208
hectares burning
annually to 9,969 by
mid-century (RCP 4.5)
• In Cupertino, wildfire risk
remains similar at about
30-40 hectares burning
annually
• Residents in high-risk areas:
direct injuries, structural
damage, and displacement
• Wildfire smoke
• Disruptions to natural
systems
• Public safety power shutoffs
• Damage to regional energy,
information and
communications, and
transportation infrastructure
Drought • On average, 4.9 fewer
inches of annual
precipitation by late
century under drought
conditions
• Decrease in Sierra
Nevada snowpack 30-
60% under RCP 8.5 due
to higher rates of
melting and less
precipitation falling as
snow
• Impacts on agriculture
could increase food costs
• Increase in utility bills
• Concentration of
contaminants in drinking
water
• Mosquito-borne disease and
Valley Fever
• In extreme cases, land
subsidence
Sea level rise • Around 0.74 m (about
2.43 feet) of sea level
rise in the San Francisco
Bay by 2100
• Disrupt regional energy,
transportation, and water
infrastructure
• Impacts on neighboring
cities could strain social
services, housing, and other
regional resources
Climate Action Plan 2.0 23
Some Impacts are Being Felt Now, and Hazards are Projected to Intensify
Adverse Air Quality Impacts
Because of Cupertino’s geography, weather, and local features such as Interstate 280, the
city is already at high risk for poor air quality. From 2015 to 2019, Cupertino experienced 31
days where ozone or particulate matter levels exceeded state standards.19 As the climate
changes, warmer and drier temperatures will create more pollutants such as ozone, wildfire
smoke, dust, and pollen. Poor air quality is linked to respiratory conditions such as asthma,
vascular conditions such as heart attacks and stroke, and various cancers. Children and
youth, seniors, those with pre-existing conditions, pregnant women, and outdoor workers
are especially vulnerable and make up over 41% of Cupertino’s population.
Extreme Heat
Hot days are familiar in Cupertino, but extreme heat days are projected to become more
frequent, longer, and more severe. Extreme heat can cause illnesses such as heat exhaustion,
exacerbate pre-existing conditions, and increase the risk of vascular events such as heart
attacks, all of which can cause significant injury or even death. Children and youth, seniors,
persons with health conditions, and low-income communities are more vulnerable to
extreme heat. Extreme heat may also impact residents by causing brownouts, increasing
costs through air conditioning and other protective measures, decreasing productivity,
stressing natural systems, and damaging infrastructure.
Flooding from Severe Storms & River Flooding
Historically, some areas of Cupertino have experienced occasional shallow overland
flooding 20, and the areas around Stevens Creek and Calabazas Creek are vulnerable to
riverine flooding. Cupertino experienced its most recent severe flooding event in February
2017, after two large storm events occurred in the span of two weeks. As the climate
changes, the average annual volume of precipitation is not expected to change dramatically,
but storm events like the ones in 2017 are projected to become more frequent and intense.
This means precipitation may be compressed into fewer, intense events rather than spread
out in smaller precipitation events. About 300 people and 82 structures are at risk during a
19 Based on San Jose monitoring station data. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality
Summary Reports. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/air-quality-summaries.
Accessed January 2022.
20 FEMA. 2015. “Flood Insurance Study: Santa Clara County”. Available:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch#searchresultsanchor . Accessed February 2022.
City of Cupertino
24
10-year flood.21 Those at direct risk may experience property damage, injuries and other
health impacts, and financial costs including higher flood insurance premiums. Indirect
impacts may include disruptions to economic activity and infrastructure damage.
Wildfires and Smoke
In August of 2020, the CZU and SCU Lightning Complex fires collectively burned 483,133
acres, destroyed over 1,700 structures, and damaged over 150 more.22 The SCU Lightning
Complex fire alone was the fourth largest wildfire incident in California history. These fires
severely degraded the area’s air quality. During the fires, particulate readings regularly
crossed into the “Unhealthy” level, and officials called on residents to stay indoors. When
the CZU Lightning Complex fire spread rapidly through the mountains west of Cupertino,
more than 22,000 people in the area were evacuated. Increased temperatures, drought, and
severe weather can increase fire risk and contribute to similar incidents impacting
Cupertino.
About 33 residents live in high-risk areas and may experience significant impacts such as
direct injuries, structural damage, and displacement.23 However, all Cupertino residents
are exposed to indirect impacts like public safety power shutoffs, damage to regional
infrastructure like major highways, and degraded natural areas. As stated in the air quality
section, groups such as children and youth are highly vulnerable to poor air quality and
make up a large part of Cupertino’s population.
Drought
For Santa Clara County, 2021 had been the 33rd driest year over the past 127 years on record,
and the entire county was designated as experiencing extreme or exceptional drought.24
The ten reservoirs in the South Bay Area were collectively at less than 12 percent of total
21 Office of Emergency Services, County of Santa Clara, and Santa Clara County Fire. October 15,
2017. Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1—Operational-Area-Wide
Elements. Available:
https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb261/files/For%20Partners/Local-Hazard-
Mitigation-Plan-LHMP-Vol-1.pdf. Accessed February 2022.
22 CAL Fire. SCU Lightning Complex Incident Report. Available:
https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020/8/18/scu-lightning-complex/#incident-damages-losses.
Accessed January 2022.
23 Office of Emergency Services, County of Santa Clara, and Santa Clara County Fire. October 15,
2017. Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1—Operational-Area-Wide
Elements. Available:
https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb261/files/For%20Partners/Local-Hazard-
Mitigation-Plan-LHMP-Vol-1.pdf. Accessed February 2022.
24 Drought.gov, NIDIS. “Santa Clara County Conditions”. Available:
https://www.drought.gov/states/california/county/santa%20clara. Accessed December 2021.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 25
capacity as of September 2021.25 Valley Water instituted a 15% water use reduction in June
2021, but the County remains in a drought emergency despite reaching monthly
conservation goals.26 As the climate becomes hotter and drier, drought conditions may
worsen. This can increase food prices, utility bills, and other costs. As water becomes
scarcer, water quality may decrease as algal blooms occur, pollutants become more
concentrated, and stressed natural systems no longer filter water. Drawing up high levels of
ground water may cause further contamination, and in extreme cases, cause the ground to
subside.
Sea Level Rise
Cupertino will not be directly impacted by sea level rise, even when accounting for extreme
conditions.27,28 Rising sea levels may push groundwater closer to the surface, causing
flooding from underneath. 29 However, current projections indicate that Cupertino will not
be affected by such emergent groundwater.30 Though Cupertino will not be directly
affected by sea level rise, there may be significant regional impacts. These impacts have the
potential to be both extensive and expensive and can affect public infrastructure, private
property, vulnerable communities, natural resources, drinking and agricultural water
supplies, toxic contamination, and economic disruption.31
25 Robert Handa, NBC Bay Area. “Here’s How California’s Drought Is Impacting Bay Area Reservoirs”.
2021. Available: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/climate-in-crisis/heres-how-californias-
drought-is-impacting-bay-area-reservoirs/2665032/. Accessed: December 2021.
26 Santa Clara Valley Water. “Santa Clara County is in an extreme and exceptional drought and
Valley Water can help you save water”. 2021. Available: https://www.valleywater.org/drought.
Accessed December 2021.
27 Cal-Adapt. Sea Level Rise. Available: https://cal-adapt.org/tools/slr-calflod-3d/. Accessed
December 2021.
28 Manoochehr Shirzaei and Roland Burgmann. Science Advances. March 2018. Global climate
change and local land subsidence exacerbate inundation risk to the San Francisco Bay Area.
Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5846283/. Accessed February 2022.
29 Legislative Analysts Office, California. 2020. “What Threat Does Sea Level Rise Pose to California?”.
Available: https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2020/4261/sea-level-rise-081020.pdf . Accessed February 2022.
30 Ellen Plane, Kristina Hill, and Christine May. Water. 2019. A Rapid Assessment Method to Identify
Potential Groundwater Flooding Hotspots as Sea Levels Rise in Coastal Cities. Available:
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112228. Accessed February 2022.
31 Legislative Analysts Office, California. 2020. “What Threat Does Sea Level Rise Pose to California?”.
Available: https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2020/4261/sea-level-rise-081020.pdf . Accessed February 2022.
City of Cupertino
26
Adapting to Climate Change
Community Concerns
The public’s strong concerns about climate hazards further emphasize the necessity of
adapting to climate change. In the first Climate Action Plan 2.0 survey, conducted in
summer 2021, 86% of respondents believe that climate change currently has at least some
impact on them and their family’s personal wellbeing and safety. 95% of respondents
believe that climate change will have at least some impact on them and their family’s
personal wellbeing and safety 10 years from now. Common concerns expressed in public
engagement included health risks related to extreme heat and poor air quality, improving
air quality monitoring and alert systems, the effects of climate hazards on outdoor
recreational and social opportunities, and the costs related to increased insurance premiums
and loss of power. Figure 1 provides greater details about which hazards residents are most
concerned about.
Figure 1. Community Concerns about Climate Hazards
Source: Public Survey 1, out of 106 respondents
Climate Action Plan 2.0 27
3 Climate Action History
3.1 Progress to Date
The City of Cupertino has conducted a GHG emissions inventory of communitywide GHG
emissions for 2010, 2015, and 2018. In addition to these inventories, the City prepared a CAP
in 2015 that assessed both communitywide and municipal GHG emissions. See Appendix B
for more information about the data used and how GHG emissions were calculated for
Cupertino’s 2018 GHG emissions inventory. Figure 2 shows some of the major milestones
from recent history in Cupertino’s climate actions. Progress reports are available online at
cupertino.org/sustainability.
Figure 2. Selected Milestones in Cupertino’s Climate Action History
28
City of Cupertino
Trends from Cupertino GHG Emissions Inventories
In the 2015 CAP, the City of Cupertino set a target to reduce GHG emissions 15 percent
compared to 2010 by the year 2020. The City achieved this target ahead of schedule with
emissions falling 15 percent below 2010 levels as of 2018. Community emissions are driven
by both residential and commercial activity occurring within Cupertino, and changes in
population and jobs in the City can result in increases or decreases in community emissions.
For example, Cupertino has experienced an estimated 6 percent increase in population, 18
percent increase in jobs, and a 10 percent increase in daytime or “service” population since
2010. As a result of increases in local jobs, commercial natural gas usage also increased since
2010, by roughly 18 percent. While the City’s climate actions and other systemic changes
resulted in an overall 15 percent decrease in emissions, reducing commercial natural gas
usage represents an opportunity for continued progress. For a full account of the progress
that Cupertino has already achieved since the 2015 CAP, as well as complimentary
sustainability projects and programs pursued by the City of Cupertino above and beyond
the CAP measures, please refer to Appendix E: Existing Programs and Accomplishments.
Robust Sustainability Leadership
The City of Cupertino and the Cupertino City Council have a robust legacy as a leader in
sustainability. This is achieved through the City’s dedicated Cupertino Green team to
implement sustainability leadership and to support continued innovation and effective
action on climate and sustainability. Cupertino Green is dedicated to designing and
coordinating the energy, water, and transportation goals set forth in the City’s General Plan
– Sustainability Element. Cupertino Green is made up of both the Sustainability and
Environmental Programs teams and is committed to maintaining Cupertino as a sustainable
and healthy place to live, learn, work, and play for all members of the Cupertino
community.
Sustainability Team
Housed within the City Manager’s Office, the Sustainability team oversees Cupertino’s
Climate Action Plan as well as providing residents, businesses, and schools with programs
and services. This team focuses primarily on energy efficiency, renewable energy, water
conservation, drought resources, alternative transportation, the annual Earth Day Festival,
and other sustainable actions.
Environmental Programs Team
Housed within the Public Works Department, the Environmental Programs team manages
the City’s waste disposal services and provides composting and recycling programs to
Cupertino residents and businesses. This team also ensures that state and federal
requirements for storm runoff management are met to protect to local creeks and the San
Francisco Bay from pollutants carried in runoff after storms.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 29
Sustainability Commission
The Cupertino Sustainability Commission consists of five members appointed by the City
Council to provide expertise and guidance on policy areas related to the City’s ongoing
climate action planning efforts. The Sustainability Commission serves in an advisory
capacity to the City Council and provides expertise and guidance on major policy and
programmatic areas related to the environmental, economic, and societal goals noted within
the Cupertino CAP and General Plan (GP) Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element.
Lessons Learned
The measures and actions in this CAP 2.0 provide Cupertino with the per capita GHG
reductions necessary to achieve Cupertino’s 2030 climate action target (See Section 5.3 and
Chapters 8-11). 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.32
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. The
City has additionally identified a future CAP update schedule, as described in Section 13,
Future CAP updates past 2030, 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.
32 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.
City of Cupertino
30
4 Current and Projected GHG Emissions
4.1 Cupertino GHG Emissions Inventory
Community GHG inventories measure the GHG emissions generated by residents and
businesses operating in the community, as well as municipal operations. The process of
creating a GHG inventory includes first identifying activities that are major sources of
emissions and collecting summary data on those activities for a calendar year. Then, the
City uses science-based GHG emissions factors to convert the collected data into an
accounting of GHG emissions produced through all the identified activities. Inventories
measure GHG emissions in units of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, or MT CO2e.
GHG Inventory Protocols
There are various inventory protocols to guide communities in accurately and consistently
measuring GHG emissions. Consistent with the California Office of Planning and
Research’s (OPR) guidance, Cupertino’s inventory methods rely on the U.S. Community
Protocol for Accounting and Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Version 1.2) and are
consistent with the methodologies used by other cities throughout the State of California.
The Community Protocol is the authoritative guide for best practices in calculating
community-scale GHG inventories. The protocol separates a city’s GHG-generating
activities into categories known as emissions sectors. Large emissions sectors for cities
include the transportation sector (such as combustion emissions from cars and other
vehicles operating within the city), the building sector (including emissions from electricity
and natural gas usage), and the waste sector (capturing emissions from sending solid waste
to the landfill). Consistent with the State’s GHG inventory, the global warming potential
(GWP) values for methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) were derived from the IPCC
Assessment Report 5.33
Not all activities within a city that generate GHGs are included in a GHG emissions
inventory. Activities that cannot be controlled or influenced by city policies are generally
excluded as they have little bearing on city planning. For example, emissions from cars
traveling through a city, whose origins and destinations are both outside of city limits, are
typically excluded because a local government cannot reasonably influence this pass-
through travel activity.
33 IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf. Accessed December 2021.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 31
Current Inventory
The CAP 2.0 includes a 2018 inventory of GHG emissions from Cupertino communitywide
activities. The inventory includes sources within each sector that are within some degree of
jurisdictional control by the City, in accordance with established GHG accounting protocols
and State guidance. In 2018, Cupertino’s GHG emissions totaled 346,998 MT CO2e. This
represents a 15 percent decrease in emissions compared to 2010 emissions levels (408,176
MT CO2e) and a 14 percent reduction in emissions relative to 1990 emissions levels (402,639
MT CO2e).
As shown in Figure 3 and Table 2, emissions from transportation made up the largest sector
contribution to total emissions (220,625 MT CO2e, or 65 percent of total emissions). The
second largest source of emissions (91,029 MT CO2e, or 26 percent of total emissions) was
building energy use from electricity and natural gas consumption. Energy emissions were
split evenly between the residential sector and the commercial/industrial sector. The
remaining community emissions were from wastewater management (19,635 MT CO2e, 6
percent of emissions) and solid waste (15,709 MT CO2e, 5 percent of emissions), including
the decomposition of solid wastes in the landfill.
Figure 3. Cupertino Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, 2018
On-road
transportation,
60%
Building energy
natural gas, 25%
Wastewater, 6%
Solid waste, 4%
Off-road vehicles
and equipment, 4%
Building energy
electricity, 1%
City of Cupertino
32
Table 2 Cupertino 2018 GHG Emissions Inventory Summary
Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed discussion related to methodology, modeling, and
supporting evidence for the Cupertino 2018 GHG inventory.
GHG Emissions Sector/Source CO2
(MT)
CH4
(MT)
N2O
(MT)
CO2e
(MT)
% of Total
Emissions
Transportation 65%
Passenger On-Road Transportation 130,864 8.2 5.8 132,635 38%
Commercial On-Road Transportation 71,440 3.8 9.2 73,972 21%
Passenger On-Road - EV adjustment 27 0.0 0.0 27 <1%
Commercial On-Road - EV adjustment 0 0.0 0.0 0 <1%
Off Road - Diesel 6,352 0.2 0.3 6,432 2%
Off Road - Gasoline 4,507 4.5 0.1 4,651 1%
Off Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 2,841 0.5 0.2 2,908 1%
Residential 13%
Residential Electricity - PG&E 253 0.04 0.00 256 <1%
Residential Electricity - SVCE 186 0.00 0.00 186 <1%
Residential Electricity - Direct Access 5 0.00 0.00 5 <1%
Residential Natural Gas 43,428 N/A N/A 43,428 13%
Natural Gas Fugitive - Residential 1 50.7 N/A 1,420 <1%
Commercial/Industrial 13%
Commercial/Industrial Electricity –PG&E 0 0.0 0.0 287 <1%
Commercial/Industrial Electricity – SVCE 215 0.0 0.0 215 <1%
Commercial/Industrial Electricity – Direct
Access (Other) 3,544 0.4 0.0 3,564 1%
Commercial/Industrial Electricity – EV
adjustment 0 0.0 0.0 0 0%
Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas – PG&E 39,957 N/A N/A 39,957 12%
Natural Gas Fugitive - Commercial 0.7 61.05 N/A 1,710 <1%
Wastewater 6%
Wastewater Treatment and Discharge N/A 695.0 0.7 19,635 6%
Solid Waste 5%
Solid Waste Generated/Disposal N/A 561.1 N/A 15,709 5%
N/A = not applicable; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide
equivalent; PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric; SVCE = Silicon Valley Clean Energy; kWh = kilowatt-hour; EV =
electric vehicle
Climate Action Plan 2.0 33
4.2 Cupertino GHG Emissions Forecasts
GHG forecasts provide an estimate of Cupertino’s GHG emissions in the future, based
primarily on projected population and job growth in the City. Forecasting helps to track
trends and progress for the City and allows the City to see how much it needs to reduce
emissions in order to meet its future GHG emissions reduction targets. GHG emissions
forecasts for Cupertino were developed using the 2018 inventory for 2023, 2026, 2030, 2035,
2040 and 2045.
The City developed two forecasts to contextualize how emissions will change and better
understand the reduction actions that Cupertino must take. The first forecast is a business-
as-usual (BAU) forecast, and the second is an adjusted forecast that accounts for GHG
reduction policies and programs.
Business as Usual Forecast
The BAU forecast assumes that per capita emissions remain constant. Under this
assumption, population and job growth are the main drivers for GHG generating activities.
The BAU forecast provides a basis of comparison by assuming there are no changes to
technology, behaviors, or legislation, and population and job growth trends continue as
projected. However, several state regulations (e.g., SB 1, SB 100, AB 1493) have been enacted
that will reduce future local emissions. This means that another forecast that incorporates
these effects into emissions projections is also needed.
Data and Methods
The BAU GHG emissions projections were calculated based on guidance from the
Association of Environmental Professionals 2012 whitepaper Forecasting Communitywide
GHG Emissions and Setting Reduction Targets. To develop a GHG emissions forecast,
“growth metrics” (e.g., population, housing, and employment projections) are multiplied by
BAU “growth indicators,” which represent a baseline metric developed from the GHG
emissions inventory. This process allows the City to convert growth projections into GHG
emissions estimates using specific GHG emissions factors, which is assumed to be the same
in the future as in the 2018 GHG emissions inventory. The result is a BAU forecast in which
GHG emissions change in relation to demographics, with the assumption that GHG
emissions rates and activity data will continue in the future as they did in the year of the
2018 GHG emissions inventory. This methodology is used for all GHG emissions sectors
and sources included in the 2018 GHG emissions inventory, apart from the off-road
emissions sector. To forecast off-road emissions, the OFFROAD2021 off-road emissions
database was used to project fuel use since no significant GHG emission reduction
legislation is included in the model. Table 3 summarizes the BAU forecast for each forecast
year.
City of Cupertino
34
Table 3 BAU Emissions Forecast (MT CO2e)
GHG Emissions Source 2023 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
Transportation 231,509 235,735 240,232 246,486 252,825 258,821
Passenger On-Road
Transportation 136,582 138,100 140,150 144,696 149,390 154,235
Commercial On-Road
Transportation 78,238 79,607 80,687 81,545 82,842 84,176
Residential Electricity - EV Adjust 27 27 27 33 34 34
Commercial/Industrial Electricity
- EV Adj 0 0 0 0 0 0
Off Road – Diesel 7,725 8,630 9,631 10,138 10,372 10,588
Off Road – Gasoline 5,503 5,763 5,965 6,133 6,171 5,963
Off Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 3,434 3,608 3,770 3,941 4,017 3,826
Residential 45,597 45,813 45,869 55,459 56,462 57,482
Residential Electricity - PG&E 258 259 259 313 319 325
Residential Electricity – SVCE 187 188 188 228 232 236
Residential Electricity - Direct
Access 5 6 6 7 7 7
Residential Natural Gas - PG&E 43,717 43,924 43,978 53,173 54,134 55,112
Natural Gas Fugitive – Residential 1,430 1,437 1,438 1,739 1,770 1,802
Commercial/Industrial 52,115 53,655 54,538 54,860 54,753 54,646
Commercial/Industrial Electricity
- PG&E 327 337 342 344 344 343
Commercial/Industrial Electricity
– SVCE 245 252 257 258 258 257
Commercial/Industrial Electricity
– DAO 4,066 4,187 4,256 4,282 4,273 4,265
Commercial/Industrial Electricity
– DAA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial/Industrial Natural
Gas - PG&E 45,583 46,940 47,719 48,003 47,908 47,814
Natural Gas Fugitive –
Commercial 1,894 1,938 1,964 1,973 1,970 1,967
Wastewater 20,767 21,130 21,417 21,645 21,989 22,343
Wastewater Treatment and
Discharge 20,767 21,130 21,417 21,645 21,989 22,343
Solid Waste 16,615 16,906 17,136 17,318 17,593 17,876
Community Generated Solid
Waste 16,615 16,906 17,136 17,318 17,593 17,876
TOTAL 366,604 373,239 379,192 395,768 403,622 411,169
Notes: Values in this table may not add up to totals due to rounding
All values are of the unit metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e)
PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric; SVCE = Silicon Valley Clean Energy; DAO = Direct Access Other;
DAA = Direct Access Apple; kWh = kilowatt-hour.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 35
Adjusted Forecast
The adjusted forecast adjusts the BAU forecast to account for state-level legislation, policies,
and programs that are expected to reduce GHG emissions in California. Because it includes
the effects of adopted legislation, the adjusted forecast is considered a more realistic picture
of Cupertino’s future emissions. Comparing the BAU and adjusted forecasts can illustrate
the scale of GHG emissions reductions in Cupertino that are likely to result from state-level
policies and programs.
State-Level Policies Included in the Adjusted Forecast
There are several state-level regulations and policies that have been enacted and are
expected to reduce Cupertino’s future emissions. These pieces of legislation are
incorporated into the adjusted forecast to provide a more accurate depiction of Cupertino’s
future emissions. The relevant policies and programs are as follows:
Advanced Clean Cars Program: A comprehensive car emissions control program which
regulates smog, soot-causing pollutants, and GHG emissions into a single coordinated
package of requirements.
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Building standards that regulate new
residential and commercial development in California by requiring increased efficiency
related to space heating and cooling, lighting, and water heating.
California Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS): Requires investor-owned utilities,
publicly owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to
increase procurement from renewable energy resources.
See Appendix A for more information on these and a suite of other programs and policies
that are intended to reduce emissions, including SB 1383 and AB 341.
Table 4 Adjusted Forecast (MT CO2e)
GHG Emissions Source 2023 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
Transportation 213,921 205,470 194,328 182,901 177,328 175,971
Passenger On-Road Transportation 123,196 117,032 110,724 108,381 108,764 110,886
Commercial On-Road Transportation 74,016 70,368 64,102 54,122 47,877 44,709
Residential Electricity - EV Adjust 44 50 52 38 20 0
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - EV Adj 3 20 84 148 107 0
Off Road - Diesel 7,725 8,630 9,631 10,138 10,372 10,588
Off Road - Gasoline 5,503 5,763 5,965 6,133 6,171 5,963
Off Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 3,434 3,608 3,770 3,941 4,017 3,826
Residential 45,527 45,724 45,757 54,499 55,975 56,844
Residential Electricity - PG&E 218 198 170 124 69 0
Residential Electricity - SVCE 179 177 172 126 70 0
Residential Electricity - Direct Access 4 4 3 2 1 0
City of Cupertino
36
Figure 4. Baseline Emissions Compared to Forecast Scenarios
2018 Baseline Inventory
Business-as-usual Forecast
Adjusted Forecast
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
2015 2025 2035 2045
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(
M
T
C
O
2
e
)
GHG Emissions Source 2023 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
Residential Natural Gas - PG&E 43,697 43,909 43,974 52,529 54,066 55,044
Natural Gas Fugitive - Residential 1,429 1,436 1,438 1,718 1,768 1,800
Commercial/Industrial 51,305 52,365 52,609 51,939 50,858 49,781
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - PG&E 277 258 224 151 75 0
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - SVCE 236 237 234 157 78 0
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - DAO 3,314 2,990 2,468 1,655 826 0
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - DAA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Residential Natural Gas - PG&E 45,583 46,940 47,719 48,003 47,908 47,814
Non-Residential Biofuel – Apple Park 0 0 0 0 0 0
Natural Gas Fugitive - Commercial 1,894 1,938 1,964 1,973 1,970 1,967
Wastewater 20,767 21,130 21,417 21,645 21,989 22,343
Wastewater Treatment and Discharge 20,767 21,130 21,417 21,645 21,989 22,343
Solid Waste 16,615 16,906 17,136 17,318 17,593 17,876
Community Generated Solid Waste 16,615 16,906 17,136 17,318 17,593 17,876
TOTAL 348,136 341,595 331,247 328,301 323,743 322,815
Notes: Values in this table may not add up to totals due to rounding
All values are of the unit metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e)
PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric; SVCE = Silicon Valley Clean Energy; DAO = Direct Access Other; DAA =
Direct Access Apple; kWh = kilowatt-hour.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 37
Comparing Forecast Scenarios
The BAU forecast for Cupertino projects an increase in GHG emissions above the 2018 GHG
emissions inventory from all GHG emissions sources through 2045 based on projected job
and population growth in the city. Cupertino’s BAU GHG emissions are projected to
increase to 366,604 MT CO2e in 2023, 373,239 MT CO2e in 2026, 379,192 MT CO2e in 2030,
and 403,622 MT CO2e in 2040 (see Figure 4 and Table 4).
The adjusted forecast projects that state legislation will result in GHG emissions reduction
from the BAU forecast in both the residential and commercial/industrial sectors. Title 24 is
expected to reduce GHG emissions due to reduced electricity and natural gas consumption
in new residential housing units. Reduced GHG emissions associated with electricity
generation due to the California RPS is expected to further reduce GHG emissions in the
residential and the commercial/industrial sector. Cupertino’s adjusted GHG emissions are
projected to be 348,136 MT CO2e in 2023, 341,595 MT CO2e in 2026, 331,247 MT CO2e in
2030, and 323,743 MT CO2e in 2040 (see Figure 2 and Table 4).
Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed discussion related to methodology modeling, and
supportive evidence for Cupertino’s GHG forecasts.
City of Cupertino
38
5 Fair Share of GHG Emissions Reductions
5.1 International Context
Climate action at the local level is informed by science and policy targets at the international
level. Bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) perform scientific review and create policy recommendations. International treaties
such as the Paris Agreement (2016) are legally binding treaties which cover nearly every
nation on earth. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2040 is consistent with IPCC findings and
research-based targets for avoiding the most serious climate change impacts. The Paris
Agreement’s central aim is to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-
industrial levels. The IPCC has found that to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius
above pre-industrial levels and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global climate change,
the world must reach carbon neutrality by mid-century (~2050) and stabilize atmospheric
concentrations at 350 parts per million (or less).
The State of California also aligns state-wide targets with these international frameworks.
According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), reducing the State’s emissions to
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 would be consistent with the IPCC’s analysis of the
global emissions trajectory needed to achieve these goals.34 The Paris Agreement establishes
a global goal of enhancing adaptive capacity and requires all parties to determine national
34 CARB. 2014. “First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan”. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2013-scoping-plan-
documents . Accessed February 2022.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 39
contributions to the collective climate effort, and to regularly report emissions and progress
on implementation efforts. These efforts are mirrored through Cupertino’s work to increase
resilience, achieve carbon neutrality, regularly inventory emissions, report progress towards
targets, and ultimately to contribute a fair share towards limiting global temperature rise.
Cupertino targets associated with the CAP 2.0 are consistent with both the state and IPCC
science-based targets related to GHG emissions reduction. See Section 5.3 for Cupertino
targets.
Cupertino is a city with global connections and a richly diverse population. More than 40
percent of residents were born outside of the United States, and many are first-generation
Americans. This diversity fuels the creativity, innovation, and success of Cupertino. The
global influence of the community goes both ways, with many of the products designed in
Cupertino businesses being distributed around the world. To further celebrate and develop
the international nature of the community, Cupertino partners with communities in other
countries through Sister City and Friendship City relationships.
Cupertino has four established Sister City relationships:
Copertino, Italy, formalized in 1963
Toyokawa, Japan, formalized in 1978
Hsinchu, Taiwan, formalized in 2007
Bhubaneswar, India, formalized in 2012
5.2 State Context and Timeline/Emissions Targets
Over the last ten years California has adopted extensive legislation, policies, and programs
to reduce GHG emissions across California, establishing itself as a global leader in climate
change action. The primary legislation enumerating the state’s climate goals and driving
climate action at the state level are Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and Executive
Order (EO) B-55-18. Together these regulations set statewide GHG reduction targets for
2020, 2030, and 2045 and chart a path towards a carbon neutral California, as explained
below. See Appendix A for a full list of relevant state-level legislation.
Assembly Bill 32: Codified the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by
2020 and requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare a Scoping Plan that
outlines the main strategies the state will employ to meet the 2020 target.
Senate Bill 32: This successor legislation to AB 32 requires California to achieve a statewide
reduction in GHG emissions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The SB 32 Scoping Plan
was adopted in 2017.
Executive Order B-55-18: Established a new statewide goal of achieving and maintaining
carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045. Executive orders have not been
codified by the state but are binding for state agencies.
City of Cupertino
40
5.3 Cupertino Context and Timeline/Emissions Targets
Emissions Gap Analysis to Set Targets
The difference between Cupertino’s climate action targets and the adjusted forecast for
emissions can be thought of as an “emissions reduction gap,” or the amount of emissions
reduction that the City and wider Cupertino community must achieve. After analyzing
Cupertino’s baseline inventory and forecast scenarios, emission targets were set to create
quantitative milestones for the community’s path to carbon neutrality and measure
Cupertino’s progress.
Figure 5. Emissions Reduction Gap Between Forecasted Emissions and State Targets
Cupertino GHG Emissions Targets
CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan recommends that local agencies establish communitywide GHG
reduction goals for local climate action plans that will help California achieve its 2030 target
and longer-term goal. The scoping plan notes that it is appropriate to derive evidence-based
targets or goals from local emissions sectors and population projections if this process is
consistent with the framework used to develop the Statewide targets. CARB also notes that
GHG goals and targets should show a downward trend consistent with the statewide
objectives.35 The GHG emissions reductions associated with the measures in the CAP 2.0 are
sufficient to exceed the state-level target established by Senate Bill (SB) 32 and meet the
City’s 2030 climate action target. The CAP 2.0 also makes substantial progress towards the
35 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.
Business-as-usual
Forecast
Adjusted Forecast
State Target Pathway -
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(
M
T
C
O
2
e
)
Emissions
reduction
gap
Climate Action Plan 2.0 41
City’s 2040 target, which exceeds the state-level target established by executive order (EO)
B-55-18.
The Cupertino climate action targets are more aggressive than the state-level goals to reduce
GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (in compliance with SB 32) and to
carbon neutrality by 2045 (in compliance with EO B-55-18). Cupertino’s climate action
targets are to:
Reduce the community’s per capita GHG emissions to 3.39 MT CO2e per person by 2030,
which equals a 50 percent reduction from 2010 per capita levels, or a 66 percent
reduction from 1990 per capita levels by 2030.36
Based on projected population growth through 2030, this is equivalent to reducing the
community’s mass emissions to 222,867 MT CO2e by 2030, or 45 percent below the
community’s 1990 GHG emissions.
Achieve net-zero MT CO2e per person, or carbon neutrality, by 2040. Maintain carbon
neutrality through 2045 and beyond.
The City uses per capita emission targets to align with guidance from CARB’s 2017 Scoping
Plan Update. Making substantial progress toward California’s 2030 and longer-term 2045
goals is important, as these targets 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 the worst environmental consequences.
Cupertino’s emissions targets are further summarized and compared to the BAU and
adjusted emissions forecasts in the tables below, beginning from the 2018 baseline year
through 2045. The emissions “gap,” the difference between the adjusted emissions forecast
and Cupertino’s GHG emissions targets, is shown for each year in the final row of both
Table 5 and Table 6.
Table 5 Mass-based GHG Reduction Target Pathway (MT CO2e)
36 This is equivalent to the City Council recommended target of 54% below 2010 levels by 2030.
GHG Emissions Pathways 2018 2023 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
BAU Forecast 346,998 366,604 373,239 379,192 395,768 403,622 411,169
Adjusted Forecast 346,998 348,136 341,595 331,247 328,301 323,743 322,815
Cupertino Emissions
Targets
346,998 295,543 265,064 222,867 112,918 0 0
Emissions “Gap” 0 52,593 76,530 108,380 215,384 323,743 322,815
City of Cupertino
42
Table 6 Per Capita GHG Reduction Target Pathway (MT CO2e/person)
Meeting the GHG Emissions Targets
Though there will be some emissions reductions from state regulations, Cupertino must
implement local GHG reduction measures to meet the 2030 emissions targets and make
substantial progress towards the 2040 emissions targets. Cupertino would be required to
reduce 108,380 MT CO2e by 2030, and 323,743 MT CO2e by 2040 to meet the chosen targets
that exceed state goals. Table 6 also shows the remaining per capita reductions needed to
meet the GHG emissions goals in MT CO2e per person.
Targeted emissions reductions will be accomplished through local policies and programs
developed from best practices of similar and neighboring jurisdictions. These activities are
referred to as “measures” and “actions” and they should be clear, attainable, measurable,
equitable, and cost-effective to help achieve the desired emission reductions.
Additional discussion and details are provided regarding measures and actions in Chapters
7 through 12. Table 7 shows the Cupertino climate action target emissions and the emissions
reductions expected from implementing the measures and actions described in subsequent
chapters. The table also shows that Cupertino will meet the 2030 GHG reduction target and
make substantial progress towards the 2040 goal of carbon neutrality. Figure 6 shows how
Cupertino measures would result in GHG reductions in line with the Cupertino targets.
GHG Emissions Pathways 2018 2023 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
BAU Forecast 5.46 5.71 5.75 5.77 5.95 5.91 5.87
Adjusted Forecast 5.46 5.42 5.26 5.04 4.93 4.74 4.61
Cupertino Emissions
Targets
5.46 4.60 4.08 3.39 1.70 0.00 0.00
Emissions “Gap” 0.00 0.82 1.18 1.65 3.24 4.74 4.61
Climate Action Plan 2.0 43
Table 7 Targets Versus GHG 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
Cupertino Climate Action Targets 3.39 0.00
GHG Reductions from Full Implementation of CAP Update
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; however,
substantial progress
demonstrated
Figure 6. Baseline Emissions per Capita Compared to Forecast Scenarios and Target
Pathway to Carbon Neutrality
2018 Baseline Inventory
Business-as-usual Forecast
Adjusted Forecast
Target Pathway
5.48 MT CO2e per
capita
3.39 MT CO2e per
capita
CAP 2.0 Plan
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(
M
T
C
O
2
e
p
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
)
City of Cupertino
44
6 Community Voices
6.1 One Climate
We only have one planet, and one climate, that we all share. The impacts of climate change
are already being felt across California, and as discussed in the climate science section of
this report, the actions that communities take now can make a difference in the stability and
functioning of our one climate and it’s impacts on human wellbeing. To have a positive
impact, communities must step up to take actions that reduce GHG emissions now and into
the future. It is important for the community of Cupertino to do its fair share in this effort.
This requires the community to work together to undertake the activities and projects that
will reduce the community’s contribution to climate change and that can help lead the way
for other communities by demonstrating effective leadership, innovative thinking, and a
commitment to addressing the climate crisis now. This effort will require wide
participation, and will benefit from diverse perspectives, expertise, and experiences.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 45
As directed by the City Council in a vision-setting study session (December 2020), the CAP
2.0 project team made extensive efforts to communicate with and obtain input from a range
of community members. This approach to the CAP 2.0, the City’s engagement efforts, and
contributions from community groups and stakeholders are detailed in the following
sections.
As part of this CAP Update process, the City utilized a multi-pronged approach
engagement strategy to engage with Cupertino residents, businesses, organizations, and
stakeholders. Key engagement objectives include:
Gather community perspectives and feedback that are representative of the diverse
communities of Cupertino to inform CAP development and guide decision-making.
Create a framework for community action that clearly outlines how Cupertino residents
and businesses can achieve CAP goals and take ownership in action implementation.
Educate, empower, and energize the Cupertino community to cultivate a shared
understanding around climate change and inspire action.
Strengthen community relationships with the City to facilitate and coordinate CAP
implementation and other priorities and activities.
As defined for the purpose of this CAP Update, equity consists of the effort to create
equitable economic and physical access to municipal services and public amenities, promote
economic prosperity for all the City’s residents, protect the most vulnerable against the
impacts of climate change, and improve the quality of life for all members of the community
by fostering an inclusive and collaborative civic process.
To do this, the City employed multiple engagement approaches, including:
Public workshops
Stakeholder meetings
Climate Action Plan Update Subcommittee meetings
Surveys
Pop-up events
City of Cupertino
46
Climate Action Plan 2.0 47
How Equity was Centered in Cupertino’s CAP Update Engagement Strategy
Equity and inclusion were central to the engagement strategy for this CAP Update. The City
recognizes that some community groups – such as low-income households, people who
speak limited English, elders, historically underserved communities, and people with
functional access needs – may experience disproportionate burden from climate change
impacts, and also may have fewer resources and ability to adapt to changes. The project
team was mindful of these parts of the community as the CAP 2.0 was under development.
The project team used the following approaches to ensure that public engagement was
inclusive and equitable:
Translation of materials and public surveys for Chinese-speakers in Cupertino.
Stakeholder meetings to hear from certain groups, such as low-income households.
Stipends for community participants, if requested, to compensate people for their time
and contributions.
City Council Study Session, December 2020
Activate and celebrate the multiracial
character of Cupertino. Take every effort to
include traditionally under-represented
voices and those who might be displaced
by climate hazards in the planning and
selection of strategies, as well as business,
faith groups, neighborhoods, and schools.
Create a plan that reflects the diversity of
the city and sets us on a path towards a
more welcoming and inclusive Cupertino.
48
City of Cupertino
6.2 Engagement Events & Feedback Summary
Table 8 below shows the key engagement events in chronological order and community
input that was considered during the development of the CAP 2.0. Public input will
continue to be received throughout the public draft comment period. More details of
the public engagement process are available in Appendix C.
Table 8 CAP Update Engagement Summary
Engagement
Event Date of Event Objectives
Subcommittee
Meeting #1
July 1st, 2021 •Present our engagement approach.
•Identify initial vision and priorities for the CAP.
•Review the outreach toolkit and give feedback to
staff on the best way to roll out the toolkit in the
community.
Stakeholder
Meeting #1
July 1st, 2021 •Build early awareness of the CAP process.
•Gather high-level ideas, priorities, and concerns.
•Build relationships with key stakeholder groups.
Public Survey
#1
July 23rd -
September
19th, 2021
•Assess awareness of climate change knowledge.
•Identify community climate change priorities.
•Identify community-supported climate change
strategies.
•Identify potential community barriers for
implementing climate change strategies.
Public
Workshop #1
July 29th, 2021 •Build early awareness of the CAP goals and process
among the general public.
•Gather high-level priorities, and concerns about
climate action in Cupertino.
•Gather initial ideas for potential actions to include
in the CAP.
Subcommittee
Meeting #2
August 19th,
2021
•Review draft CAP targets
•Brainstorm high impact strategies and actions to
achieve draft CAP targets
•Review upcoming public engagement and options
for outreach activities
Stakeholder
Meeting #2 –
Housing
Advocates
September
30th, 2021
•Build early awareness of the CAP process.
•Gather high-level ideas, priorities, and concerns.
•Build relationships with key stakeholder groups.
•Focus on advocates for affordable and low-income
housing.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 49
Engagement
Event Date of Event Objectives
Public
Workshop #2
October 11th,
2021
• Provide updates about the Cupertino CAP’s
emission forecasts and GHG reduction targets.
• Present the draft mitigation measures.
• Gather feedback about the draft mitigation
measures.
Public Survey
#2
September
30th - October
25th, 2021
• Assess level of support for various focus areas’
Mitigation Measures as a whole.
• Assess level of support for key mitigation measures
within each focus area.
Stakeholder
Meeting #3
May 3, 2022 • 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.
Public Survey
#3
May 17, 2022 -
July 23, 2021
• Public review of the draft CAP document and to
provide input.
City of Cupertino
50
7 A Different Kind of Plan
7.1 Regional Climate Efforts, Solutions, and Partnerships
Compact of Mayors: The Compact of Mayors is a global coalition of mayors and city
officials committed to reducing local GHG emissions, enhancing city resilience to climate
change and transparently tracking their progress towards these aims. These networks work
to support their members in decreasing city-level emissions, reducing vulnerability and to
enhancing resilience to climate change, in a manner that is consistent and complimentary
with national level climate actions and efforts. Cupertino committed to the Global Covenant
of Mayors in 2015 and remains dedicated to making strides towards clean energy and
carbon neutrality.
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 GHG
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 GHG 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 roadmap
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE): SVCE is the community-owned electricity provider
for several south bay cities including Cupertino. SVCE developed its Decarbonization
Strategy & 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, Silicon Valley Clean
Energy programs aim to cut energy-related pollution in half from the 2015 baseline. That
equates to preventing 2 million MT CO 2e from being released into the environment each
year.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA): The VTA’s Sustainability Program
seeks to conserve of natural resources, reduce GHG emissions, prevent pollution, and
increase the use of renewable energy and materials. VTA is a founding signatory of the
American Public Transportation Association’s (APTA) Sustainability Commitment and
achieved Gold Level Recognition for its sustainability efforts. VTA's Sustainability Plan 2020
Climate Action Plan 2.0 51
identified both short-term and stretch targets for key climate and environmental
performance indicators including: GHG emissions, criteria air pollutants, building energy,
fleet energy, water usage, and waste diversion. In 2021, VTA was selected as a recipient of
the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Sustainable Communities Grant Program, receiving a total award
of approximately $1 million under the Sustainable Communities Competitive Grant
category. The funding will support VTA in conducting a Climate Action and Adaptation
Plan (CAAP). In developing the CAAP, VTA will identify specific actions that could
minimize contributions to climate change and adapt and build resilience to long-term
climate impacts. The CAAP process will begin in 2023.
7.2 Ambitious Timeline
The Cupertino GHG emission targets are more aggressive than the State goals to reduce
GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (in compliance with SB 32) and to
achieve Statewide carbon neutrality by 2045 (in compliance with EO B-55-18). Specifically,
Cupertino GHG emissions targets are 3.39 MT CO2e per person by 2030 and 0.00 MT CO2e
per person by 2040.
The City of Cupertino has established three phases for implementation:
Phase 1 actions will begin implementation at CAP adoption (2022) or before. These
actions have been prioritized due to their importance, cost-effectiveness, or the
availability of resources for implementation. Phase 1 actions may not be completed in
2022 but will be completed by the end of Phase 2.
Phase 2 actions will begin implementation between 2023 and 2026. These actions may
require additional resources such as staff time, funding and financing, or there may
need to be additional education and outreach conducted prior to implementation.
Phase 3 actions will begin implementation after 2026. These actions may be less critical
in the short term or simply require more significant resources to implement.
7.3 Reduction Strategy Framework
As part of the CAP Update process, the City of Cupertino has developed a comprehensive
set of measures and actions for reducing communitywide GHG emissions in all sectors to
achieve the City’s climate action targets. 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 occur and include Building Energy, Transportation, Waste, Water and Wastewater,
and Carbon Sequestration.
2. Measures: Measures identify specific goals and GHG reduction necessary to address
GHG emissions in each sector and achieve the overarching GHG reduction targets.
City of Cupertino
52
3. Actions: Actions are the specific steps the City will take in support of each measure,
which together will accomplish the measure goal. Actions concretely identify the
mechanisms required for implementation. Actions are developed to ensure that each of
the key pillars, or categories of action, are met.
Each action contains a rough-order-of-magnitude cost range for the City to consider when
organizing its implementation plan. These cost ranges provide a way to evaluate relative
costs from among the different actions. The cost ranges are as follows:
Low: $0 - $40,000
Low-Medium: $40,001 - $100,000
Medium: $100,001 - $1,000,000
High: $1,000,001 - $2,000,000
Measures and actions can be either quantitative or supportive, depending on whether they
directly result in GHG emissions reductions or support direct reductions.
Quantitative: Quantitative measures and actions result in GHG emissions reductions
that can be quantified and summed to show how Cupertino will make progress towards
and meet its climate action targets. The emissions reductions expected from
implementation of these measures and actions are supported by substantial research
that establishes their effectiveness for achieving Cupertino’s GHG emissions reduction
targets.
Supportive: Supportive measures and actions are critical to the overall success of the
CAP and provide support so that the quantitative measures and actions will be
successfully implemented. Though these measures and actions may also be quantifiable
and have substantial evidence to support their overall contribution to GHG reduction,
they are not quantified for one of several factors – including a low GHG reduction
benefit, indirect GHG reductions, or potential for double-counting – and do not
contribute directly to the expected GHG reduction targets.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 53
7.4 Key Pillars of Climate Action
Community-focused climate action often requires community-level behavioral changes and
buy-in to be implementable and successful. This means that many factors aside from GHG
emissions reductions need to be considered and balanced. To ensure the CAP actually
achieves the City’s ambitious targets, the actions supporting each measure were developed
to be consistent with a set of key pillars. Each key pillar emphasizes specific criteria that
play an essential role in the implementation of climate action. The key pillars are:
Structural Change: Includes ordinances, requirements, new programs, pilot programs,
or other policy that provides some guarantee of behavior change going forward.
Structural change actions are usually quantitative actions and provide the GHG
emissions reduction mechanism for the associated measure to be effective.
Studies & Plans: Includes feasibility studies, City-led plans, or other investigative or
strategy documents that help the City develop a strategy for measure or action
implementation, especially for measures or actions that are more controversial or
complicated.
Funding: Includes funding, financing, and other capital avenues for ensuring that the
associated measure’s costs are supported.
Equity: Includes actions to mitigate for potential equity impacts of other actions, such as
re-investment into underserved communities, or policies and programs to protect
against an increased potential for displacement or increased cost burdens in the
community.
Engagement: Includes outreach, education, and engagement campaigns to incentivize
community participation in the CAP and the new programs, policies, and incentives that
have the potential to move the needle on GHG reductions.
Partnerships: Includes actions that focus on partnerships with community-based
organizations, other public agencies, and private-sector partners to create new programs
the City cannot achieve alone.
Some communities will have fewer resources to respond to and recover from climate
impacts because of economic, health, environmental, and other inequities.37 The CAP seeks
to protect vulnerable communities by increasing access to resources and ensuring that its
actions do not contribute to inequities or cost burdens. As part of the implementation of this
CAP 2.0, the City will continue to identify vulnerable communities and adjust its policies to
ensure that all of Cupertino's diverse and multicultural population have access to the same
opportunities and resources.
37 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2017. Executive Order B-30-15 Resiliency Guidebook:
Vulnerable Communities. Available: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180312-
Vulnerable_Communities_Descriptions.pdf Accessed March 2022.
City of Cupertino
54
7.5 Co-Benefits of GHG Reduction Measures
Climate action measures will also produce numerous co-benefits in addition to GHG
emissions reductions. Co-benefits refer to the positive impacts that a climate action policy
will have on other community goals. The co-benefits associated with this CAP Update’s
actions include:
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Cleaner air leads to fewer respiratory illnesses
More active, accessible, and livable neighborhoods
Natural gas is responsible for increased levels of nitrogen oxide emissions in homes and
other buildings – several times higher than outdoor air quality standards – and is
disproportionately linked with respiratory illness, including asthma.38 Natural gas is
also getting more expensive. Without a transition plan, the bill for running a gas furnace
could increase 500 percent by 2050, due to increasing natural gas infrastructure costs
coupled with a declining demand for fuel as appliances become more energy efficient.39
Climate Change Resilience
Increased ability of residents and businesses to adapt and reduce the impact of hazards
such as extreme heat days and to recover quickly from hazards when unavoidable.
Planting trees for carbon sequestration and increasing tree canopy cover can help keep
streets and neighborhoods cooler.40 Actions can also enhance community cohesion—the
38 National Asthma Council Australia: Fact Sheets.“Gas Stoves and Asthma in Children”. Available:
https://www.nationalasthma.org.au/living-with-asthma/resources/patients-carers/factsheets/gas-
stoves-and-asthma-in-children Accessed January 2022.
39 GridWorks. “California’s Gas System in Transition”. 2019. Available: https://gridworks.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/GW_Calif-Gas-System-report-1.pdf Accessed January 2022.
40 Popular Science. “Here’s How Many Trees Are Required to Cool a City Street”. 2019.
https://www.popsci.com/shade-city-streets-trees-cooling/ Accessed January 2022.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 55
networks of formal and informal relationships among neighbors that foster a mutually
supporting human environment.41,42
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services
More healthy, biodiverse, and functional ecosystems.
Actions that improve the health of local ecosystems can also result in a variety of public
benefits including reducing pollutants in local creeks and runoff to the bay, providing
species habitat which supports a more biodiverse landscape, improving water and air
quality, reducing local flood risk, and providing recreation benefits for the community
enjoyment.
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.
Jobs Creation
Climate actions that support clean energy adoption and sustainable business practices
area core part of supporting the creation of high-quality, well-paid, and inclusive jobs
that will in turn support Cupertino’s climate targets and continued economic prosperity.
Cost Savings
Lower and more stable utility bills for municipal, business, and residential community
members
Efficiencies and waste reduction can result in project and other operations cost-savings
41 University of Washington. “Green Cities: Good Health”. 2013. Available:
https://depts.washington.edu/hhwb/Thm_Community.html. Accessed January 2022; TNC Washington.
“Outside Our Doors”. 2016. Available:
https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Outside_Our_Doors_report.pdf .
Accessed January 2021.
42 Newell, et. al., The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses. 2018. “Climate
Action Co-Benefits and Integrated Community Planning: Uncovering the Synergies and Trade-Offs,”
Available: https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-7156/CGP/v10i04/1-23. Accessed January 2022.
City of Cupertino
56
8 Cleaning the Air
(Renewable Energy and Electrification)
8.1 Context
The focus strategy for the energy sector is electrification coupled with carbon-free
electricity. All-electric buildings are powered 100 percent by electricity and when coupled
with carbon-free electricity, their operating energy footprint becomes carbon-free.
Renewable Energy
The City of Cupertino’s building energy (BE) measures are dependent on leveraging the
renewable energy that Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) provides the community. Using
100 percent clean 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 opt-out rates, which increases the GHG reduction potential for
SVCE’s renewable electricity.
Electrification
Electrification of new buildings
is a cost-effective and socially
equitable way many cities in
California are reducing GHG
emissions and protecting public
health. All-electric buildings can
be more efficient, and can
produce lower energy bills.43
Moreover, it is expected that
natural gas prices will increase
in the future, potentially leaving
building owners that don’t
electrify with the burden of
43 Kenney et al., (California Energy Commission (CEC). “California Building Decarbonization
Assessment”. 2021. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2021/california-building-
decarbonization-assessment Accessed January 2022.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 57
ever-higher natural gas bills.44 Lastly, burning natural gas in poorly ventilated areas can
cause a drastic increase of harmful indoor pollutants that are linked to increased risk of
respiratory illnesses, so switching to electric appliances is a step towards improving public
health.45
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 provide all-electric systems, 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.
Measure BE-5 recognizes that removing natural gas entirely will be a long-term and
complex challenge. Gas still provides critical services for industry, resiliency, and power
supply. Electrification of all types of systems may not be possible with today’s technologies,
and retrofitting existing systems demands more technological innovation, systems thinking,
and a deep consideration of equity. This CAP provides some guidance on initiatives that
can reduce emissions while managing a responsible transition away from fossil fuels.
8.2 Measures and Actions Detail
Measure BE-1: Reduce non-SVCE usage rate to 2 percent for residential and 10
percent for commercial by 2030 and maintain through 2040.
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure BE-1 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Affordable Housing & Local Development
Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
2030: 0.012 MT CO2e/person
2040: 0.004 MT CO2e/person
Actions to support Measure BE-2 are included in Table 9.
44 Aas et. al., CEC. “The Challenge of Retail Gas in California’s Low-Carbon Future - Technology
Options, Customer Costs, and Public Health Benefits of Reducing Natural Gas Use”. 2020. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2019/challenge-retail-gas-californias-low-carbon-future-
technology-options-customer Accessed February 2022.
45 RMI. “Gas Stoves: Health and Air Quality Impacts and Solutions.” 2020. Available:
https://rmi.org/insight/gas-stoves-pollution-health/ Accessed February 2022.
City of Cupertino
58
Table 9 Measure BE-1 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
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 how many and why
residents and businesses opt out of SVCE or use direct access electricity.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
City Partners: SVCE
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
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.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
City Partners: Medium and large commercial entities
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Low-Medium
Climate Action Plan 2.0 59
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.
Key Pillar: Equity
City Partners: City’s BMR housing administrator, SVCE
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
BE 1.5 Develop a local education program detailing and promoting the benefits of
opting in to SVCE service.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
BE 1.6 Partner with local community organizations that focus on climate and other
social causes to promote the cost efficiency and benefits of SCVE. Solicit
applications from among the community to take part in SVCE's Innovation
Onramp and other grant funding programs.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
60
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
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure BE-2 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
• Enhanced Public Health & Safety
• Affordable Housing & Local Development
• Jobs Creation
• Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
2030: 0.290 MT CO2e/person
2040: 0.566 MT CO2e/person
Actions to support Measure BE-2 are included in Table 10.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 61
Table 10 Measure BE-2 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
BE 2.1 Develop a residential building electrification strategy (RBES) to aid in
development of a residential building electrification ordinance which:
1. Include a detailed existing building analysis to understand current natural
gas end uses and scenarios to electrify
2. Include 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. Evaluates 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. Identify the City staff resources needed to enforce a new electrification
ordinance
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
City Partners: SVCE
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Equity
City Partners: Community organizations
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
62
BE 2.3 Conduct engagement efforts for the public and targeted to 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.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
BE 2.5 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.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 63
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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
BE 2.7 Actively participate in regional permit streamlining efforts for all-electric
building upgrades, EV charging, and battery storage.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
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.
Key Pillar: Engagement
City Partners: Local contractors, realtors, homeowner associations,
educational institutions, and labor unions
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
64
BE 2.9 Commit to electrifying the City's owned Below Market Rate (BMR) rental and
housing stock at a neighborhood level by 2040. Establish a plan, budget, and
schedule for implementing this action by 2024.
Key Pillar: Equity
City Partners: BMR program administrator, BayREN
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: High
BE 2.10 Create a dedicated fund to support BMR rental and housing upgrades, to be
supported by grants using an existing partnership such as the BayREN
program. Engage with private and public capital providers to develop
funding and program models for consideration.
Key Pillar: Funding
City Partners: BMR program administrator, BayREN, private and public capital
providers
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Medium
BE 2.11 Work with PG&E to identify opportunities for natural gas infrastructure pruning
to redirect utility resources to electrification retrofit projects 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.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: PG&E
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 65
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.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: Neighboring jurisdictions
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Low
BE 2.13 Seek out funding partnerships with 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.
Key Pillar: Funding
City Partners: Public and private capital providers, energy efficiency program
administrators
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
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
Key Pillar: Funding
City Partners: Alternative financing programs such as PACE, CHEEF, and utility
incentives
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
City of Cupertino
66
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
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure BE-3 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Jobs Creation
Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
2030: 0.190 MT CO2e/person
2040: 0.366 MT CO2e/person
Actions to support Measure BE-3 are included in Table 11.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 67
Table 11 Measure BE-3 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
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 with the aim of
identifying, piloting, and scaling large energy efficiency and electrification
projects.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
City Partners: Local business associations and engineering firms
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
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 of potential impacts to the
local commercial sectors, and electrification costs analysis to aid in
development of a commercial building electrification ordinance.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
City Partners: SVCE
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
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 to
coordinate on the approach to emergency power and baseload power
generation systems which commonly use natural gas.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
68
BE 3.4 Conduct outreach to small business and minority-owned businesses to
understand potential equity impacts of a commercial building electrification
ordinance.
Key Pillar: Equity
City Partners: Cupertino business associations
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
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).
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
BE 3.6 Enforce existing buildings electrification ordinance compliance through the
same permitting compliance program as for residential building
electrification.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 69
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.
Key Pillar: Funding
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
BE 3.9 Create a program to generate interest and secure partnerships among local
businesses and institutions for the purpose of seeking out grants or initiatives.
Leverage this program to facilitate funding opportunities for commercial
business electrification.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
BE 3.10 Develop a program that funnels Cupertino businesses into the SVCE
Innovation Onramp grant program or similar grant offerings.
Key Pillar: Funding
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Low-Medium
City of Cupertino
70
Measure BE-4: Require new residential and commercial development to be
all-electric at time of construction
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure BE-4 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Jobs Creation
Cost Saving
GHG Emissions Reductions
2030: 0.067 MT CO2e/person
2040: 0.221 MT CO2e/person
Actions to support Measure BE-4 are included in Table 12.
Table 12 Measure BE-4 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
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 tri-
annual code cycle.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
City Partners: SVCE, California Energy Commission
Timing: Phase 1 (already implemented)
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 71
Measure BE-5: Support procurement of carbon-free fuels in lieu of natural gas
for existing and new projects that cannot be electrified
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure BE-5 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Cost Saving
GHG Emissions Reductions
Supportive Measure & Actions
Actions to support Measure BE-5 are included in Table 13.
City of Cupertino
72
Table 13 Measure BE-5 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
City Partners: Apple, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Timing: Phase 1-3
Cost: Low
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.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
City Partners: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Air
Resources Board
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: ABAG POWER, CalRecycle
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Medium
Climate Action Plan 2.0 73
City of Cupertino
74
9 Connecting Communities (Transportation,
Land Use)
9.1 Context
Transportation is the largest GHG
emissions sector in Cupertino and has only
grown in California since 1990.
The City of Cupertino envisions an
inviting and safe walking and biking
environment that promotes active living
and healthy transportation choices,
enhances the quality of life for all
community members and visitors, and is a
seamless and integral part of the City’s
connected, multi-modal transportation
network. The City cannot require that
people change their transportation
behaviors, but it is committed to implementing the infrastructure updates that will make
more sustainable choices attractive for the community.
These transportation measures (TR) prioritize reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) first,
by improving active and public transportation, then shifting the remaining VMT to electric
vehicles. While in theory, 100 percent 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 emissions not
accounted for in the inventory, over which the City has little control. 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.
To achieve a greater than 15 percent mode shift to active transportation (Measure TR-1), the
City plans to improve active transportation infrastructure, like bikeways and sidewalks. To
achieve a greater than 29 percent mode shift to public transit (Measure TR-2), the City plans
to improve public and shared transit programs and infrastructure. While the City cannot
require its residents or businesses to buy Zero-Emission Vehicles (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 explores the creation of
behavior disincentives for owning fossil fuel-powered passenger vehicles, such as limited
parking options, local taxes or fees. Finally, Measure TR-5 establishes a goal of
decarbonizing 34 percent of off-road equipment by 2030.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 75
9.2 Measures and Actions Detail
Measure TR-1: Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to
achieve 15 percent of active transportation mode share by 2030 and 23
percent by 2040
The City of Cupertino currently has a Bicycle Transportation Plan, adopted in 2016, and a
companion document, the Pedestrian Transportation Plan, adopted in 2018. The City’s
progress report shows nine bike segments completed, including several miles of Class IV
separated bikeway. Measure TR-1 suggests including an Active Transportation component
into the next update of these documents. Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG
emissions reductions associated with implementation of Measure TR-1 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Jobs Creation
Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
2030: 0.048 MT CO2e/person
2040: 0.071 MT CO2e/person
Actions to support Measure TR-1 are included in Table 14.
City of Cupertino
76
Table 14 Measure TR-1 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
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.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: Santa Clara County, VTA, SVCE
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
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.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partnerships: City commissions
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 77
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 in areas with lower-income populations.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
TR 1.5 Continue to implement the 2018 Pedestrian Plan and the 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan list of prioritized projects, with accelerated completion of
all planned bike paths by 2030.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 1-3
Cost: High
TR 1.6 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
determined by the bicycle and pedestrian plans.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: High
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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
City of Cupertino
78
TR 1.8 Evaluate and update the City's Zoning Code, Transportation Demand
Management Ordinance, and/or California Green Building Code to ensure
the City requires installation of accessible, shaded, and secure bicycle
parking for new commercial development and retrofits.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
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 the city and developing and implementing 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).
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
TR 1.10 Design a micro-mobility program that explores expansion of the use of
electric bikes and scooters and shared micro-mobility options.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
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 sharing program.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 79
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.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
TR 1.13 Establish a program for researching and obtaining grant funding for bike and
pedestrian network expansion.
Key Pillar: Funding
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
City of Cupertino
80
Measure TR-2: Implement public and shared transit programs to achieve 29
percent of public transit mode share by 2030 and maintain through 2040
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure TR-2 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Climate Change Resilience
Jobs Creation
Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
2030: 0.269 MT CO2e/person
2040: 0.256 MT CO2e/person
Actions to support Measure TR-2 are included in Table 15.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 81
Table 15 Measure TR-2 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
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.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
TR 2.2 Include public transit in the designated streets pilot program from Measure TR
1.7.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
City Partner: VTA
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
City Partners: Neighboring jurisdictions, school districts, regional employers
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: High
TR 2.4 Partner with VTA and neighboring cities to develop high-capacity transit
service along the Stevens Creek Boulevard/I-280 corridor.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: VTA, neighboring jurisdictions
Cost: Low-Medium
City of Cupertino
82
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.
Key Pillar: Equity
City Partners: Community based organizations, VTA
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
City Partners: Cupertino businesses
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
TR 2.7 Require new multi-family developments to install a car share or provide e-
bikes/e-scooters for tenants.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
City Partners: Real estate developers
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
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.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: VTA, neighboring jurisdictions
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
Climate Action Plan 2.0 83
Measure TR-3: Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption 46 to 35 percent
for passenger vehicles and 20 percent for commercial vehicles by 2030 and
100 percent for all vehicles by 2040
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure TR-3 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
2030: 0.457 MT CO2e/person
2040: 1.960 MT CO2e/person
Actions to support Measure TR-3 are included in Table 16.
46 For the purposes of this document and the Cupertino CAP Update, ZEV adoption refers to percent
of vehicles registered in Cupertino that are ZEV.
City of Cupertino
84
Table 16 Measure TR-3 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
TR 3.1 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 consideration
for equitable distribution of chargers to residents of multi-family homes, low-
income and fixed income people, historically underserved communities,
elders, and disabled individuals with access needs.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 1-3
Cost: High
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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 85
TR 3.5 Continue to maintain and advertise a streamlined electric vehicle
infrastructure permitting process in accordance with SB 1236 and AB 970.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
TR 3.6 Investigate commercial vehicle fleets in Cupertino and identify
businesses/employers to partner with for accelerating zero emission vehicle
(ZEV) adoption.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: Cupertino businesses
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
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 zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption within major private and
employee fleets in the city.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
86
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,
historically underserved communities, elders, and individuals with access
needs.
Key Pillar: Equity
City Partners: ZEV car share vendors
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
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, historically underserved communities,
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 community-based organizations to target
outreach and program planning to reduce barriers for ZEV adoption among
groups with low participation rates.
Key Pillar: Engagement
City Partners: Community based organizations
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
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, historically underserved communities,
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.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 87
TR 3.12 Work with SVCE and PG&E to incentivize electric vehicle charger installations
through on-bill financing and other alternative financing.
Key Pillar: Funding
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Low
TR 3.13 Identify and implement incentives and technical assistance for commercial
fleet electrification. This could include local tax breaks, fee waivers, or
incentives.
Key Pillar: Funding
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Medium
City of Cupertino
88
Measure TR-4: Re-focus transportation infrastructure away from single-
occupancy gasoline vehicles to support the bicycle/pedestrian, public
transit, and ZEV goals of Measures TR-1, TR-2, and TR-3
Co-benefits and specific quantitative
GHG emissions reductions associated
with implementation of Measure TR-4
are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Climate Change Resilience
Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
Supportive Measure & Actions
Actions to support Measure TR-4 are included in Table 17.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 89
Table 17 Measure TR-4 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
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 topics such as limiting parking
options, increased local taxes (income tax, gasoline tax, or car registration
tax), and transportation network company (TNC) user taxes.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
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.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
TR 4.3 Define equity metrics for implementation of disincentives based on feedback
from local students, low-income and fixed income people, historically
underserved communities, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs
and structure the disincentive programs to meet these metrics.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
90
TR 4.4 Develop a plan and timeline for allowing developers to build housing without
off-street parking if the location is close to frequent transit service, to be
implemented at a time when frequent transit options are more available in
Cupertino.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
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.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
TR 4.7 Identify options for funding active and public transit programs through a
local tax, such as an 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).
Key Pillar: Funding
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 91
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 can demonstrate they reduce VMT.
Key Pillar: Funding
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
92
Measure TR-5: Electrify or otherwise decarbonize 34 percent of off-road
equipment by 2030 and 35 percent by 2040
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure TR-5 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
2030: 0.098 MT CO2e/person
2040: 0.102 MT CO2e/person
Actions to support Measure TR-5 are included in Table 18.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 93
Table 18 Measure TR-5 Actions
Action ID Action Description
TR 5.1 Investigate commercial off-road equipment fleets in Cupertino and identify
fleets with highest decarbonization potential.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1-2
Cost: Low
TR 5.2 Work with BAAQMD to expand rebate and incentive programs for
upgrading off-road equipment and switching to biofuels or electric
equipment.
Key Pillar: Funding
City Partner: BAAQMD
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: SVCE, Santa Clara County
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
TR 5.4 By 2025, develop an ordinance to ban local operation of gasoline and
diesel-powered 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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
City Partners: BAAQMD
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
City of Cupertino
94
10 Getting to Zero Waste
10.1 Context
Cupertino defines zero waste as an
ongoing set of practices to conserve
resources and protect humans and the
environment by responsibly producing,
consuming, reusing, and recovering food
and goods.
Solid waste accounts for only five percent
of the emissions in Cupertino’s
greenhouse gas inventory but striving
toward zero waste can create climate
benefits beyond Cupertino’s borders and
the measures in this section support
Cupertino’s overall goal of working
toward zero waste of resources.
The City has an overall goal of reaching
and maintaining 80 percent waste
diversion by 2025. The diversion rate is
calculated using CalRecycle’s Diversion
rate equivalent formula (Cupertino’s
waste diversion rate as of 2018 is 73 percent). Working toward zero waste requires two main
strategies. First, maximizing waste diversion (including recycling and composting) and
second, minimizing waste generation.
Cupertino’s zero waste (W) measures align with these strategies. They are:
Measure W-1: Implement SB 1383 requirements and reduce communitywide landfilled
organics 75% by 2025 and inorganic landfilled waste 35% by 2030. Reduce all landfilled
waste 90% by 2040.
Measure W-2: Reduce overall waste disposed to garbage, recycling, and compost per
capita by 15% by 2035.
Measure W-3: Meet or exceed the SB 1383 recycled organics products procurement
requirements and sequester or avoid at least 0.018 MT CO2e per person by 2045
Climate Action Plan 2.0 95
Less Waste to Landfill
Reducing the amount of organic waste (such as food waste and yard waste) sent to landfills
will help the City achieve its climate goals because methane released from landfilled organic
waste is the main local source of waste-related greenhouse gas emissions. Actions for
reducing organic waste to the landfill are already clearly defined by State requirements
under SB 1383, which lay out specific programs, policies, and objectives for the City to
support the State goal. Under SB 1383, cities are required to rescue edible food, divert
organic waste from landfill, and procure compost and/or other materials from recycled
organic waste. Those requirements are already captured in Cupertino ordinance 21-2231.
Going beyond organics, Cupertino aims to reduce inorganic waste (such as plastic, paper,
and metal) going to landfill and the total amount of all waste going to landfill.
Waste Prevention
The best way to manage waste is to prevent it in the first place. This is because creating
items and disposing of them as waste requires raw materials, time, energy, and other
resources, which can all be conserved when waste is prevented. In addition, not all waste is
reusable or recyclable, so the best way to keep it out of landfill as technologies develop is
prevention. Figure 7 illustrates these concepts.
The GHG emissions emitted from creating and transporting goods before they reach
consumers are called lifecycle emissions. These emissions are typically higher than any
emissions released locally in Cupertino when waste is disposed. Recycling and recovering
waste are helpful to keep waste out of landfills, but these are the last opportunities to
manage waste, not the first, because they do not address lifecycle emissions and the other
costs of creating materials.
To make progress towards zero waste
and reduce GHG emissions as much as
possible, Cupertino will study the
lifecycle emissions of goods and
services and prioritize waste prevention
so that waste can be eliminated at the
source before management and
disposal are necessary. Although
actions that address inorganic waste
will have a minimal impact toward
meeting Cupertino’s communitywide
GHG emissions reduction goals,
reducing inorganic waste reduces the
need for production and disposal of
these materials. This will reduce the
associated lifecycle emissions of that
waste outside of Cupertino.
Figure 7. Zero Waste Management Heirarchy
City of Cupertino
96
10.2 Measures and Actions Detail
Measure W-1: 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
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure W-1a are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Climate Change Resilience
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services
Jobs Creation
Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
2030: 0.202 MT CO2e/person
2040: 0.200 MT CO2e/person
Actions to support Measure W-1 are included in Table 19.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 97
Table 19 Measure W-1 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
W 1.1 Partner with local community organizations and businesses to implement all
required activities under SB 1383.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: Recology, County of Santa Clara, food generating businesses,
food recovery organizations
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
W 1.2 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 the increase in trash collection rates.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
W 1.3 Work with contracted hauler to develop and implement a comprehensive
monitoring and quality control program with a focus on consumer behavior
change.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
W 1.4 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.
Key Pillar: Engagement
City Partners: Local businesses
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
98
W 1.5 Establish relationships with multi-family (MF) property owners/managers to
develop signage for their properties to encourage food waste diversion. Go
door-to-door at each MF unit yearly to provide supplies and education for
proper sorting.
Key Pillar: Engagement
City Partners: Multi-family property owners and managers
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
W 1.6 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.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
W 1.7 Partner with schools, retirement communities, and other large institutions to
create waste diversion and prevention programs/procedures/plans.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: Schools, retirement communities, hospitals, hotels, large venues
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
W 1.8 Work with waste hauler to determine data necessary to meet zero waste
goals and establish protocol for regular collection and reporting of
associated metrics.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 99
W 1.9 Implement enforcement and fee for incorrectly sorted materials with
sensitivity to shared collection to reduce contamination.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 1-2
Cost: Low
W 1.10 Conduct Construction & 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.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
W 1.11 Conduct waste characterization studies (WCS) every 4-5 years to inform
programs and policies.
Leverage the waste characterization data to understand the waste stream
and modify plans to increase diversion and decrease contamination.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1-3
Cost: Medium
W 1.12 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.).
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
100
W 1.13 Increase access to recycling facilities such as beverage container California
Refund Value (CRV) redemption and extended producer responsibility (EPR)
take-back programs.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
W 1.14 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.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1-3
Cost: Low
W 1.15 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.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
W 1.16 Conduct a study about textiles recycling opportunities that can be rolled out
across Cupertino.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 101
Measure W-2: Reduce overall waste disposed to garbage, recycling, and
compost per capita by 15% percent by 2035
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG
emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure W-2 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Jobs Creation
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Climate Change Resilience
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services
Affordable Housing & Local Development
Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
Supportive Measure & Actions
Actions to support Measure W-2 are included in Table 20.
City of Cupertino
102
Table 20 Measure W-2 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
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.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
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, promoting plant-based diets, etc.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 2-3
Cost: Medium
W 2.3 Consider creation of upcycle/resell shop to increase access to items for reuse
and create jobs.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2-3
Cost: Medium
W 2.4 Conduct targeted, multi-lingual, culturally appropriate, and geographically
diverse waste prevention educational and technical assistance campaigns
based on outcomes of WCS. 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.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 103
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.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
W 2.6 Expand edible food recovery program to all restaurants and food generating
businesses and create incentives for small businesses who otherwise couldn't
participate.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Medium
W 2.7 Fund edible food recovery organizations so they can expand and handle
increased volume. Leverage CalRecycle support for projects that prevent
food waste or rescue edible food.
Key Pillar: Funding
City Partners: Food recovery organizations and small businesses
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
W 2.8 Work with the business community to design and promote extended
producer responsibility such as take-back programs.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
104
W 2.9 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.
Key Pillar: Funding
City Partners: Restaurants and other food businesses
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
W 2.10 Partner with local organizations, schools, and libraries to establish pop-up
repair café for commonly broken and easily repaired items.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: Local schools and libraries
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
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, and/or mixed materials.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
City Partners: Large events and venues
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
Climate Action Plan 2.0 105
Measure W-3: Meet or exceed the SB 1383 recycled organics products
procurement requirements and sequester or avoid at least 0.018 MT CO2e per
person by 2045
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure W-3are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Climate Change Resilience
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services
Jobs Creation
GHG Emissions Reductions
2030: 0.018 MT CO2e/person
2040: 0.018 MT CO2e/person
Actions to support Measure W-3 are included in Table 21.
City of Cupertino
106
Table 21 Measure W-3 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
W 3.1 Develop partnerships with local community organizations and businesses to
implement all required recycled organics products procurement activities
under SB 1383.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: Recology, County of Santa Clara, food recovery organizations
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Medium
Climate Action Plan 2.0 107
11 Working with Nature
11.1 Context
A carbon neutral future includes leveraging the greenspace and water systems within the
City to reduce GHG emissions. For example, greenspace – like trees and planted landscapes
– can be expanded and maintained to remove carbon from the atmosphere through natural
biological processes called carbon sequestration, helping to reduce GHG emissions in the
City. Water and wastewater infrastructure can be managed to reduce the energy needed to
transport water, and associated GHG emissions. Residential and commercial uses for
cooking and cleaning can also be managed or upgraded to be less water intensive.
Managing water systems in this way has the added benefit of putting less pressure on water
resources across California during times of drought and ensuring more long-term resilience
of this vital resource.
The Public Works Department is responsible for the planting
and maintenance of approximately 20,500 trees. Visit our
YouTube channel to hear more from the City arborists:
https://youtu.be/X5l8YnV3f4A
City of Cupertino
108
Carbon Sequestration
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-carbon
behaviors, it is expected that some GHG emissions will remain under the City’s jurisdiction
in 2040. A carbon-neutral future therefore includes carbon sequestration 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
(CS) measures align with these strategies and consist of the following:
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
Water and Wastewater
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 (WW) measures consist of
the following measures:
Measure WW-1: Reduce per capita water consumption by 15 percent compared to 2019
levels by 2030 and maintain through 2040
Measure WW-2: Support the SJ-SC RWF in implementing GHG emissions reduction
projects
Climate Action Plan 2.0 109
11.2 Measures and Actions Detail
Measure CS-1: Increase carbon sequestration through tree planting by
developing and implementing an Urban Forest Management Plan
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure CS-1 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Climate Change Resilience
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services
Jobs Creation
Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
These are supporting actions
Actions to support Measure CS-1 are included in Table 22.
City of Cupertino
110
Table 22 Measure CS-1 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
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.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
CS 1.2 Conduct an urban heat island study to assist in identifying priority areas in
Cupertino for planting new trees.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
Climate Action Plan 2.0 111
CS 1.4 Review the Tree Protection Ordinance and ensure that trees are protected
with future updates to the General Plan. Ensure any trees that may be
removed to accommodate new housing are replaced with at least a 2:1
ratio.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
CS 1.5 Establish a program for obtaining grant funding for development of UFMP
and tree planting.
Key Pillar: Funding
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
City of Cupertino
112
Measure CS-2: Leverage the carbon sequestration potential of open space
and carbon removal
A previous tree canopy study identified that 27% of Cupertino’s land area is potentially
suitable for more tree plantings. This potential can and should be considered for increasing
Cupertino’s local natural carbon sequestration through tree planting. Co-benefits and
specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with implementation of Measure
CS-2 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Climate Change Resilience
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services
GHG Emissions Reductions
Supportive Measure & Actions
Actions to support Measure CS-2 are included in Table 23.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 113
Table 23 Measure CS-2 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
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 ecologically responsible recreation
opportunities for the community.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: High
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 carbon drawdown.
Key Pillar: Studies & Plans
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Low-Medium
City of Cupertino
114
Measure WW-1: Reduce per capita water consumption by 15 percent
compared to 2019 levels by 2030 and maintain through 2040
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure WW-1 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Climate Change Resilience
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services
Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
Supportive Measure & Actions
Actions to support Measure WW-1 are included in Table 24.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 115
Table 24 Measure WW-1 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
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:
1. Engage with builders and developers to provide information on the
new requirements for residential new construction
2. Develop and adopt an ordinance based on the available model
ordinances
Key Pillar: Structural Change
City Partners: Valley Water and regional working groups
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
WW 1.3 Perform targeted outreach to households with low-income and fixed income
people, historically underserved communities, 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.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 2-3
Cost: Low
WW 1.4 Work with schools to educate youth about water conversation.
Key Pillar: Engagement
City Partners: Local school districts
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
116
WW 1.5 Continue to provide rebates or other funding to low- and medium-income
homes for installing laundry to landscape systems, rainwater catchment
systems, and low-flow appliances.
Key Pillar: Funding
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Medium
WW 1.6 Work with Santa Clara Valley Water and Cupertino’s water retailers to
provide Wi-Fi connected meters that citizens can check on phones and
computers.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: Water retailers, Valley Water
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Medium
WW 1.7 Partner with Santa Clara Valley Water to support a brackish
water/desalinization program, as feasible.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: Valley Water
Timing: Phase 3
Cost: Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Medium
Climate Action Plan 2.0 117
Measure WW-2: Support the SJ-SC Regional Wastewater Facility in
implementing GHG emissions reduction projects
Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with
implementation of Measure WW-2 are as follows:
Co-Benefits
Enhanced Public Health & Safety
Climate Change Resilience
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services
Jobs Creation
Cost Savings
GHG Emissions Reductions
Supportive Measure & Actions
Actions to support Measure WW-2 are included in Table 25.
City of Cupertino
118
Table 25 Measure WW-2 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
WW 2.1 Establish a program or function for supporting SJ-SC Regional Wastewater
Facility 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.
Key Pillar: Funding
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
City Partners: Santa Clara County and neighboring cities
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
Climate Action Plan 2.0 119
12 Adaptation and Resilience
12.1 Context
Climate change impacts are already happening in Cupertino, and they are projected to
intensify. More detail is available in Section 2.2: Climate Change Impacts. To protect people,
assets, and natural systems, the City is engaging in climate adaptation. Climate adaptation
is adjusting to respond to actual or expected climate impacts, with the goal of mitigating
harms or taking advantage of opportunities.47 An essential part of adaptation is building
resilience, which is the capacity to “prepare for disruptions, recover from shocks and
stresses, and adapt to and grow from a disruptive experience.”48
Adaptation includes identifying and planning for climate risks, undertaking projects that
increase resilience and the community’s ability to adapt, and establishing relationships for
regional coordination and information sharing. The City conducted a vulnerability
assessment to understand how climate change may affect Cupertino and will use the results
to inform adaptation planning.49
Vulnerability Assessment Findings
The vulnerability assessment compares the potential impacts of climate hazards to
Cupertino’s adaptive capacity. Potential impacts are modeled based on a mid-century,
moderate emissions scenario known as scenario 4.5. Scenario 4.5 assumes global emissions
peak in the years circa 2040-2050, which the City believes is feasible given the current state
of global climate pledges.50 Several different emissions scenarios are illustrated in Figure 8,
below.
47 Adapted from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. June 2020. California
Adaptation Planning Guide. Available:
https://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardMitigationSite/Documents/CA-Adaptation-Planning-Guide-FINAL-
June-2020-Accessible.pdf#search=adaptation%20planning%20guide Accessed September 2021.
48 Ibid. Pg. 12.
49 The full vulnerability assessment will be released as a companion document.
50 Meinshausen, M., Lewis, J., McGlade, C. et al. Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit
warming just below 2 °C. Nature 604, 304–309 (2022). Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04553-z Accessed April 15, 2022.
City of Cupertino
120
Figure 8. Global Surface Temperature Change Relative to 1850-1900 in Five Different
Emissions Scenarios
Source: IPCC (2021) Figure SPM.8a
Adaptive capacity describes strengths, existing systems and processes, and other resources
that can allow the City to mitigate harms and take advantage of opportunities for co-
benefits.
Using the two factors of modeled impact and adaptive capacity, the CAP 2.0 project team
scored Cupertino’s vulnerability across six climate hazards. Vulnerability is highest for
hazards that have high potential impacts and for which the city has low adaptive capacity.
Cupertino is most vulnerable to adverse air quality impacts and extreme heat, and the city
has medium vulnerability to drought, wildfire, and extreme precipitation/storm flooding.
Cupertino is least vulnerable to sea level rise. The results are summarized below in Figure 9.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 121
Figure 9. Climate Hazards Vulnerability Assessment
Cupertino has the lowest adaptive capacity for adverse air quality impacts and extreme
heat. Many of these impacts, especially the health impacts, are subtle and diffuse. While the
City and County do offer cooling centers and other resources, the City can also build
capacity by strengthening communication and education, as well as engaging communities
with resources such as resilience hubs.
Brownouts are a significant concern during extreme heat events, and energy resilience
remains a priority. There is greater adaptive capacity for drought, wildfires, and extreme
precipitation/storm flooding through regional coordination and partnerships. Sea level rise
remains of lowest concern because Cupertino will not be directly affected.
Recommendations
The City has identified the following recommendations to strengthen climate adaptation:
• Strengthen air quality and extreme heat response
• Expand urban greening and natural infrastructure
• Increase energy resilience
• Strengthen community capacity and resilience
Adverse Air Quality
ImpactsExtreme Heat
Drought
WildfireExtreme
Precipitation/Storm
Flooding
Sea Level Rise
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Adaptive Capacity
City of Cupertino
122
• Increase community engagement with and investment in vulnerable communities
• Coordinate with regional partners
Many of these strategies are addressed in the following adaptation and resiliency (AR)
measures below or are already addressed in other measures.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 123
12.2 Adaptation Measures and Actions
Measure AR-1: Increase usage of natural infrastructure solutions such as
bioswales, rainwater storage systems, and permeable pavements to
enhance infrastructure resiliency.
Healthy natural systems provide services such as decreased flood risk, air pollution
filtration, and lower ambient temperatures, thereby increasing resilience across multiple
climate hazards. Measures CS-1 and CS-2 already include actions to expand and maintain
natural infrastructure such as the city’s urban forest and open space. Thus, this measure will
focus on expanding green stormwater infrastructure throughout the city.
Benefits
Decreased flood risk
Lower ambient temperatures
Greater resilience to drought
Enhanced public health and safety
Table 26 Measure AR-1 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
AR 1.1 Prioritize opportunities to focus green stormwater infrastructure improvements
in vulnerable communities and the areas of most need including areas with a
large proportion of renters, low-income areas, and in historically underserved
communities.
Key Pillar: Equity
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
AR 1.2 Develop one or more demonstration projects which can be used to educate
the community about natural infrastructure solutions.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Medium
City of Cupertino
124
Measure AR-2: Bolster emergency preparedness and response by integrating
climate adaptation and improving climate-related communications.
The potential public health impacts from climate change may be significant. Integrating
climate change projections into emergency preparedness and response will allow the City to
better protect its communities. This is especially important for hazards such as poor air
quality and extreme heat, for which Cupertino has lower adaptive capacity. The following
actions describe opportunities to bolster the City’s emergency preparedness and response.
Benefits
Enhanced public health and safety
Greater resilience to climate hazards, especially poor air quality
Increased community capacity and resilience
Actions to support Measure AR-2 are included in Table 27.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 125
Table 27 Measure AR-2 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
AR 2.1 By 2023, create Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to track pollutants from
local air quality monitoring data and incorporate regular reporting of air
quality KPIs into CAP reports and live interactive public dashboards.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
AR 2.2 Provide wildfire smoke guidance and protocols for municipal employees to
ensure their safety when air quality is poor.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
AR 2.3 Integrate the vulnerability assessment results into emergency preparedness,
management, response, and early warning systems.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
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.
Key Pillar: Partnerships
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
126
Measure AR-3: Strengthen Community Capacity and Resilience through
Education, Resources, and Policies
Strong communities have greater resilience and disaster recovery.51 Social relationships can
provide community members with emotional support, empower them to prepare for
disasters, spread essential information, and promote problem-solving.52 Strong
communities care for each other and can supplement government response during an
emergency.53 By building community capacity, communities are empowered to learn about
and adapt to climate hazards to protect their families and each other.
Benefits
Increased community capacity and resilience
Enhanced public health and safety
Greater resilience to climate hazards
Stronger social relationships and civic engagement
51 Ivan Townshend, Olu Awosoga, Judith Kulig, and HaiYan Fan. Natural Hazards. November 2014.
Social cohesion and resilience across communities that have experienced a disaster. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268743797_Social_cohesion_and_resilience_across_commu
nities_that_have_experienced_a_disaster
52 Tim Prior and Christine Eriksen. Global Environmental Change. 2013. Wildfire preparedness,
community cohesion and social-ecological systems. Available:
https://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/616/?utm_source=ro.uow.edu.au%2Fsspapers%2F616&utm_medium=P
DF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
53 Kelly Bergstrand and Brian Mayer. Society & Natural Resources. 2020. “The Community Helped Me:”
Community Cohesion and Environmental Concerns in Personal Assessments of Post-Disaster Recovery,
Society & Natural Resources. Available: https://rc.library.uta.edu/uta-
ir/bitstream/handle/10106/29585/The%20Community%20Helped%20Me%20Community%20Cohesion%2
0and%20Environmental%20Concerns%20in%20Personal%20Assessments%20of%20Post%20Disaster%20Re
covery_postprint.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 127
Table 28 Measure AR-3 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
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.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Engagement
Timing: Phase 1-2
Cost: Low-Medium
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.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 2
Cost: Low
City of Cupertino
128
Measure AR-4: Update the Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan in
Coordination with the County of Santa Clara.
Climate science and projections change over time as scientific techniques improve, more
information becomes available, and factors such as population growth and development
change. More research and novel adaptation practices may also emerge. To use the most up-
to-date information and best adaptation practices, the City plans to update this adaptation
strategy in partnership with the County of Santa Clara. This will allow the City to take
advantage of synergies with County adaptation plan which is under development, as well
as access county-level projections and other information.
Table 29 Measure AR-4 Actions
Action
ID Action Description
AR 4.1 Update this adaptation strategy in coordination with the County of Santa
Clara. Cascade recommendations from the climate vulnerability assessment
into the Cupertino General Plan – Safety Element as required by State Bill (SB)
379.
Key Pillar: Structural Change
Timing: Phase 1
Cost: Low-Medium
Climate Action Plan 2.0 129
13 Implementation
13.1 Monitoring, Tracking, and Reporting
This Climate Action Plan outlines the steps that Cupertino will take to achieve the
Cupertino 2030 climate target and to make progress towards the goal of attaining and
maintaining carbon neutrality by 2040 and beyond. The underlying assumptions and data
informing this plan including adoption rates of measures and actions, the emergence of new
or improved technologies, changes in costs of technology, legislative changes, and co-
benefits will continue to change and evolve over time. Therefore, this CAP should be
viewed as a strategic framework that will be re-evaluated on a regular basis.
The City remains committed to the sustained, iterative, and inclusive effort required to
achieve the long-term climate targets outlined in this CAP. The City will continue to engage
the community, provide informative progress updates, and create ongoing opportunities to
solicit and incorporate community feedback as policies and programs are developed and
infrastructure is constructed. The City will report publicly on its progress towards its high-
impact mitigation and adaptation measures no less than every two years via CDP-ICLEI
Unified Reporting System or similar reporting platform.
Monitoring and evaluation of Cupertino’s progress will be an essential part of ongoing
communitywide GHG reduction efforts. The City will conduct communitywide GHG
emissions inventories on a routine basis in alignment with GHG standard protocols and
climate commitments,54 but no less than every three years. If the City’s 2025 GHG
emissions reductions are on track to reach the 2030 Conclusion targets, it is anticipated that
no additional CAP measure adjustments would be necessary. If the City has not made
sufficient progress on GHG emissions reduction goals by 2025, a CAP update may be
required at that time to maintain status as a CEQA-qualified GHG emissions reduction plan.
Such a CAP update could require additional actions such as shifting incentive programs to
mandatory requirements. If there has been sufficient progress towards meeting GHG
emissions targets, the next CAP update will be completed by 2030.
54 Global Covenant of Mayors current guidance is to conduct GHG inventory updates every two
years: globalcovenantofmayors.org
City of Cupertino
130
13.2 Funding
Cupertino’s Sustainability team has been pro-active to date in applying for and securing
grant funds to support its activities. There are many sources of funding for sustainability
actions from the regional, state, and federal governments. Funding requests to implement
measures and actions in this plan will be brought for consideration by the City Council by
in the respective budget cycle.
13.3 Looking Forward
If the City has not made sufficient progress on GHG emissions reduction goals by the next
CAP review, a CAP update may be required to establish new or more robust emission
reduction goals to increase emissions reductions and maintain status as a CEQA-qualified
GHG emissions reduction plan. The next CAP update could require additional
implementation of the existing actions and/or additional actions such as shifting incentive
and educational programs to mandatory requirements. A complete CAP update for post-
2030 emissions reductions targets will be required, and the City shall begin this effort by
2029.
In 2029, it is expected that the City will begin preparing an updated Climate Action Plan to
revisit and update the approach outlined in CAP 2.0 and to develop new or updated
measures. By the end of the decade, it is anticipated that new technologies and state
mandates will be adopted that will facilitate further GHG emissions reductions, but the City
will need to act to meet the long term 2040 carbon neutrality goal. The City will conduct
ongoing implementation monitoring of the CAP 2.0 GHG emissions reduction and
adaptation measures and report out on this progress to City Council on a regular basis
beginning in 2023.
Climate Action Plan 2.0 131
14 Conclusion
The City of Cupertino has a history of strong climate leadership. By implementing the 2015
Climate Action Plan, the City took bold action to reduce GHG emissions by 15% below 2010
levels and laid a foundation for long-term climate action. The City of Cupertino was among
the first cities to declare a local climate emergency. This continuous commitment to climate
protection has led to large strides towards ambitious emissions reduction goals and has
enhanced the cohesivity and quality of life within the Cupertino community. The
community of Cupertino can act now and over the next two decades to do its fair share in
reducing GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. This CAP 2.0 provides the
blueprint for continued progress towards a more resilient, prosperous, and sustainable
Cupertino achieved through the collective efforts of all Cupertino community members.
City of Cupertino
132
15 Acknowledgements
The Climate Action Plan 2.0 was prepared
by a City project team in partnership with
the community. The following are
specifically acknowledged for their
contributions.
Members of City Council
Mayor Darcy Paul
Vice Mayor Liang Chao
Councilmember Kitty Moore
Councilmember Hung Wei
Councilmember Jon Willey
Rod Sinks (former councilmember)
Steven Scharf (former councilmember)
Cupertino Sustainability
Commission
Chair Vignesh Swaminathan
Vice Chair Anna Weber
Commissioner Meera Ramanathan
Commissioner Sonali Padgaonkar
Commissioner Steve Poon
Gary Latshaw (former commissioner)
Ram Mohan (former commissioner)
City Administration
Jim Throop, City Manager
Dianne Thompson, Asst. City Manager
Christopher Jensen, City Attorney
Katy Nomura, Deputy City Manager
Deborah Feng (former City Manager)
City Project Team
André Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager
Gilee Corral, Climate and Utilities Analyst
Karen Chen, AmeriCorps Fellow
Victoria Morin, Outreach Coordinator
Contributing Departments
Administrative Services:
Kristina Alfaro, Director
Zach Korach, Finance Manager
Community Development:
Benjamin Fu, Director
Albert Salvador, Building Official
Gian Martire, Senior Planner
Kerri Heusler, Housing Manager
Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Innovation & Technology:
Bill Mitchell, Director
Parks & Recreation:
Joanne Magrini, Director
Rachelle Sander, Asst. Director
Public Works:
Roger Lee, Director (former)
Chad Mosley, Assistant Director
Chris Corrao, Senior Transit Planner
David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Jonathan Ferrante, Supervisor, Arborist
Ursula Syrova, Env. Programs Manager
Climate Action Plan 2.0 133
Consulting Team
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Cascadia Consulting Group
Hatch
Community Stakeholder
Participants
Apple
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD)
Cupertino CERT
First Maganson Holdings, Inc
Fremont Union High School District
Kimco Realty Corp.
Recology South Bay
Rotary Club of Cupertino
St. Jude’s Episcopal Church
San Jose Water
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
StopWaste
SV Youth Climate Action
Valley Water
West Valley Community Services
Youth Environmental Power Initiative
External Partners
County of Santa Clara
Silicon Valley Clean Energy
ICLEI Local Governments for
Sustainability
1
Appendix A ‐ Climate Regulatory Context
As the impacts of climate change are being recognized, many strategies that address climate change
have emerged at several different levels of government. This appendix provides an overview of the
regulatory context at the international, State, and local levels relative to Cupertino’s actions toward
reducing its communitywide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
International Climate Action Guidance
1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
The primary international regulatory framework for GHG reduction is the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC is an
international treaty adopted in 1992 with the objective of stabilizing atmospheric GHG
concentrations to prevent disruptive anthropogenic climate change. The framework established
non‐binding limits on global GHG emissions and specified a process for negotiating future
international climate‐related agreements.1
1997 Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty that was adopted in 1997 to extend and operationalize
the UNFCCC. The protocol commits industrialized nations to reduce GHG emissions per county‐
specific targets, recognizing that they hold responsibility for existing atmospheric GHG levels. The
Kyoto Protocol involves two commitment periods during which emissions reductions are to occur,
the first of which took place between 2008‐2012 and the second of which has not entered into
force. 2
2015 The Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement is the first‐ever universal, legally binding global climate agreement that was
adopted in 2015 and has been ratified by 189 countries worldwide.3 The Paris Agreement
establishes a roadmap to keep the world under 2° C of warming with a goal of limiting an increase of
temperature to 1.5° C. The agreement does not dictate one specific reduction target, instead relying
on individual countries to set nationally determined contributions (NDCs) or reductions based on
GDP and other factors. According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) limiting global
warming to 1.5° C will require global emissions to reduce through 2030 and hit carbon neutrality by
mid‐century.4
1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf
2 UNFCCC. What is the Kyoto Protocol? https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol
3 UNFCCC. Paris Agreement ‐ Status of Ratification. https://unfccc.int/process/the‐paris‐agreement/status‐of‐ratification
4 IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 C. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
2
California Regulations and State GHG Targets
California remains a global leader in the effort to reduce GHG emissions and combat climate change
through its mitigation and adaptation strategies. With the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 in 2006,
California became the first state in the United States to mandate GHG emission reductions across its
entire economy. To support AB 32, California has enacted legislation, regulations, and executive
orders (EO) that put it on course to achieve robust emission reductions and address the impacts of a
changing climate. The following is a summary of executive and legislative actions most relevant to
the CAP.
2002 Senate Bill 1078
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.
2002 Assembly Bill 1493
In 2002, AB 1493, also known as the Pavley Regulations, directed the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) to establish regulations to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles to the maximum
and most cost‐effective extent feasible. CARB approved the first set of regulations to reduce GHG
emissions from passenger vehicles in 2004, with the regulations initially taking effect with the 2009
model year.
2005 Executive Order S‐3‐05
Executive Order (EO) S‐3‐05 was signed in 2005, establishing Statewide GHG emissions reduction
targets for the years 2020 and 2050. The EO calls for the reduction of GHG emissions in California to
2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2050
emission reductions target would put the State’s emissions in line with the worldwide reductions
needed to reach long‐term climate stabilization as concluded by the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment
Report.
2006 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 Statewide
goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires 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 baseline and 2020 emissions limit of
427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT 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
3
Clean Car standards,5 and Cap‐and‐Trade) have been adopted since approval of the Scoping Plan.
In May 2014, CARB approved the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2014 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
“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 (CARB 2014).
2007 Executive Order S‐1‐07
Also known as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, EO S‐1‐07, issued in 2007, established a Statewide
goal that requires transportation fuel providers to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s
transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. EO S‐1‐07 was readopted and amended in 2015
to require a 20 percent reduction in carbon intensity by 2030, the most stringent requirement in the
nation. The new requirement aligns with California’s overall 2030 target of reducing climate
changing emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, which was set by Senate Bill 32 and
signed by the governor in 2016.
2007 Senate Bill 97
Signed in August 2007, SB 97 acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that
requires analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. In March 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 give
lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and
mitigation of GHG and climate change impacts.
2008 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. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the State’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), to prepare a
“sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission
targets for inclusion in the MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005
levels by 2020 and 2035.
2009 California Green Building Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is Part 11 of the California Building
Standards Code or Title 24 and is the first Statewide “green” building code in the nation. The
purpose of CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the
5 On September 19, 2019, the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency (NHTSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued
a final action entitled the One National Program on Federal Preemption of State Fuel Economy Standards Rule. This action finalizes Part I
of the Safer, Affordable, Fuel‐Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule. This rule states that federal law preempts State and local tailpipe greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions standards as well as zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates. The SAFE Rule withdraws the Clean Air Act waiver it
granted to California in January 2013 as it relates to California’s GHG and zero emission vehicle programs.
4
design and construction of buildings. Enhancements include reduced negative impact designs,
positive environmental impact designs, and encouragement of sustainable construction practices.
The first CALGreen Code was adopted in 2009 and has been updated in 2013, 2016, and 2019. The
CALGreen Code will have subsequent, and continually more stringent, updates every three years.
2009 Senate Bill X7‐7
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.
2011 Senate Bill 2X
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.
2012 Assembly Bill 341
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.
2014 Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan Update
In 2014, CARB approved the first update to the Scoping Plan. This update defines CARB’s climate
change priorities and sets the groundwork to reach the post‐2020 targets set forth in EO S‐3‐05. The
update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the near‐term 2020 GHG emissions
reduction target, defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluates how to align California’s
longer‐term GHG reduction strategies with other Statewide policy priorities, such as water, waste,
natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use.
2014 Assembly Bill 1826
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.
2015 Senate Bill 350
SB 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, has two objectives: to increase the
procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030 and to
double the energy efficiency of electricity and natural gas end users through energy efficiency and
conservation.
5
2015 Executive Order B‐30‐15
In 2015, EO B‐30‐15 was signed, establishing an interim GHG emissions reduction target to reduce
emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO also calls for another update to the
CARB Scoping Plan.
2016 Senate Bill 32
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed SB 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the State
to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32
remain unchanged). The bill charges CARB to adopt the regulation so that the maximum
technologically feasible emissions reductions are achieved in the most cost‐effective way.
2016 Senate Bill 1383
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 the CalRecycle, in consultation with the CARB, to adopt regulations that
achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. The bill further requires 20% of
edible food disposed of at the time to be recovered by 2025.
2017 Scoping Plan Update
On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for
achieving the 2030 goal set by SB 32. 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, 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 2014 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 metric tons (MT) CO2e by 2030 and two
MT CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017). 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.
2018 Senate Bill 100
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the
electricity sector by accelerating the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which was last
updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from
eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030,
and 100 percent by 2045.
6
2018 Executive Order B‐55‐18
Also, on September 10, 2018, the 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
375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.
R incon Consultants, Inc.
4 49 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
5 10 8 34 4455 O FFICE
info@rinconconsultants.com
www.rinconconsultants.com
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s
January 26, 2022
Project 21-10845
Andre Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager
City of Cupertino, City Manager’s Office
Via email: AndreD@cupertino.org
Subject: Future GHG Emissions Forecasts Memorandum
Cupertino Climate Action Plan Update
As part of Task 4 of the Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update, Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon)
has calculated future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions forecasts for GHG emissions sources associated
with land use in Cupertino. The GHG emissions forecasts are based on the 2018 GHG emissions
inventory and utilize Cupertino specific demographics projections. The forecasts were developed to
better understand how population and job growth in Cupertino could affect future GHG emissions in the
years 2023, 2036, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045. The GHG emissions forecast presents two scenarios:
Business-as-Usual Scenario (BAU) that projects GHG emissions levels that scale with population,
employment and transportation growth consistent with regional projections, and
Adjusted Scenario (Adjusted) that accounts for GHG reductions expected to occur from adopted
State legislation.
These two forecast scenarios allow for an understanding of how GHG emissions levels may evolve
without further action and how State legislation will contribute to reducing future GHG emissions levels.
GHG Emissions Sectors and Sources
The GHG emissions forecast presented herein is based on the 2018 GHG emissions inventory calculated
for Cupertino. Several updates to the transportation and commercial/industrial sectors were made to
incorporate data from updated transportation models and energy data sets that were not available
during the initial preparation of the 2018 inventory. Updates to the 2018 inventory will be described in
further detail in the Baseline 2018 GHG Emissions Inventory section. The GHG emissions sources
included in this analysis align with those in the GHG inventory, which includes GHG emissions sources
related to land use and transportation in the Cupertino planning area. The GHG emissions sectors and
associated sources included in this analysis are provided in Table 1.
Appendix B - GHG Inventory Methodology
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
2
Table 1 Cupertino GHG Emissions Sectors and Sources
Updates to the Cupertino 2018 GHG Emissions Inventory
The GHG emissions forecast analysis presented here is based upon the emissions levels from each
emissions source included in the 2018 GHG emissions inventory, apart from the transportation and
commercial/industrial sectors that were updated based on more recently available energy data and
transportation models. Sources updated for the 2018 GHG Inventory baseline year include both on-road
transportation, off-road vehicle emissions and commercial natural gas. The new transportation models
described in more detail below are widely accepted and regularly updated; this contributes to
consistency and replicability of the data for future forecasts.
Transportation Sector Updates
The 2018 GHG emissions inventory transportation sector was updated for both on- and off-road
emissions sources. On-road transportation activity data, measured in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), was
calculated using the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) VMT Data portal. On-road
transportation emissions were recalculated using the updated VMT data and updated emissions factors
were derived from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) EMission FACtor (EMFAC) 2021 on-road
model. In addition, passenger and commercial electric vehicle (EV) electricity consumption was updated
using EMFAC 2021. Passenger and commercial EV emissions from electricity consumption are subtracted
from residential and commercial energy emissions respectively and then added to the transportation
sector for 2018. In forecast years, emissions from EV charging are attributed to the transportation
sector. This emissions reallocation is labeled as an “EV adjustment” in the forecasts. Off-road activity
data, measured in gallons of fuel consumed by fuel type, was updated using the recently released
OFFROAD2021 off-road emissions database, per CARB recommendations. The updated analysis includes
the same vehicle classes used in the 2018 GHG inventory, using the newer model of vehicle classes for
which there is updated data. The updated inventory also aggregates off-road activity by fuel type and
GHG Emissions Sector GHG Emissions Source
Transportation Passenger On-Road Transportation
Commercial On-Road Transportation
Passenger On-Road – EV adjustment
Commercial On-Road – EV adjustment
Off Road - Diesel
Off Road - Gasoline
Off Road - Natural Gas (LPG)
Residential Residential Electricity Consumption1
Residential Natural Gas Consumption
Residential Natural Gas Fugitive Emissions
Commercial/Industrial Commercial/Industrial Electricity Consumption1
Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas Consumption
Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas Fugitive Emissions
Wastewater Effluent from Treatment and Discharge of Wastewater
Solid Waste Methane Commitment of Solid Waste Generated by Community
1 Electricity Consumption includes electricity provided by Pacific Gas and Electric, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, and Direct Access sources.
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
3
allocates these emissions to the transportation sector, rather than attributing them to the residential or
commercial/industrial sectors.
Energy Sector Updates
Commercial/industrial natural gas consumption was updated to better incorporate detailed natural gas
data from Apple’s fuel cell. Apple is a large employer and user of natural gas in Cupertino, and therefore
accounts for a large portion of the commercial/industrial natural gas. 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.1 Furthermore, while the U.S. 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”.2 Therefore, as a key action towards decarbonization of the City,
Cupertino will track the GHG reduction benefits of biofuels and electricity RECs (which are commonly
included in the GHG emission factor for electricity) moving forward.
The biofuel usage for the fuel cell was separated from the commercial/industrial natural gas usage total
for the City and updated in the 2018 GHG emissions inventory as a separate line item with its own
emission factor. The GHG emission factor associated with Apple’s biofuel was zero MT CO2e per therm.
However, note that the activity data used in the calculation of GHG emissions from commercial methane
leakage includes both Apple and non-Apple gas usage, since biogas is still associated with methane
leakage.
1 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/fuels/lcfs/guidance/lcfsguidance_19-05.pdf
2 https://icleiusa.org/us-community-protocol/
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
4
Updated Cupertino 2018 GHG Emissions Inventory
A detailed summary of the updated 2018 GHG emissions inventory, incorporating the aforementioned
individual sector updates, is provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Cupertino 2018 GHG Emissions Inventory Summary
GHG Emissions Sector/Source CO2
(MT)
CH4
(MT)
N2O
(MT)
CO2e
(MT)
Activity
Data
Activity
Data
Units
Transportation
Passenger On-Road Transportation 130,863.9 8.2 5.8 132,635.3 381,045,902 VMT
Commercial On-Road Transportation 26.8 0.0 0.0 26.9 54,876,773 VMT
Passenger On-Road - EV adjustment 71,440.1 3.8 9.2 73,972.1 6,030,572 kWh
Commercial On-Road - EV adjustment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 kWh
Off Road - Diesel 6,351.6 0.2 0.3 6,431.7 622,096 Gallons
Off Road - Gasoline 4,506.6 4.5 0.1 4,651.3 513,280 Gallons
Off Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 2,841.0 0.4 0.2 2,908.0 500,185 Gallons
Residential
Residential Electricity - PG&E 253.5 0.0 0.0 255.8 2,660,801 kWh
Residential Electricity - SVCE 186.0 - - 186.0 97,465,119 kWh
Residential Electricity - Direct Access 5.4 0.0 0.0 5.5 23,128 kWh
Residential Natural Gas 43,428.3 N/A N/A 43,428.3 8,186,706 Therms
Natural Gas Fugitive - Residential 0.5 50.7 N/A 1,420.3 8,186,706 Therms
Commercial/Industrial
Commercial/Industrial Electricity –PG&E 283.9 0.0 0.0 286.6 2,980,736 kWh
Commercial/Industrial Electricity – SVCE 214.9 0.0 0.0 214.9 112,588,606 kWh
Commercial/Industrial Electricity – Direct Access
Other 3,544.5 0.4 0.0 3,564.1 15,098,936 kWh
Commercial/Industrial Electricity – Direct Access
Apple 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 186,780,000 kWh
Commercial/Industrial Electricity – EV adjustment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 kWh
Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas – PG&E1 39,957.1 N/A N/A 39,957.1 7,532,350 Therms
Commercial/Industrial Biofuel – Apple Fuel Cell1 0.0 N/A N/A 0.0 2,324,300 Therms
Natural Gas Fugitive - Commercial 0.7 61.1 N/A 1,710.1 9,856,650 Therms
Wastewater
Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
N/A 695.0 0.7 19,634.5 136,216
BOD5
Treated
Solid Waste
Solid Waste Generated/Disposal
N/A 561.1 N/A 15,709.4 30,470
Tons
Landfilled
N/A = not applicable; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; PG&E = Pacific Gas and
Electric; SVCE = Silicon Valley Clean Energy; kWh = kilowatt-hour; EV = electric vehicle.
1. Note that CH4 and N2O emissions from natural gas were considered de minimis and excluded from the inventory. For example, including
CH4 and N2O combustion emissions from natural gas would increase total inventoried natural gas combustion GHG emissions by just 0.1%.
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
5
Business-as-usual GHG Emissions Forecast
A BAU GHG emissions forecast uses demographic projections and modeled on- and off-road
transportation emissions to estimate future GHG emissions without the influence of approved GHG
reduction legislation or policies. The BAU forecast is based on growth projected trends in population,
and employment over time, consistent with local and regional projections. The BAU forecast does not
account for GHG emissions reductions associated with local GHG reduction measures or legislative
actions. BAU forecasts were estimated for 2023, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045. The BAU GHG
emissions projections were calculated based on the guidance of the Association of Environmental
Professionals 2012 whitepaper Forecasting Communitywide GHG Emissions and Setting Reduction
Targets. To develop a GHG emissions forecast, the appropriate “growth metrics” (e.g., population,
housing, and employment projections) are multiplied by BAU “growth indicators”, which represent a
baseline metric developed from the baseline GHG emissions inventory. This allows for projections of
activity data that can be converted into GHG emissions estimates using specific GHG emissions factors,
which is assumed to be the same in the future as in the 2018 GHG emissions inventory. The result is a
BAU forecast in which GHG emissions change with time in relation to demographics, with the
assumption that GHG emissions rates and activity data will continue in the future as they did in the year
of the 2018 GHG emissions inventory. This methodology is used for all GHG emissions sectors and
sources included in the 2018 GHG emissions inventory, with the exception of two sectors. The first is
direct access electricity consumption for the Apple campus, which is held constant across the forecasted
time period, under the assumption there will be no expansion of the campus. Emission factors for
Apple’s direct access electricity were zero in the 2018 baseline inventory, so this assumption does not
change the emissions projected in the BAU forecast. The second sector to use a different methodology
for the BAU forecast is the off-road emissions sector. To forecast off-road emissions, the OFFROAD2021
off-road emissions database was used to project fuel use since no significant GHG emission reduction
legislation is included in the model. The following provides an overview of the growth metrics, growth
indicators, and GHG emissions factors used to project GHG emissions for the BAU forecast calculations.
Growth Metrics
GHG emissions are largely driven by consumption of fuel and energy, and generation of solid waste and
wastewater by residents, households, and employees in a jurisdiction. As such, as population and
employment grow over time, it is expected that GHG emissions levels will also grow. In a BAU forecast,
this growth is assumed to be the primary metric for determining changes in future GHG emissions. For
the Cupertino planning area, the growth and demographic projections used as the growth metrics for
the BAU GHG emissions forecast were drawn from Plan Bay Area 2040 data portal. Plan Bay Area 2040
was developed as a joint effort between the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the region’s
transportation planning, financing, and coordinating agency, and the Association of Bay Area
Governments, the regional planning agency and Council of Governments. Cupertino growth metrics for
the BAU forecast, are provided in Table 3.
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
6
Table 3 Plan Bay Area Growth Metrics for Cupertino BAU GHG Emissions Forecast
Growth Indicators
Growth indicators were developed from the baseline 2018 GHG emissions inventories by dividing the
activity data for each emissions source by the appropriate metric for the year 2020. The appropriate
metric used for each growth indicator is developed based on the relevance of the GHG emissions source.
For example, residential energy consumption would be expected to grow with the number of new
households, commercial/industrial energy consumption would be expected to grow with the number of
new jobs, and total solid waste generation would be expected to grow with both residents and
employment (service population). Table 4 provides the metrics that were associated with each GHG
emissions sector to develop growth indicators and project GHG emissions from each GHG emissions
source in the respective sectors. Different growth metrics were used for the transportation sector as
appropriate for each source, that variation is reflected in the table. Growth for passenger on-road
transportation activity was modeled separately using MTC projections.
Table 4 Growth Metrics and Associated GHG Emissions Sectors
The growth indicators for Cupertino are provided in Table 5 for each GHG emissions source, excluding
passenger on-road transportation and off-road fuel consumption.
Growth Metric 2023 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population1 64,241 64,921 65,690 66,565 68,305 70,090
Employment2 36,137 37,213 37,830 38,055 37,980 37,905
Service Population3 100,378 102,134 103,520 104,620 106,285 107,996
Housing4 22,670 22,777 22,805 27,573 28,071 28,579
Notes: Service Population = Population + Employment
1-4. Plan Bay Area 2040 projections end in 2040. The compound growth rate for 2035-2040 period was used to forecast growth for 2040-
2045 period.
4. Plan Bay Area 2040 Multifamily and Single-Family housing numbers were summed to get the total number housing units. The total RHNA
Housing Allocation for 2023-2031 was added to the annual housing estimate for 2031. RHNA housing allocations for Cupertino were drawn
from Draft ABAG RHNA Allocations 2023-2031 publication, Table 4.
GHG Emissions Sector GHG Emission Source Associated Growth Metric Growth Metric Data Source
Transportation Commercial On-Road Transportation Service Population Plan Bay Area 2040
Passenger On-Road - EV Adjustment Households Plan Bay Area 2040
Commercial On-Road - EV Adjustment Employment Plan Bay Area 2040
Residential All GHG Emissions Sources Households Plan Bay Area 2040
Commercial/Industrial All GHG Emissions Sources Employment Plan Bay Area 2040
Wastewater All GHG Emissions Sources Service Population Plan Bay Area 2040
Solid Waste All GHG Emissions Sources Service Population Plan Bay Area 2040
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
7
Table 5 Growth Indicators for BAU GHG Emissions Forecast
On-Road Activity Data
Activity data for the forecast of passenger on-road transportation was modeled separately from the
above growth metrics and growth indicators, using the MTC Vehicle Miles Traveled Data portal output
for Cupertino. Climate Action Plan VMT Data was pulled for 2015, 2020, 2030, 2040. Trip data was
allocated based on whether the entirety of a trip took place within Cupertino transit area, started or
ended within the transit area, or started and ended outside of the transit area. 100 percent of daily trips
completely within the jurisdiction, 50 percent of partially-within trips, and 0 percent of outside trips
were allocated to Cupertino. Daily VMT data was annualized using the same annualization factor of 338,
that DVN GL utilized in the 2018 GHG baseline Inventory. Annual compound growth rates were
calculated for each time period, and used to find VMT totals for the years between those provided by
the MTC data portal. The growth rate for the 2030-2040 period was used to forecast 2045 VMT activity
data. The results are summarized in Table 6.
GHG Emissions Source Cupertino Units
Transportation
Commercial On-Road Transportation 578.2 VMT/Service Population
Passenger On-Road - EV Adjustment 267.8 kWh/Household
Commercial On-Road - EV Adjustment 0.0 kWh/Employment
Off Road - Diesel 0.0 OFFROAD Model
Off Road - Gasoline 0.0 OFFROAD Model
Off Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 0.0 OFFROAD Model
Residential
Residential Electricity - PG&E 118.2 kWh/Household
Residential Electricity - SVCE 4,327.9 kWh/Household
Residential Electricity - Direct Access 1.0 kWh/Household
Residential Natural Gas 363.5 Therms/Household
Commercial/Industrial
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - PG&E 94.1 kWh/Employment
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - SVCE 3,554.3 kWh/Employment
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - DAO 476.7 kWh/Employment
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - DAA 0.0 MT CO2e/Apple Employee
Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas – PG&E 237.79 Therms/Employment
Commercial/Industrial Biofuel – Apple Fuel Cell 0.0 Therms/Employment
Wastewater
Wastewater Treatment and Discharge 1.4 BOD5 Treated/Service Population
Solid Waste
Solid Waste Generated/Disposal 0.3 Tons Landfilled/Service Population
Notes: NA = not applicable MT CO2e = metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent; PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric; SVCE = Silicon Valley Clean
Energy; DAO = Direct Access Other; DAA = Direct Access Apple; kWh = kilowatt-hour.
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
8
Table 6 Cupertino Passenger On-Road Transportation Forecast
Off-Road Activity Data
Activity data for the forecast of off-road GHG emissions was modeled separately from the above growth
metrics and growth indicators, using the outputs from the CARB web-based OFFROAD2021 off-road
emissions database, per CARB recommendations. The OFFROAD2021 database was queried for annual
emissions for Santa Clara County for the forecast years to obtain fuel consumption for gasoline, diesel,
and natural gas. The BAU GHG Forecast aggregated fuel consumption from the same equipment sectors
as the 2018 baseline year. The inclusion of specific equipment sectors from the database query was
determined based on their relevance to activities occurring within the City of Cupertino. The following
equipment sectors are included in the 2018 baseline year inventory and the GHG emissions forecast:
Construction and Mining
Light Commercial
Industrial
Portable Equipment
Recreational Vehicles
Lawn and Garden
Transportation Refrigeration Units
The results of the database query were summarized for all equipment sectors in Santa Clara County.
Cupertino was allocated a percentage of county fuel consumption for each sector relative to Cupertino’s
proportion of jobs or population in the county. The results are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7 Cupertino BAU GHG Emissions Forecast Off-Road Fuel Consumption
Emissions Factors
The BAU GHG emissions forecast is representative of a scenario where community activities are
generally similar to that of the baseline 2018 GHG emissions inventory. As such, BAU activity data
growth is multiplied by the emissions factors used to calculate GHG emissions from the baseline GHG
emissions inventory to generate an estimate of future GHG emissions without influence from GHG
reduction policies at the State or local level. The BAU GHG emissions factors for the relevant GHG
emissions sources and sectors are provided in Table 8, reported in MT CO2e. GHG emissions factors for
Growth Metric 2023 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
VMT 392,383,890 396,745,143 402,635,644 415,695,482 429,178,926 443,099,718
Notes: VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Data Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Vehicle Miles Traveled Data portal. Available: http://capvmt.us-west-
2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data.
Off-road Fuel Category 2023 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
Diesel 747,192 834,695 931,569 980,552 1,003,261 1,024,102
Gasoline 607,314 635,982 658,273 676,795 680,961 657,976
Natural Gas 590,605 620,593 648,514 677,920 690,873 658,042
Notes: All values are of the unit gallons of fuel
Data Source: California Air Resources Board. 2021. OFFROAD2021 v1.0.1 Emissions Inventory . Available: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-
inventory/b3e3139ff7a2304c48acb2a0684ab41b38c5c26e. Accessed November 30, 2021.
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
9
direct access electricity provided to Apple is excluded from the below table but is presented in the
discussion that follows.
Table 8 BAU GHG Emissions Factors
BAU GHG Emissions Forecast Results
The following provides a summary of the results of the BAU GHG emissions forecast for each source in
Cupertino. The results have been reported in MT CO2e. The BAU forecast projects an increase in GHG
emissions above the baseline 2018 GHG emissions inventory from all GHG emissions sources through
2045. An increase in housing stock commensurate with the RHNA allocations for 2021-2030 is attributed
to 2030 and all growth indicators utilizing households will increase significantly that year. Table 9 and
Figure 1 provide a summary of the Cupertino BAU GHG emissions forecast.
GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions Factor Units
Transportation
Passenger On-Road Transportation 0.0003481 MT CO2e/VMT
Commercial On-Road Transportation 0.0013480 MT CO2e/VMT
Passenger On-Road - EV Adjustment 0.0000045 MT CO2e/kWh
Commercial On-Road - EV Adjustment 0.0000045 MT CO2e/kWh
Off Road - Diesel 0.0103387 MT CO2e/Gallons
Off Road - Gasoline 0.0090620 MT CO2e/Gallons
Off Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 0.0058138 MT CO2e/Gallons
Residential
Residential Electricity - PG&E 0.0000962 MT CO2e/kWh
Residential Electricity - SVCE 0.0000019 MT CO2e/kWh
Residential Electricity - Direct Access 0.0002360 MT CO2e/kWh
Residential Natural Gas 0.0053047 MT CO2e/Therm
Natural Gas Fugitive - Residential 0.0001735 MT CO2e/Therm
Commercial/Industrial
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - PG&E 0.0000962 MT CO2e/kWh
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - SVCE 0.0000019 MT CO2e/kWh
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - DAO 0.0002360 MT CO2e/kWh
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - DAA 0.0000000 MT CO2e/kWh
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - PG&E 0.0000962 MT CO2e/kWh
Natural Gas Fugitive - Commercial 0.0001735 MT CO2e/Therm
Commercial Natural Gas – PG&E 0.0053047 MT CO2e/Therm
Commercial Biofuel – Apple Fuel Cell 0.0000000 MT CO2e/Therm
Wastewater
Wastewater Treatment and Discharge 0.1441426 MT CO2e/BOD5 Treated
Solid Waste
Solid Waste Generated/Disposal 0.5155722 MT CO2e/Tons Landfilled
Notes: NA = not applicable MT CO2e = metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent; PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric; SVCE = Silicon Valley Clean
Energy; DAO = Direct Access Other; DAA = Direct Access Apple; kWh = kilowatt-hour.
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
10
Table 9 Cupertino BAU GHG Emissions Forecast Summary
GHG Emissions Source 2023 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
Transportation 231,509 235,735 240,232 246,486 252,825 258,821
Passenger On-Road Transportation 136,582 138,100 140,150 144,696 149,390 154,235
Commercial On-Road Transportation 78,238 79,607 80,687 81,545 82,842 84,176
Residential Electricity - EV Adjust 27 27 27 33 34 34
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - EV Adj 0 0 0 0 0 0
Off Road - Diesel 7,725 8,630 9,631 10,138 10,372 10,588
Off Road - Gasoline 5,503 5,763 5,965 6,133 6,171 5,963
Off Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 3,434 3,608 3,770 3,941 4,017 3,826
Residential 45,597 45,813 45,869 55,459 56,462 57,482
Residential Electricity - PG&E 258 259 259 313 319 325
Residential Electricity - SVCE 187 188 188 228 232 236
Residential Electricity - Direct Access 5 6 6 7 7 7
Residential Natural Gas - PG&E 43,717 43,924 43,978 53,173 54,134 55,112
Natural Gas Fugitive - Residential 1,430 1,437 1,438 1,739 1,770 1,802
Commercial/Industrial 52,115 53,655 54,538 54,860 54,753 54,646
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - PG&E 327 337 342 344 344 343
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - SVCE 245 252 257 258 258 257
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - DAO 4,066 4,187 4,256 4,282 4,273 4,265
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - DAA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas - PG&E 45,583 46,940 47,719 48,003 47,908 47,814
Commercia/Industrial Natural Gas – Apple Fuel Cell 0 0 0 0 0 0
Natural Gas Fugitive - Commercial 1,894 1,938 1,964 1,973 1,970 1,967
Wastewater 20,767 21,130 21,417 21,645 21,989 22,343
Wastewater Treatment and Discharge 20,767 21,130 21,417 21,645 21,989 22,343
Solid Waste 16,615 16,906 17,136 17,318 17,593 17,876
Community Generated Solid Waste 16,615 16,906 17,136 17,318 17,593 17,876
TOTAL 366,604 373,239 379,192 395,768 403,622 411,169
Notes: Values in this table may not add up to totals due to rounding
All values are of the unit metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e)
PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric; SVCE = Silicon Valley Clean Energy; DAO = Direct Access Other; DAA = Direct Access Apple; kWh = kilowatt-
hour.
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
11
Figure 1 Cupertino BAU GHG Emissions Forecast (MT CO2e) through 2045
Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecasts
The Adjusted forecast accounts for GHG emissions reductions that can be reasonably expected from
State legislation and regulations. While there are numerous pieces of legislation that are likely to
achieve long-term GHG emissions reduction, there can be wide variations on how these are
implemented within a specific jurisdiction.
GHG Reduction Legislation Included in Cupertino Forecasts
Several State regulations have been enacted that reduce Cupertino’s future GHG emissions. The impact
of these regulations was quantified and incorporated into an Adjusted forecast to provide a more
accurate depiction of future GHG emissions growth and the responsibility of GHG emissions reduction
for Cupertino beyond established State regulations. The following State legislation were applied to the
Adjusted Forecasts based on the unique sectors within Cupertino.
2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Senate Bill 100 - California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases
SAFE Part One - U.S. EPA and NHTSA Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient or SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One
Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) Regulation
Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) Regulation
GHG Reduction Legislation Calculations
EMFAC 2021 version was used to model transportation-related GHG emissions for the Cupertino
forecasts. In addition, the following methodology was used to calculate energy-related GHG emissions
reduction related to Title 24 and SB 100.
Title 24: It is assumed that all growth in the residential sector is from new construction. Accordingly,
Title 24 GHG emissions reduction for natural gas and electricity are calculated as a percentage of the
projected increase in energy consumption beyond the baseline 2018 GHG emissions inventory,
under the BAU forecast, as provided in 9. Overall, the energy consumption reduction impact of Title
24 is:
53 percent reduction beyond the 2018 baseline for residential electricity; and
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
2018 2020 2023 2025 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
GH
G
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(
M
T
C
O
2e)
Transportation Residential Commerical/Industrial Wastewater Solid Waste
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
12
7 percent reduction beyond the 2018 baseline for residential natural gas.3
SB 100: PG&E, SVCE, and Direct Access providers currently provide electricity in Cupertino and are
subject to SB 100 requirements. GHG emissions from electricity consumption are largely determined
by the emissions factor associated with the supplied electricity. Legislative GHG emissions
reductions from SB 100 are calculated as the difference between GHG emissions under the BAU
forecast electricity and GHG emissions calculated using a SB 100-adjusted GHG emissions factor for
a given forecast year. An adjusted GHG emission factors is calculated by scaling the baseline
electricity GHG emissions factor with the RPS percentage for eligible renewable electricity required
for compliance with SB 100. Each of the electricity providers for Cupertino had different electricity
emissions factors due to different RPS percentages in their electricity delivery mix. The RPS
percentages and associated GHG emissions factors used to determine the Adjusted forecast
electricity emissions are provided in Table 10. GHG emissions factors were also converted from
kilowatt-hour (kWh) to Megawatt-hour (MWh) in the table. Note that while both Title 24 and SB 100
influence GHG emissions reductions in the electricity sector, double counting of these reductions is
avoided by accounting for Title 24 reductions first and then accounting for reductions from SB 100.
Table 10 Electricity Provider Forecasted RPS and Electricity GHG Emissions Factors
State legislation is expected to result in GHG emissions reduction from the BAU forecast in both the
residential and commercial/industrial sectors. Title 24 is expected to reduce GHG emissions from
reduced electricity and natural gas consumption in new residential housing units. SB 100 is expected to
further reduce GHG emissions in the residential sector through reduced GHG emissions associated with
electricity generation, as well as similar reductions in the commercial/industrial sector. The expected
legislative reductions from SB 100 and Title 24 are summarized in Table 11.
3 California Energy Commission. 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. Available:
<https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf>. Accessed June 21, 2021.
Energy Provider 2018
(Baseline)
2023 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
PG&E
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Percentage 39% 48% 53% 60% 73% 87% 100%
Adjusted Electricity Emission Factor
(MT CO2e/MWh) 0.09615 0.08159 0.07364 0.06305 0.04203 0.02102 0
SVCE
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Percentage 56% 58% 59% 60% 73% 87% 100%
Adjusted Electricity Emission Factor
(MT CO2e/MWh) 0.00191 0.00184 0.00180 0.00174 0.00116 0.00058 0
Direct Access
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Percentage 31% 44% 51% 60% 73% 87% 100%
Adjusted Electricity Emission Factor
(MT CO2e/MWh) 0.23605 0.19240 0.16859 0.13684 0.09123 0.04561 0
Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; MWh = Megawatt-hour
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
13
Table 11 Cupertino Adjusted GHG Emissions Reductions
Figure 2 shows the GHG emissions trends in terms of MT CO2e for the Adjusted forecast. Adjusted
forecast emissions trend downward over time through 2045.
GHG Emissions Source 2023 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
Transportation Rules Reductions
Transportation 17,588 30,284 45,903 63,585 75,497 82,850
Passenger On-Road Transportation 13,385 21,068 29,426 36,315 40,625 43,349
Commercial On-Road Transportation 4,222 9,239 16,585 27,422 34,966 39,467
Passenger On-Road EV Adjust1 -17 -23 -24 -5 13 34
Commercial On-Road EV Adjust1 -3 -20 -84 -148 -107 0
Title 24 Reductions 22 16 4 715 75 76
Residential Electricity - PG&E 1 1 0 29 3 3
Residential Electricity - SVCE 1 0 0 21 2 2
Residential Electricity - Direct Access 0 0 0 1 0 0
Residential Natural Gas 20 14 4 644 67 68
Natural Gas Fugitive - Residential 1 0 0 21 2 2
SB 100 Reductions 858 1,364 2,037 3,167 4,307 5,427
Residential 47 73 108 245 412 562
Residential Electricity - PG&E 39 60 89 160 247 322
Residential Electricity - SVCE 7 11 16 81 160 234
Residential Electricity - Direct Access 1 2 2 4 5 7
Commercial/Industrial 811 1,290 1,929 2,922 3,895 4,865
Non-Residential Electricity - PG&E 50 79 118 194 269 343
Non-Residential Electricity - SVCE 9 15 22 101 179 257
Non-Residential Electricity - Direct Access Other 752 1,197 1,789 2,627 3,448 4,265
TOTAL REDUCTIONS 18,469 31,644 47,945 67,466 79,880 88,354
Notes: Values in this table may not add up to totals due to rounding
All values are of the unit metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e)
1 Negative emissions reduction indicate an increase in emissions from electric vehicle adoption, and consequently energy usage.
PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric; SVCE = Silicon Valley Clean Energy; DAO = Direct Access Other; EV = electric vehicle.
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
14
Figure 2 Cupertino Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecast (MT CO2e) through 2045
Figure 3 shows the GHG emissions trends in terms of MT CO2e over the course of the BAU and Adjusted
forecasts to illustrate the influence of State legislation on projected emissions.
Figure 3 Cupertino BAU and Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecasts (MT CO2e) through 2045
Table 12provides more detail including emissions (in MT CO2e) by sector for milestone years from 2023
through 2045.
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
2023 2025 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
GH
G
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(
M
T
C
O
2e)
Transportation Residential Commerical/Industrial Wastewater Solid Waste
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
2023 2030 2035 2040 2045
MT
C
O
2e
BAU Emission Forecast Adjusted Emissions Forecast
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
15
Table 12 Cupertino Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecast Detail
1990 GHG Emissions Back-cast
A 1990 GHG emissions back-cast was developed based on Cupertino’s 2010 inventory results.4
Determining 1990 GHG emissions levels for a community is an important step in developing climate
action targets. This is because the State currently utilizes 1990 as a reference for their GHG reduction
goals. CARB has recommended that jurisdictions establish 2030 GHG emissions reduction goals
4 Cupertino’s 2010 GHG emissions inventory can be accessed at:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/14938/636524760503430000
GHG Emissions Source 2023 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
Transportation 213,921 205,470 194,328 182,901 177,328 175,971
Passenger On-Road Transportation 123,196 117,032 110,724 108,381 108,764 110,886
Commercial On-Road Transportation 74,016 70,368 64,102 54,122 47,877 44,709
Residential Electricity - EV Adjust 44 50 52 38 20 0
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - EV Adj 3 20 84 148 107 0
Off Road - Diesel 7,725 8,630 9,631 10,138 10,372 10,588
Off Road - Gasoline 5,503 5,763 5,965 6,133 6,171 5,963
Off Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 3,434 3,608 3,770 3,941 4,017 3,826
Residential 45,527 45,724 45,757 54,499 55,975 56,844
Residential Electricity - PG&E 218 198 170 124 69 0
Residential Electricity - SVCE 179 177 172 126 70 0
Residential Electricity - Direct Access 4 4 3 2 1 0
Residential Natural Gas - PG&E 43,697 43,909 43,974 52,529 54,066 55,044
Natural Gas Fugitive - Residential 1,429 1,436 1,438 1,718 1,768 1,800
Commercial/Industrial 51,305 52,365 52,609 51,939 50,858 49,781
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - PG&E 277 258 224 151 75 0
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - SVCE 236 237 234 157 78 0
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - DAO 3,314 2,990 2,468 1,655 826 0
Commercial/Industrial Electricity - DAA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Residential Natural Gas - PG&E 45,583 46,940 47,719 48,003 47,908 47,814
Non-Residential Biofuel – Apple Fuel Cell 0 0 0 0 0 0
Natural Gas Fugitive - Commercial 1,894 1,938 1,964 1,973 1,970 1,967
Wastewater 20,767 21,130 21,417 21,645 21,989 22,343
Wastewater Treatment and Discharge 20,767 21,130 21,417 21,645 21,989 22,343
Solid Waste 16,615 16,906 17,136 17,318 17,593 17,876
Community Generated Solid Waste 16,615 16,906 17,136 17,318 17,593 17,876
TOTAL 348,136 341,595 331,247 328,301 323,743 322,815
Notes: Values in this table may not add up to totals due to rounding
All values are of the unit metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e)
PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric; SVCE = Silicon Valley Clean Energy; DAO = Direct Access Other; DAA = Direct Access Apple; kWh = kilowatt-
hour.
GHG Emissions Forecasts
Cupertino CAP Update
16
consistent with the State’s goal to reduce emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels, established by SB 32.
Because Cupertino does not have reliable or sufficient activity data to develop an inventory for 1990,
the 2018 inventory results were used to back-cast GHG emissions to 1990 for Los Gatos.5 Other
jurisdictions, such as the City of South Pasadena, have established a relationship between GHG
emissions at the state level for their oldest inventory year (in Cupertino’s case, 2010) and the state’s
emissions in 1990, as a way to back-case to 1990 using best available data.6 This approach assumes that
the City’s GHG emissions have tracked approximately with the state’s GHG emissions, when controlled
for community emissions sources. While not a perfect approximation, this approach is defensible and
ensures consistency with state goals. The calculation is done by using published state-wide emissions
results from CARB, after removing emissions from sectors not included in the City’s inventory (i.e.,
agricultural, industrial, and high GWP sectors). The 1990 back-cast for Cupertino is shown in Table 13.
Table 13 1990 Back-cast
5 Guidance in CARB’s 2008 AB 32 Scoping Plan recommends that 1990 GHG emissions are calculated as 15 percent below 2005-2008 GHG
emissions levels. However, Cupertino does not have a GHG emissions inventory for 2005-2008.
6 The concept of “best available data” is referenced by the World Resources Institute’s 2014 Greenhouse Gas Protocol as a guideline for
inventory best practices.
2010 Statewide GHG Emissions (MMT CO2e) 305.4
1990 Statewide GHG Emissions (MMT CO2e) 309.6
2010 to 1990 Statewide GHG Emissions Change (%) -1.36%
2010 Cupertino GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 408,176
1990 Cupertino GHG Emissions Back-cast (MT CO2e) 402,639
Public and Stakeholder Engagement
Summary
Cupertino Climate Action Plan Update
Introduction
The City of Cupertino is updating its Climate Action
Plan (CAP), which was first published in 2015. This
CAP Update builds on the progress from the inaugural
Cupertino CAP by building a blueprint for emissions
reduction for the City that demonstrates their
environmental leadership, saves the City money and
promotes green jobs, complies with state
environmental initiatives, promotes sustainable
development, and supports regional climate change
efforts.
As part of this CAP Update process, the City utilized a
multi-pronged approach engagement strategy to
engage with Cupertino residents, businesses,
organizations, and stakeholders. Key engagement
objectives include:
•Gather community perspectives and feedback
that are representative of the diverse
communities of Cupertino to inform CAP
development and guide decision-making.
•Create a framework for community action that
clearly outlines how Cupertino residents and
businesses can achieve CAP goals and take
ownership in action implementation.
•Educate, empower, and energize the Cupertino
community to cultivate a shared understanding
around climate change and inspire action.
•Strengthen community relationships with the City
to facilitate and coordinate CAP implementation
and other priorities and activities.
To do this, the City employed multiple engagement
approaches, including:
-Public workshops
-Stakeholder meetings
-CAP Update Subcommittee meetings
-Surveys
-Pop-up events
How Equity was Centered in Cupertino’s CAP
Update
Equity is integral in every single aspect of a CAP—and
if left out, could create opportunities for unequal and
inequitable impacts and benefits across and within
communities. Key equity principles to assess in each
step of the CAP process include:
•Inclusivity, or the principle of welcoming and
bringing in voices and perspectives that have
historically been underrepresented in public
planning processes.
•Equity, or the principle that impacts and benefits
should be distributed in a way that provides
maximum benefits for communities overburdened
by climate impacts and other inequitable policies.
•Accountability, or the notion that the plan should
build in guardrails and systems to ensure that
those in positions of power are accountable to the
communities it serves.
•Anti-racist, or the idea that we are seeking to
develop strategies and policies that not only
prevent the exacerbation of racial disparities, but
actively seeks to close racial disparities in health,
economics, and environmental burden.
Equity and inclusion were central to the City’s CAP
engagement strategy. The City recognizes that some
community groups—such as low-income households,
people who speak limited English, elders, people with
disabilities, and communities of color—experience
disproportionate burden from climate change impacts
and should be included in the planning and design of
the CAP Update. We used the following approaches to
ensure our engagement was inclusive:
•Translation of materials and public surveys for
Chinese-speakers in Cupertino.
•Stakeholder meetings to prioritize certain groups,
such as low-income households and housing
advocates.
•Stipends for community participants, if
requested, to compensate people for their time
and contributions.
Appendix C - Public Engagement Summary
Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0: Public and Stakeholder Engagement Summary
2
Engagement Events & Feedback Summary
The table below shows the key engagement events in chronological order and their associated outcomes. For full engagement summaries of
each engagement event, please see Appendix A.
Engagement
Event
Date of
Event Objectives Key Outcomes
Subcommittee
Meeting #1
July 1st,
2021
• Present our engagement
approach.
• Identify initial vision and
priorities for the CAP.
• Review the outreach
toolkit and give feedback
to staff on the best way to
roll out the toolkit in the
community.
• The subcommittee identified a list of 90 stakeholders, including include youth groups,
developers, Chamber of Commerce, environmental groups, and other advocacy organizations
for inclusion in workshops.
• A priority was to ensure workshops focus on reaching both underserved and priority
audiences. Priority audiences include schools, large corporations and businesses, and
developers. Underserved groups typically include East End of Cupertino and Asian
populations.
• Identified priorities include sustainable food options, circular economy, diverse transportation
modes, water efficiency, and net zero emissions.
• Suggested outreach tools include lawn signs with QR codes, translated cards, SMS texting to
reach people without access to smart phones or internet, and a PowerPoint template.
Stakeholder
Meeting #1
July 1st,
2021
• Build early awareness of
the CAP process.
• Gather high-level ideas,
priorities, and concerns.
• Build relationships with key
stakeholder groups.
• 34 participants; affiliations included local and regional government agencies, private sector,
NGOs.
• Participants expressed that their vision for Cupertino was to be: 1) carbon neutral, 2) a leader
in climate action, and 3) affordable, equitable, and diverse.
• Participants expressed that the CAP Update should include considerations and actions around
education and awareness, development, leadership, and equity.
Public Survey
#1
July 23rd -
September
19th, 2021
• Assess awareness of
climate change knowledge.
• Identify community climate
change priorities.
• Identify community-
supported climate change
strategies.
• Identify potential
community barriers for
implementing climate
change strategies.
• 111 respondents
• A large majority (89%) of survey respondents indicated that climate change is already
impacting their family and will continue to worsen in the next 10 years.
• Climate change impacts of highest concern were: 1) drought and water supply; 2) wildfire and
smoke; and 3) extreme temperatures and heat waves.
• Climate action strategies that generated a lot of support include:
o Improve energy efficiency in homes and businesses.
o Transition homes and businesses from natural gas to clean electricity for space and
water heating.
o Build a more walkable and bikeable city.
o Encourage rooftop solar panels and local renewable energy.
o Restore thriving natural spaces and plant trees.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0: Public and Stakeholder Engagement Summary
3
Engagement
Event
Date of
Event Objectives Key Outcomes
o Increase accessibility to public transit.
• The main climate action barriers identified include:
o Cost and competing economic demands on the City and residents.
o Lack of agreement on the issues or how to prioritize them.
o Resistance to new mandates and requirements.
o Level of education and understanding about climate change in the community.
Public
Workshop #1
July 29th,
2021
• Build early awareness of
the CAP goals and process
among the general public.
• Gather high-level priorities,
and concerns about
climate action in
Cupertino.
• Gather initial ideas for
potential actions to include
in the CAP.
• 53 participants
• Nearly two-thirds (62%) of participants who participated in poll questions said that they had
noticed or experienced climate change impacts in Cupertino.
• The top two identified priorities for each focus area are as follows:
Focus Area Top Two Priorities and Level of Support (%)
Buildings & Energy
Consumption
• Retrofit older buildings to be more efficient. (39%)
• Retrofit older buildings to replace gas with cleaner
electric appliances. (29%)
Renewable Energy • Promote neighborhood solar or micro-grids to protect
critical infrastructure and homes. (51%)
• Streamline permitting and technical support for installing
clean energy on my property. (24%)
Transportation & Land Use • Improve public transit access and/or infrastructure.
(34%)
• Increase the walkability and bikability of Cupertino.
(28%)
Solid Waste • Reduce single-use plastic, such as take-out food containers
and other packaging. (58%)
• Encourage companies or producers to be responsible for
material disposal or recycling. (21%)
Carbon Sequestration &
Natural Systems
• Increase the number of trees and amount of shade in
Cupertino. (41%)
• Update water system infrastructure and increase water
conservation education and programs. (19%)
Resilient Communities 1. Support communities that are most affected by climate
change impacts. (31%)
2. Improve disaster preparedness and communication.
(27%)
Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0: Public and Stakeholder Engagement Summary
4
Engagement
Event
Date of
Event Objectives Key Outcomes
Subcommittee
Meeting #2
August 19th,
2021
• Review draft CAP targets
• Brainstorm high impact
strategies and actions to
achieve draft CAP targets
• Review upcoming public
engagement and options
for outreach activities
• The subcommittee agreed that it is an important goal is to set aggressive reduction targets
from City-owned buildings and operations and led by example.
• Subcommittee recommendations include:
o Make policy requests or lobby for actions at the State or regional level.
o The City should be aggressive in its measures that it has control over (e.g., issuing
building permits, banning gas in buildings, utilizing CCAs to supersede renewable
portfolio trajectories, or implementing ordinances for EV charging)
o Partner with private businesses to reduce their usage of gas.
o Partner with regional organizations, such as CalTrans, to successfully implement
measures that reduce GHG emissions in Cupertino.
o Leverage Cupertino’s existing EV infrastructure to continuously expand EV adoption
from residents.
Stakeholder
Meeting #2 –
Housing
Advocates
September
30th, 2021
• Build early awareness of
the CAP process.
• Gather high-level ideas,
priorities, and concerns.
• Build relationships with key
stakeholder groups.
• Focus on advocates for
affordable and low-income
housing.
• 10 participants; represented a diversity of organizations and experiences that advocated for
low-income housing, support for homeless and houseless peoples, and affordable housing.
• Expressed concerns included the ongoing water shortage and drought conditions; concern for
vulnerable groups during heat waves; and wildfire, smoke, and power shut offs during wildfire
season and heat waves.
• Participants were generally supportive of eliminating natural gas in buildings, requiring
composting, and prioritizing multifamily homes, but suggested that the public will require
more education around these topics to implement real change.
• Participants envisioned a future Cupertino that is resilient, equitable and inclusive, walkable
and bikable, and has access to EVs.
Public
Workshop #2
October
11th, 2021
• Provide updates about the
Cupertino CAP’s emission
forecasts and GHG
reduction targets.
• Present the draft
mitigation measures.
• Gather feedback about the
draft mitigation measures.
• 40 participants
• Key themes related to proposed mitigation measures include:
Mitigation Measure Feedback Themes
Half of Cupertino buildings
are completely electric.
1. Prohibitive costs
2. Lack of renter agency
3. Lack of electrification resources
4. Challenges around enforcement and installation
5. Additional burden on low-income community members
Most of your everyday
trips are by public
transport, walking, biking,
scootering, or wheelchair.
6. A congestion fee is inequitable
7. Biking, walking can be dangerous and inconvenient
8. The elderly and people who are differently abled will be
most negatively impacted
Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0: Public and Stakeholder Engagement Summary
5
Engagement
Event
Date of
Event Objectives Key Outcomes
Shift away from single-
occupancy vehicles.
9. Need for more accessible and improved bike, pedestrian,
and public transit infrastructure and education
When you drive, you use
an electric vehicle.
10. Cost prohibitive
11. Range limited
12. Lack of charging infrastructure
13. Lack of personal agency to upgrade existing vehicles
14. Particularly challenging for multifamily building dwellers
You are creating less
waste in the landfill.
15. Hard to avoid packaging
16. No incentives for reuse and reducing waste
17. Inefficiency of repair programs
18. Added burden to small business owners
19. City has responsibility to reduce plastic, increase public
education on waste sorting, and a restructuring of
collection rates could help with behavior change around
waste practices
Public Survey
#2
September
30th -
October
25th, 2021
• Assess level of support for
various focus areas’
Mitigation Measures as a
whole.
• Assess level of support for
key mitigation measures
within each focus area.
• 50 respondents
• Overall, there was a consistent level of support for mitigation measures in each sector.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0: Public and Stakeholder Engagement Summary
6
Engagement
Event
Date of
Event Objectives Key Outcomes
Stakeholder
Meeting #3
May 3, 2022 • 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.
• 14 participants
• Main themes include:
o Overall, stakeholders were supportive of all the measures.
o However, measures within the following sectors could have been more ambitious
and/or aggressive:
§ Cleaning the Air – Renewable Energy and Electric
§ Connecting Communities – Transportation, Land Use
Public Survey
#3
May 17,
2022 to July
23, 2021
• Public review of the draft
CAP document and to
provide input.
• 108 people responded to the draft documents.
• 174 survey respondents.
73%
57%
80%
96%
87%82%82%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Tra
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Wa
s
t
e
Wa
t
e
r
He
a
l
t
h
y
E
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
Re
s
i
l
i
e
n
c
e
&
A
d
a
p
t
a
t
i
o
n
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
&
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Level of Support
Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0: Public and Stakeholder Engagement Summary
7
Appendix A. Engagement Event Summaries
Full engagement summaries of each event are attached in the subsequent pages, in chronological order.
1
Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update
CAP Subcommittee Workshop #1 Summary
July 1, 2021 | 4:00-5:00pm | Zoom
Contents
Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Meeting Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Agenda Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Participants .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Review Engagement Approach and Challenges ................................................................................................... 2
CAP Update Vision and Priorities ......................................................................................................................... 4
CAP Update Outreach Toolkit .............................................................................................................................. 4
Background
The Climate Action Plan Update Subcommittee will review and discuss policy options and receive diverse
stakeholder feedback related to the CAP update. The Subcommittee will be a key intermediary and liaison
throughout the climate planning process—bridging the broader community with City leadership and bringing
together public/stakeholder input and technical information to arrive at recommendations for Council. At
upcoming stakeholder and public meetings, the subcommittee will listen, ask probing questions, bring back
discoveries to the Sustainability Commission, and lead conversations at Commission meetings to form
recommendations for the CAP.
This initial meeting between the subcommittee and consultant team will lay a foundation for the CAP
engagement process by helping review and vet the engagement approach, identify initial priorities, and learn
to apply the outreach toolkit.
Meeting Objectives
• Overview and training on our engagement approach.
• Identify initial vision and priorities for the CAP.
• Review the outreach toolkit and give feedback to staff on the best way to roll out the toolkit in the
community.
Agenda Overview
Time Item
5 min Introduction
15 min Review Engagement Approach and
Challenges
20 min CAP Update Vision and Priorities
15 min CAP Update Outreach Toolkit
5 min Conclusion
2
Participants
Name Affiliation
Vignesh Swaminathan City of Cupertino Sustainability Commissioner
Gary Latshaw City of Cupertino Sustainability Commissioner
Victoria Morin City of Cupertino
Brendan Norton City of Cupertino, CivicSpark Fellow
Andre Duuvoort City of Cupertino
Gilee Corral City of Cupertino
Kelsey Bennett Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Mike Chang Cascadia Consulting
Andrea Martin Cascadia Consulting
Review Engagement Approach and Challenges
A discussion was facilitated by Cascadia, with the project staff and subcommittee to review the CAP
engagement timeline & stakeholder engagement approach. Discussion questions and key themes that
emerged are below.
Question Key Themes
Is the list of stakeholders
satisfactory or should the
project include more?
• There are currently about 90 stakeholders identified by the City,
the Commissioners, and consultants. These include youth groups,
developers, Chamber of Commerce, environmental groups, and
other advocacy organizations
• First stakeholder workshop has 30-35 stakeholder participants.
• Want to ensure that future workshops focus on bringing in
underserved or priority audiences.
What are other
considerations in our
engagement approach we
should be aware of? For
example, for the 2nd and
3rd stakeholder
workshops, what key
priority audiences should
we tailor to?
• Cupertino’s community dynamics have been changing – historically
they have successfully engaged through the schools. However,
current affordability concerns are preventing this from happening.
• Priority audiences include schools, large corporations and
businesses, and developers.
• Young people want to see workable actions, as they are the
generation that will be affected by the work done now. This does
not have to be an easy solution; it just has to be possible and
effective.
What other risks do you
anticipate we will face in
our engagement process?
• Engagement will be more difficult during the school year. Parents
and children will be busier, with less time to spend thinking about
or participating in sustainability/climate action.
• Cupertino is currently working with local school districts on energy
and water use but not engaging the students. One way to change
3
Question Key Themes
this would be to research teacher leaders of sustainable clubs and
reach out to engage their students.
• School district schedules to consider include:
o Cupertino Union School district – elementary/middle
schools.
o Fremont Union School district – high school.
o There is also a pilot elementary schools and multiple
private schools in Cupertino.
Who are key educators
we could contact?
• McClellan Ranch
• Rotary Club – President is Rod Sinks, a retired City Council
member and Mayor.
• De Anza College – The college does have an environmental
group. Gary may know a good point of contact.
Who we generally
prioritize?
• An important consideration is including populations from both the
East and West sides of Cupertino. The East end is often excluded.
This should be considered within CAP outreach.
o Currently, a larger proportion of development and
attractions are on the West side including trails,
redevelopment, and parks.
• There is political heat on the far East side of Cupertino by the mall,
as there is a trend of elected officials coming from that district.
• Groups who will be involved include youth, communities of color,
interfaith groups, and non-English speaking households.
• Ensure that Cupertino’s Asian populations are being included.
o Two suggestions for inclusion are the Chinese Church of
Christy and a Korean church, both on the West side of
Cupertino. These groups could be specifically invited to
workshops.
o These groups both tend to have non-English speaking
elders.
o Telebu can be used for communication purposes.
• In the past, the City has done translation with headphones and
microphones, with real-time translation on the side.
o Not a large population that speaks Tag alog.
4
CAP Update Vision and Priorities
The Subcommittee took part in a discussion of their vision CAP Update. Questions included: “In 2050, I want
Cupertino to be _____” and “What should the goal of each focus area be?”
Q: “In 2050, I want Cupertino to be _____”
Theme Notes
Sustainability • All residents and citizens who travel through Cupertino should
have sustainable options for day-to-day choices such as food
choice and method of transportation.
• Have awareness and access to options for sustainability.
Emission Targets • In 2050, Cupertino will hopefully be celebrating 10 years of
net zero emissions.
Q: “What should the goal of each focus area be?”
Theme Notes
Waste • The creation of an edible food recovery program from grocery
stores and restaurants, distributed to those in need.
• Cupertino needs to focus on room to grow within waste
management.
• Promote a circular economy
• Expand understanding of lifecycle GHG emissions
• Reduction of single use materials
Water • Use of greywater and recycled water should be expanded
as a water conservation effort – only one large company is
currently doing this.
• Educate on how much water is being wasted, because
water meters are not accurately measuring this.
• Expand familiarity of how groundwater is pumped.
CAP Update Outreach Toolkit
The Subcommittee provided feedback on an outreach toolkit, brainstorming upcoming opportunities to
implement the Outreach Toolkit and how to reach the most Cupertino residents possible, ensuring
representation from all communities.
• QR codes are a helpful outreach tool.
• The City has found that people are responsive to lawn signs with QR codes in the grass. This was used
during the drought.
• The City can print stacks of cards for coffee shops and businesses. These cards should be available in
multiple languages.
5
• Consider technology equity, not everyone has access to the Internet or a smartphone that can scan a QR
code. One way to solve this would be a cell phone number that could be texted for the same information
that comes from a QR code.
• Grocery stores can be a good way to reach a lot of people since everyone has to frequent them.
• Make sure value difference between East and West Cupertino.
• Create a PowerPoint template that has background information and talking points on the CAP Update
• for the City and Sustainability Commissioners to ensure consistent messaging about the CAP Update.
1
Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update
Stakeholder Engagement Workshop #1 Summary
July 1, 2021 | 5:30-7:00pm | Zoom
Contents
Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
CAP Update Overview and Q&A .......................................................................................................................... 4
Vision and Priority Setting .................................................................................................................................... 5
Breakout Group Discussion: Priorities and Initial Actions .................................................................................... 6
Energy A and B ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Transportation ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Waste ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Water, Healthy Ecosystems, and Green Infrastructure .............................................................................. 13
Demographic Polling ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix A: Full MURAL Board ...................................................................................................................... 16
Background
To reach frontline communities and historically underserved populations, in addition to conducting
broad public engagement, we will host targeted meetings with representatives of priority communities—
including Black, Indigenous, and communities of color, people with limited English proficiency, unhoused
and low-income people, and the elderly, among others. The aim will be to build meaningful, long-term
relationships with critical perspectives (e.g., community-based organizations, marginalized communities,
faith-based organizations) to create space for their voices in the process and leverage their expertise.
Meeting Objectives
• Build early awareness of CAP process.
• Gather high-level ideas, priorities, and concerns.
• Build relationships with key stakeholder groups.
Agenda Overview
Time Item
15 min Introduction
15 min CAP Overview Presentation and Q&A
50 min Breakout Group Discussions: Vision, Priorities &
Initial Actions
10 min Conclusion
2
Participants
Workshop Participants
Name Affiliation
Vignesh Swaminathan Sustainability Commissioner
Gary Latshaw Sustainability Commissioner
Robert Brown Cupertino Community Emergency Response Team
Graham Clark Fremont Union High School District
Hoi Poon Bay Area for Clean Environment, Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action,
Fossil Fuel Free Building Coalition
Dashiell Leeds Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
John Zirelli Recology
Lisa Talbott Recology
Sujatha Venkatraman West Valley Community Services
Emily Alvarez StopWaste
Ben Elliott Apple
Katy Nomura City of Cupertino
Gwyn Azar Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
Kelly Tung Youth Environmental Power Initiative (YEPI)
Lizzy Mau Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Francois Rodigari San Jose Water
Jakub Zielkiewicz Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Michael Strahs Kimco Realty Corporation
Shyam “Sean” Panchal First Maganson Holdings, Inc
Melinda Harris Recology South Bay
Benjamin Louie Apple
Cam Audras Valley Water
Ryan Kim Sierra Club
Project Staff
Name Affiliation
Chris Corrao City of Cupertino
Gilee Corral City of Cupertino
Andre Duuvoort City of Cupertino
Victoria Morin City of Cupertino
David Stillman City of Cupertino
Ursula Syrova City of Cupertino
Brendan Norton CivicSpark Fellow, City of Cupertino
Kelsey Bennett Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Mike Chang Cascadia Consulting Group
Andrea Martin Cascadia Consulting Group
Maddie Siebert Cascadia Consulting Group
Hailey Weinberg Cascadia Consulting Group
3
Introduction
City staff and the consultant team provided a brief introduction of the CAP project team and welcomed
all the participants to the stakeholder meeting. Cascadia provided an overview of Zoom tips and of the
meeting’s agenda.
Icebreaker
As an icebreaker near the start of the workshop, participants were asked a series of questions using
PollEverywhere, including:
• What is your favorite natural feature in Cupertino?
• How familiar are you with climate change concepts – such as causes and impacts of
climate change and actions needed to mitigate it?
• If you could see one thing included in this climate action plan update, what would that
be?
Below are some of the answers from our icebreaker questions.
Icebreaker Question Answers
What is your favorite natural
feature in Cupertino?
• McClellan Ranch
• San Antonio
• Local parks and bike trails
• Cupertino Memorial Park
• Stevens Creek
• Midpen open space district
• Cherry Blossom trees
• The Foothills
• Blackberry Farm
• The creeks
• Wildlife, birds
How familiar are you with
climate change concepts – such
as causes and impacts of
climate change and actions
needed to mitigate it?
If you could see one thing
included in this climate action
plan update, what would that
be?
• Better Land-Use Planning
• Energy self-sufficiency
• Transit-oriented
development balanced
with electrification
• Incentivizing public transit
and walk/bike-ability
• Net zero by 2040
• Phase out of backup diesel
generators
• Balance with economic
considerations
• Resiliency
• Effective public education and
community outreach
46%50%
4%0%0%0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Extremely
familiar
Moderately
familiar
Slightly
familiar
Slightly
unfamiliar
Moderately
unfamiliar
Extremely
unfamiliar
4
Icebreaker Question Answers
• Only electric vehicles, EV
infrastructure everywhere
• Net positive
• Energy Efficiency &
Electrification to improve
existing buildings/living
conditions
• Something bold
• Economic development
opportunity
• Saving energy and using more
renewal sources
• Existing Building electrification draft
• A roadmap to decarbonize existing
buildings
• Incentives for private citizens
• Effective mass transit to link to other
cities
CAP Update Overview and Q&A
City staff presented an overview of climate change, the climate action planning process, and the City’s
progress so far and then answered questions from participants. The presentation showed visuals of air quality
reports in the Bay Area and PG&E outages, described the sectors used in the City’s first CAP, and showed
Cupertino’s emissions forecasts and current emission reductions so far.
Question & Answer
Question Answer
Congrats on the achievement of GHG reductions!
How does that compare to the State's goals? Or
in other words, how does it compare to 1990
levels?
Emission reductions are comparable to 1990 levels.
The City back-casted emissions to ensure that there
was parity in how reductions were comparable to
State goals.
From the GHG inventory slide, it looked like
emissions from natural gas increased not
insignificantly. What's driving the increase?
The staff and consulting team is currently underway
with an update to the GHG emissions inventory. The
team will be working towards a more detailed analysis
and will have more information later in the update
process.
We’re currently in a water shortage right now.
Does Cupertino have any plans regarding
mitigating droughts right now and in the future?
The City has published a summary of current and
historic drought response information at
Cupertino.org/drought.
Is there any discussion about potentially
incorporating into the inventory the carbon
sequestered from the natural and working lands
in Cupertino?
Yes , staff are looking into the potential of adding
carbon sequestration accounting to our inventory
work.
5
Vision and Priority Setting
After the initial presentation by City staff, participants were asked to use a MURAL board to give feedback
about their vision for the CAP Update through guiding questions. Questions included “in 2050, I want
Cupertino to be _____” and “what is important for the CAP Update to include?”.
Vision for the CAP Update
Q: “In 2050, I want Cupertino to be _____”
Theme Notes
Carbon Neutrality • Carbon neutral, or even carbon-negative
• 80% GHG reduction from 1990 levels
• There is hope that in 2050, Cupertino will be celebrating its
10-year anniversary of carbon neutrality by 2040
• Complete removal of natural gas and diesel usage,
reduction of waste, and implementation of electric vehicle
infrastructure
Leadership • Hope that Cupertino will become a leader in sustainability
• This leadership includes publishing transparent climate data
and using the newest clean technology as a model for other
cities
Affordable, Equitable,
and Diverse
• Stakeholders hope that by 2050, Cupertino will be
affordable for those of all income levels
• Cupertino should be diverse in its businesses and services
offered
• Cupertino will be viewed as a great place to live.
Q: “What is important for the CAP Update to include?”
Theme Notes
Education and
Awareness
• Include Green Education in schools
• Involve the public and ensure that they are aware of the
CAP Update and its goals
Development • Ensure new development includes EV chargers, but develop
with the goal of less private vehicle usage
• Ensure new development does not include natural gas
• Decarbonize existing buildings, implement strict energy
codes
Leadership • The CAP Update should ensure that Cupertino is working to
become a leader in climate action both regionally and
state-wide
Equity • The roadmap to zero carbon must be done in an equitable
way
• Low income households must be considering in this plan
6
Breakout Group Discussion: Priorities and Initial Actions
Participants were divided into breakout rooms to do a deep dive discussion on specific focus areas. There were five breakout rooms, including:
• Energy A
• Energy B
• Transportation
• Waste
• Healthy Ecosystems, Green Infrastructure, and Water
Each breakout room discussed four (4) key questions:
1. What should the goal of this focus area be?
2. What do you think is working well for Cupertino that you want to see continue in the future?
3. What do you think are the opportunities for Cupertino to improve upon?
4. What are some other considerations, including scope of the focus area or equity considerations?
7
Energy A and B
Below are the general themes from Energy A and Energy B breakout rooms. The discussion focused on 4 questions:
1. What should the goal of this focus area be?
2. What do you think is working well for Cupertino that you want to see continue in the future?
3. What do you think are the opportunities for Cupertino to improve upon?
4. What are some other considerations, including scope of the focus area or equity considerations?
Focus Area Goal Working Well Opportunities to Improve Considerations
Building
Decarbonization
• All-electric reach code –
expand to include EV
infrastructure
• Access to 100% renewable
energy from SVCE
• Energy conservation during the
pandemic!
• Currently Cupertino is an
energy leader
• Continue to streamline online
building permits
• Leader in building
electrification
• Expand cost savings further for
home retrofits
• Implement strict energy codes
• Infrastructure should support
building and vehicle
electrification
• Convert homes to all-electric
• Promote building
electrification with a burn out
ordinance or fuel cells
• Ensure that building retrofits
are not burdensome on low-
income households
Emphasis on
Renewables
• Use incentives or replacement
programs
• Create a benchmarking process
to measure progress
• Work to reduce the energy
burden for Cupertino residents
• Implement community solar
projects
• Provide grants, rebates, or
incentives to switch to
renewables
• Create incentives for appliance
retirement before burn out
occurs
8
Focus Area Goal Working Well Opportunities to Improve Considerations
• Streamline interconnect
requests for on-site
renewables
Metrics • Measure appliance
replacement rates, number of
utility natural gas accounts
terminated, % of residence
with PV and battery systems
• Aim for net-zero by 2035
instead of 2040
Paths and Open
Space
• Great bike and pedestrian
pathways and open space
access
Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure
• Include EV infrastructure for
new development
• Build this infrastructure with
room for growth
• Understand that the transition
to EV’s is not an equitable
solution
Education • Expand education for
community members on
renewable options
• Implement education for
contractors for electric options
• Create and distribute resources
for business owners on energy
efficiency
• Implement a forced energy
conservation day to learn what
businesses are using excessive
energy
• Create opportunities for
contractors (especially small
and medium sized contracting
businesses) that include low-
carbon education options
9
Focus Area Goal Working Well Opportunities to Improve Considerations
• Create a Sustainable Cupertino
Education Center
• Educate the youth through
climate curriculum in schools –
they will educate their parents
Equity • Installation of guardrails
• Ensure that climate language is
simple and easy to understand
10
Transportation
Below are the general themes from the Transportation breakout room. The discussion focused on 4 questions:
1. What should the goal of this focus area be?
2. What do you think is working well for Cupertino that you want to see continue in the future?
3. What do you think are the opportunities for Cupertino to improve upon?
4. What are some other considerations, including scope of the focus area or equity considerations?
Focus Area Goal Working Well Opportunities to Improve Considerations
Public Transit • VIA and SR2S are working
well!
• Connect Cupertino public transit to BART,
Caltrain & Light Rail
• Promote VIA shuttles in Cupertino
• Promote less vehicle trips in cities and VMT
reduction
• Incorporate autonomous driving and change
in car ownership into planning
• Improve access to different modes of
transportation other than private passenger
vehicles
• Cupertino should become an advocate for
VTA’s
Biking and
Walking
• Cupertino is doing well in
bike lane implementation
and safety
• Transition to protected
lanes is great!
• Seeing positive results in
increased biking to school
• Seeing less stranded
bikeshare bikes in the
streets
• Implement biking and walking education in
schools
• Implement a bike or scooter share program
• Certain highways are congested and
dangerous, do work to improve commuter
safety
• Implement subsidies for bike expenses
• Consider subsidies for transitioning to using
alternative methods
• Consider equity and
educate on equity
considerations in
schools
• Improve lighting in
De Anza VTA station
and at Steven’s
Creek
Consider ADA
compliance
Education and
Outreach
• Educate the public on changes being made
• Improve transportation outreach
11
Waste
Below are the general themes from the Waste breakout room. The discussion focused on 4 questions:
1. What should the goal of this focus area be?
2. What do you think is working well for Cupertino that you want to see continue in the future?
3. What do you think are the opportunities for Cupertino to improve upon?
4. What are some other considerations, including scope of the focus area or equity considerations?
Focus Area Goal Working Well Opportunities to Improve Considerations
Waste Diversion • Three streams
available curbside
• Great variety of
materials
accepted for
recycling and
composting
• Improving waste diversion rates – Cupertino has
been stuck at 70% for a while
• Improve upstream waste reduction and waste
prevention
• Improve contamination issues
• Reduce construction and demolition waste
• Properly deal with organics waste
• Create a soil management or carbon
sequestration program
• Expand bulk item pickup frequency
• Implement a single use plastics ordinance,
discuss plastics #4-7
Producer/Distributor
Responsibility
• Hold producers accountable
• Implement pilot projects for reusables for
restaurant to-go containers
• Formalize food rescue and recovery programs
Metrics • Create a
consumption-
based inventory
to account for
waste-related
emissions
(already in
progress)
• Implement in-person auditing • Will costs increase for
residents with a more
robust program?
• Role of economics:
cost of renewables vs.
non-renewables
12
Focus Area Goal Working Well Opportunities to Improve Considerations
Education • Continue cart
signage and
brochures
• Residents (especially youth) are interested in
learning, continue education
• Conduct outreach to customers who need more
education on composting
• Educate new residents who do not come from
somewhere with a composting program
• Address illegal dumping for those who do not
have access to proper disposal
• Waste disposal is not
a priority for many
right now, especially
those who are busy,
have kids, etc.
• Consider the
knowledge gaps
between income
levels and cultural
communities, be
sensitive to current
practices
13
Water, Healthy Ecosystems, and Green Infrastructure
Below are the general themes from the Water, Healthy Ecosystems, and Green Infrastructure breakout room. The discussion focused on 4 questions:
1. What should the goal of this focus area be?
2. What do you think is working well for Cupertino that you want to see continue in the future?
3. What do you think are the opportunities for Cupertino to improve upon?
4. What are some other considerations, including scope of the focus area or equity considerations?
Focus Area Goal Working Well Opportunities to Improve Considerations
Water Supply • Garden program to address
drought
• Possibility of creating brackish
water/desalinization systems –
drought becomes a less
pressing issue
• Ensure that water supply
projects do not result in
gentrification/displacement of
residents
• Create programs for affordable
relocation if necessary or
create a sustainable
development policy
Regional
Coordination
and Partnerships
• Great projects with a regional
focus are already in place but
need to be scaled up to a
larger scale
• Implement natural solutions
o Example – mangrove
use
o Example – use native
plants on lawns
• Regional solutions are what is
most needed for Cupertino to
implement
• Situations need to be
considered regionally, not just
on a city-by-city basis
Education and
Outreach
• Engage high school students as
a work force and to educate
others, create a tree planting
program for youth
• Educate residents on the
benefits of solar and
electrification
• Create a volunteer Climate
Corps
• Lack of comprehensive
understanding of climate
change
• Youth are excited to learn! They
are heavily invested in climate
change and want to help
• Language justice – ensure that
all outreach and education is in
multiple languages
14
Focus Area Goal Working Well Opportunities to Improve Considerations
Green
Infrastructure
and Programs
• Implement a certification
scheme where agencies could
incorporate infrastructure
projects as carbon offset
credits
• Extremely necessary, effort
must be made to align the
interest of utilities with what is
most environmentally friendly
15
Demographic Polling
1. Select all that apply: Which of the following best represents your race/ethnicity?
Race Number of Participants Percentage
White or Caucasian 15/24 63%
Asian or Asian American 10/24 42%
Latino, Latina, or Latinx 2/24 8%
Middle Eastern, North
African, or Arab American
1/24 4%
Other 1/24 4%
Prefer not to say 1/24 4%
Black or African American 0/24 0%
Native American, American
Indian, or Alaska Native
0/24 0%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander
0/24 0%
2. What is your gender identity?
Gender Identity Number of Participants Percentage
Man 16/24 67%
Woman 8/24 33%
Non-binary/non-conforming 0/24 0%
Other 0/24 0%
Prefer not to say 0/24 0%
3. What is your age?
Age Number of Participants Percentage
Under 18 2/24 8%
18-24 4/24 17%
25-34 6/24 25%
35-44 4/24 17%
45-54 4/24 17%
55-64 2/24 8%
65-74 0/24 0%
75+ 2/24 8%
Prefer not to say 0/24 0%
16
Appendix A: Full MURAL Board
For a text version of these MURAL results, please see the excel attachment, “MURAL Results_Stakeholder Meeting 1.xlsx”.
17
1
Cupertino Climate Action Plan
Results from the Community Survey #1
The Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) 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 to better meet the needs and goals of the community. As part
of this process, we asked Cupertino’s’ residents to complete a survey to identify visions, priorities and
barriers to the CAP process.
This survey was open from July 23rd to September 19th, 2021.
Summary
In total, we received a total of 111 responses. We received 107 English responses, 1 Spanish, and 3
Chinese. Some additional demographic information about the survey responses are below:
• Most respondents live in Cupertino (80 people, 72%)
• Majority of respondents have received an advanced degree (52 people, 47%)
• Majority of respondent do not work for a Cupertino based company (87 people, 78%)
• 62% of respondents own their home
Demographic Results
Race and Ethnicity (n = 108)
White or Caucasian 36
Black or African American 1
Latino, Latina, or Latinx 4
Asian or Asian American 59
Multiracial 7
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander 1
White or
Caucasian
33%
Black or African
American
1%Latino, Latina,
or Latinx
4%
Asian or Asian
American
55%
Multiracial
6%
Native Hawaiian
or other Pacific
Islander
1%
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #1 Results
2
Area you spend most of your time around (n =
103)
Apple Campus/Apple Park (northeast) 10
Cupertino High School (southeast) 20
De Anza College (south central) 21
McClellan Ranch (southwest) 23
Memorial Park (northwest) 29
Age (n = 107)
18 or younger 20
19-44 48
45-64 18
65 years or older 21
18 or
younger
19%
19-44
45%
45-64
17%
65 years or
older
19%
Apple Campus/Apple Park
(northeast)
10%
Cupertino High
School
(southeast)
20%
De Anza College
(south central)
20%
McClellan Ranch
(southwest)
22%
Memorial Park
(northwest)
28%
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #1 Results
3
Survey Results
The tables below highlight the results of the survey. They do not provide an interpretation of the results.
Key or significant results are highlighted in blue cells.
Climate change awareness
Respondents were asked “How would you best describe your awareness and understanding of climate
change issues?” Majority of respondents are familiar with some climate change issues and try to stay
informed.
Level of Awareness # of Responses (n=109)
I am unaware of climate change issues 7
I have heard about climate change issues but don’t know much
about them 8
I am familiar with some climate change issues and try to stay
informed 51
I am well informed about climate change issues 43
7
8
51
43
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
I am unaware of climate change issues
I have heard about climate change issues but don’t know
much about them
I am familiar with some climate change issues and try to stay
informed
I am well informed about climate change issues
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #1 Results
4
Concern about climate change
Regional climate impacts
Respondents were asked “How much do you think climate change will impact you and your family’s
personal wellbeing and safety 10 years from now?” and “How much do you think climate change
impacts you and your family’s personal wellbeing and safety today?”. Majority of respondents indicate
climate change is already impacting their family and will continue to worsen in the next 10 years.
Level of Awareness # of respondents (n = 108)
Now 10 years from now
1 (not impacted at all) 1 0
2 4 2
3 2 0
4 9 2
5 (impacted occasionally) 18 13
6 12 7
7 10 9
8 19 11
9 14 18
10 (extremely impacted) 23 48
1 4 2
9
18
12 10
19
14
23
0 2 0 2
13
7 9 11
18
48
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 (
n
o
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
a
t
a
l
l
)
2 3 4
5 (
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
)
6 7 8 9
10
(
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
)
# of respondents indicating climate change is impacting their family now
# of respondents indicating climate change will impact their family 10 years from now
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #1 Results
5
Local climate impacts
Respondents were asked “How concerned are you about the following events taking place in
Cupertino?”. Respondents are extremely concerned about drought and water supply, wildfires and
smoke, and loss of habitat and species.
Local Climate Impact
Distribution of Responses
Not
concerned
at all
Slightly
concerned
Somewhat
concerned
Moderately
concerned
Extremely
concerned
Extreme temperatures and heat waves
(n = 111) 3 3 21 28 56
Wildfires and smoke (n = 110) 1 1 19 22 67
Sea level rise and storm surge (n = 109) 12 13 30 23 31
Extreme precipitation and inland
flooding (n = 110) 8 21 24 27 30
Drought and water supply (n = 110) 1 1 16 17 75
Loss of habitat and species (n = 110) 2 13 12 26 57
3 1 12 8 1 2
3 1
13 21
1 13
21
19
30 24
16
12
28
22
23 27
17
26
56
67
31 30
75
57
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Extreme
temperatures and
heat waves
Wildfires and
smoke
Sea level rise and
storm surge
Extreme
precipitation and
inland flooding
Drought and
water supply
Loss of habitat
and species
Distribution of responses not concerned at all Distribution of responses slightly concerned
Distribution of responses somewhat concerned Distribution of responses moderately concerned
Distribution of responses extremely concerned
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #1 Results
6
Climate action priorities
Respondents were asked “Climate action has many benefits beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Which of the following are most important to you? Select your top three (3) priorities.” Respondents
indicate that ensuring a high quality of living for future generations is the most important co-benefit,
followed closely by improving air quality and preserving natural spaces, and habitats.
Climate action benefits # of responses (n = 111)
Ensuring a high quality of living for future generations 52
Improving air quality 49
Preserving natural spaces, and habitats 42
Increasing green space and tree canopy cover 33
Improving water quality 25
Building strong communities that are prepared for natural disasters 24
Improving human health and lowering medical costs 21
Creating a more compact and walkable/bikeable community 20
Reducing traffic congestion 20
Reducing utility bills 18
Attracting new businesses and creating jobs 10
CAP strategy priorities
Respondents were asked “Which strategies do you think are most needed to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in Cupertino? Please rank from most needed (#1) to least needed (#9).” Majority of
respondents want to improve energy efficiency in homes and businesses, followed by transitioning
homes and businesses from natural gas to clean electricity and building a more walkable and bikeable
city. Respondents who answered to this question through the Chinese or Spanish translated survey
totaled 4 people (3 Chinese, 1 Spanish). Thus, while the distribution of responses is varied among
language, the overall weighting of priorities is indicated above. The top 3 responses for each survey type
are highlighted in blue below.
Local Climate Impact Distribution of Responses (n = 107)
English Chinese Spanish
Improve energy efficiency in homes and businesses 4.32 5.33 6
Transition homes and businesses from natural gas to clean
electricity for space/water heating 4.47 6.67 4
Building a more walkable and bikeable city 4.52 3.67 2
Create rules that curb pollution and limit polluting activities 4.82 5 9
Encouraging use of electric vehicles and electric vehicle
infrastructure 4.88 7 8
Encourage rooftop solar panels and local renewable energy 4.95 4 3
Restore thriving natural spaces and plant trees 4.99 3 5
Increasing accessibility to public transit 5.17 4.67 1
Provide access to composting and encouraging mindful
purchasing habits 5.71 5.67 7
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #1 Results
7
Climate action barriers
Respondents were asked “What do you foresee as the most significant barriers to taking climate action
in Cupertino? Select the top three (3) barriers?” Respondents indicate cost and competing economic
demands on the City and residents, and lack of agreement on the issues or how to prioritize them as
the biggest barriers to climate action.
Local Climate Impact # of Responses (n = 108)
Cost and competing economic demands on the City and residents 52
Lack of agreement on the issues or how to prioritize them 44
Resistance to new mandates and requirements 42
Level of education and understanding about climate change in the
community 39
Lack of local government leadership 31
Level of care or interest in the community 27
Equitable systemic climate change is difficult to implement at a local
level 22
Level of local versus regional control 16
Uncertainty about climate risk 16
Technology has not been developed yet 10
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Survey #1 Results
8
Open ended questions
Respondents were asked, “Please describe in one to two sentences what a climate-friendly Cupertino
would look like to you.” (n = 76) Below are some key findings:
ü Prioritize pedestrian and bike friendly
behaviors and infrastructure
ü Invest in better and more accessible public
transit
ü Prioritize EVs and build charging
infrastructure around the City
ü Reduce lawns and artificial turf
ü Increase tree cover and drought tolerant
plants around City
ü Adhere to sustainable design standard
ü Be a Zero Waste, Circular Economy
ü Strive for carbon neutrality
ü Provide affordable EVs and home
electrification options
ü Ban fossil fuels and transition to renewable
energy
ü Prioritize solar panel installation on
residential and commercial properties
ü Strive to be a national leader on climate
actions
ü Houses highly informed, educated and
engaged citizens
ü Prioritize equitability and inclusivity
ü Collaborate with other governments
ü Preserve parks and natural areas and
promote biodiverse green spaces
ü Promote green jobs
ü Conserve valuable resources (eg. water)
ü Encourage grassroots political action
ü Prioritize density housing located near jobs,
transit, and amenities
ü Build affordable housing
Respondents were asked, “What specific strategies or actions do you feel would most help the
Cupertino community reduce greenhouse gas emission that are not listed above?”. (n = 64) Below are
some key findings:
ü Plant more trees around City
ü Provide more climate education
ü Incentivize solar panels to homeowners
ü Prioritize education and outreach
ü Ban plastic bags
ü Protect water and reduce water usage
ü Include more adaptation actions
ü Include actions to address reducing energy
usage in existing homes
ü Prioritize vulnerable communities
ü Encourage use of public transit
ü Hold largest emitters responsible (Stevens
Creek Quarry and Kaiser Cement Plants)
ü Consider local tax on carbon
ü Subsidize electricity
ü Reduce consumerism
ü Encourage reduced meat diet
Respondents were asked, “Are there any additional barriers you would consider significant to taking
climate action in Cupertino?”. (n = 35) Below are some key findings:
ü Lack of responsibility, education, and
personal action in the part of citizens
ü Societal resistance to change
ü Cost
ü Fear
ü Inconvenience
ü Zoning requirements
ü Competing priorities in local government
ü Consensus building
ü Lack of volunteers
Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update
Public Workshop #1 Summary
Introduction
This document summarizes participation, activities, and feedback from the Cupertino CAP Public Workshop #1.
Workshop Objectives
By hosting the workshop, the CAP team aimed to:
§ Build early awareness of the CAP goals and process among the general public.
§ Gather high-level priorities, and concerns about climate action in Cupertino.
§ Gather initial ideas for potential actions to include in the CAP.
Workshop Overview
Date & Time Thursday, July 29th, 2021 5:30-7:00pm
Location Online – Zoom Webinar
# of Registrants 79
# of Participants 53
# of Questions Submitted 43
# of Comments 32
Audience Members of the general public attended. The following organization affiliations were
indicated during registration:
§ Cupertino City Council
§ Rotary Club
§ City of Sunnyvale
§ The Forum
§ Citizens’ Climate Lobby
§ Rite-Aid Corporation
§ Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
§ Cupertino for All
§ Cupertino Sustainability Commissioner
§ First Maganson Holdings
§ Apple, Inc.
§ Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
Demographic Summary
27 (51%) of 53 participants responded to the demographic survey. See Participant Demographics section for more detail.
Age Most common age range was under 18
(22% under 18, 8% 18-24, 19% 25-34, 11% 35-44, 7% 45-54, 15% 55-64, 11% 65-74, 7% 75 or over)
Race/Ethnicity Majority Asian or Asian American
(52% Asian or Asian American, 48% White or Caucasian)
Gender Equal numbers of men and women
(48% men, 48% women, 4% non-binary or non-conforming)
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
2
Workshop Agenda
Timing Activity
15 min Introduction & Polls
§ Andre Duurvoort (City of Cupertino) welcomed participants to the workshop.
§ Andrea Martin (Cascadia) facilitated a brief overview of poll questions using Zoom’s polling and chat
box features.
20 min CAP Overview Presentation and Q&A
§ Andre Duurvoort and Andrea Martin provided an overview of anticipated climate impacts in
Cupertino, emissions sources, the CAP, and the CAP development process.
§ Participants completed an open-ended poll question: “Complete the sentence with one word: ‘In
2050, I want Cupertino to be _________________.’”
§ Gilee Corral (City of Cupertino) moderated the question & answer session at the end of the
presentation.
45 min Vision, Priorities & Initial Actions
§ Andre Duurvoort and Andrea Martin gave a brief overview of each of the six potential CAP sectors:
Buildings and Energy Consumption, Renewable Energy, Transportation and Land Use, Solid Waste,
Carbon Sequestration and Natural Systems, and Resilient Communities.
§ Poll questions, by sector, were asked to gauge participants’ highest priorities and attendees were
asked to share additional thoughts or ideas.
10 min Conclusion
§ Andre Duurvoort and Andrea Martin presented next steps, including future engagement
opportunities.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
3
Workshop Outcomes
Introductory Polls
Question #1: Have you noticed or experienced any changes in the environment since you started living or working in
Cupertino? (34 responses)
Question #2: How familiar are you with climate change concepts, such as the causes and impacts of climate change and
actions needed to slow or stop it? (34 responses)
Question #3: Why did you decide to attend the workshop today?
Attendees wrote the following replies into the webinar chat box:
§ Excited to hear the housing and transportation aspects of Climate Action!
§ Wanted to know the initiatives that Cupertino is taking
§ I want to learn more about how everyday people can help create a bigger impact on climate change
§ Interested in how city land-use policies can be changed
§ I’m a recent college graduate, and I know that myself and others my age are completely screwed as is. I know that
Cupertino is not doing very much on housing or transportation, which are the biggest ways that cities can reduce
emissions.
§ I am a climate activist and long term resident of Cupertino. I want to share my ideas and find out what the City’s plan
is
I'm not sure
26%
No
12%
Yes
62%
I have heard about climate change
issues but don’t know much about
them.
9%
I am familiar with some climate
change issues and try to stay
informed.
32%
I am well informed
about climate
change issues.
59%
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
4
Visioning Poll Question
During the CAP Overview presentation, attendees were asked: “Complete the sentence with one word: ‘In 2050, I want
Cupertino to be ____________.’” Repeated responses included the terms “climate ne utral,” “breathable,” and “diverse.”
Questions & Answers
Throughout the presentations, attendees were encouraged to submit their questions into the Q&A box on the Zoom platform.
City staff provided written answers to some questions and verbal questions to others during designated Q&A sessions. There
were 43 questions submitted during the workshop by attendees. Staff answered three questions verbally and responded to 21
in writing. Staff did not answer 19 of the submitted questions. Questions and comments answered verbally during designated
Q&A sessions:
§ Would the city consider moving the GHG emissions reduction goal sooner than the current draft goal of 2040? What
would be the reasons to keep it at 2040 versus adopting a more ambitious goal.
What we presented today are draft goals. Today, our aim is to get a sense of what your appetite is as a community to
be more or less aggressive. One thing to keep in mind is that more aggressive targets mean more aggressive
measures, or things we are going to have to do as a community. Some of the cities in our area that have recently
updated their CAPs have set goals at where the state wants them to be, and some of them are more aggressive. We
can decide this as a community. If we set a more ambitious goal we will have to think bigger and consider things like
funding availability, what is practical to do, and what is going to create co-benefits. We want to look not just at what
will avoid economic disruption, but at what will create value. Those are what we are encouraging you to think about in
this goals conversation. The City Council would like to look at being more ambitious than what the state is doing. At
the same time, the state is considering more ambitious targets – recent news out of the Governor’s Office is that they
are considering a 2035 date for carbon neutrality. We are keeping track of these things as we create the plan. We are
here to collect your feedback; if you would like us to be more aggressive, we will put that together into a proposed
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
5
roadmap. In our second and third public workshops, we will have more detail about that roadmap so you can see what
those actions will look like in your everyday life.
§ It is not clear to me if you’re asking for all citizens to work towards drawing down our emissions, etc. of only the
City Staff and services. Please clarify.
This is an important question, which gets at something we are asked all the time: “What can I do personally?” Climate
change will take both municipal action and community action. We must act together, in concert. The City has a set of
specific responsibilities for researching policies and complying with state law. We also need to make sure we receive
feedback from you and from Council, make sure actions are distributed across City divisions, and get incorporated
across planning documents and operational documents, like the work program. This really is a group effort that will
take the whole village to address these issues. Some examples of programs that we support in the community are the
Cupertino Climate Challenge, which is a website we set up that enables people to create their own personal climate
action plan. You can find that at CupertinoClimateChallenge.org. That has a whole host of lifestyle changes you can do
in your home, neighborhood, school, or community to really make a difference over time.
§ I noticed in the chart that our draft goal for 2030 is less steep than our current progress in reducing emissions. Is it
because it is more difficult to cut emissions now, or is it because of something else?
Yes – we have achieved a lot of the low-hanging fruit when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, and the next steps
will become more and more difficult as we move towards net zero emissions. There are also many uncertainties about
new strategies that might be available to us. There are evolutions daily in the innovation space around clean tech. But
mostly, we took a look at what the state is telling us to do, chose to be slightly more ambitious than that and see how
that feels, and then we’ll have a more informed conversation in the next couple of workshops about what it will really
take to get there.
Questions and comments answered in writing throughout the webinar:
Climate Action Plan process
§ Will the CAP be CEQA qualified?
We are looking into this option. The first CAP was CEQA qualified.
§ How is the natural gas inventory going (discussed in July 1 stakeholder meeting)?
We will have a better understanding as we update our GHG inventory, still underway.
Greenhouse gas emissions and the Climate Action Plan targets
§ What are the City GHG targets going to be?
This will be decided as part of this CAP update progress.
§ When you say 38% of our emissions are related to natural gas. Does that include methane leakage?
Yes, fugitive emissions from natural gas leakage are included in our GHG inventory accounting.
§ Does the 38% include the cement factory?
Hi Dan, no, the plant emissions are not considered within Cupertino boundaries. Emissions from the plant would be
accounted for in the Santa Clara County emissions inventory.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
6
§ To help with reducing transportation energy release, I’ve noticed that many roads near my ho use lack sidewalks
and bike lanes and are not safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Would it be possible to build more of those to reduce
the numbers of cars on the road?
The city adopted Bike and Pedestrian Plans that are currently being implemented - here is the site on the plans:
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/transportation-mobility/bicycle-and-pedestrian-travel
You can follow the Bike Plan implementation here and also sign up for eNotifications on progress:
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/transportation-mobility/bicycle-and-pedestrian-
travel/bicycle-transportation-plan-implementation"
§ Is water not included in the CAP?
Emissions from the treatment of Cupertino's wastewater and energy used to pump water in Cupertino are accounted
for in the inventory.
§ How does wastewater contribute to emissions?
Our 2015 GHG report reviews the methodology of accounting for wastewater emissions, on page 9:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/14938/636524760503430000
§ Are you taking about the emissions and targets of the City of Cupertino or for all of Cupertino?
The community emissions and targets are for the entire city, including residential, commercial, institutional, etc.
(municipal operations are included within the total for the community)
§ What is GHG?
Greenhouse gas
§ If Cupertino has a sister city in China, reach out to get that city to deal with climate.
That’s a great idea! Thanks for sharing
§ What does "transportation" include. Is it the total transportation citizens use, or is it transportation within the
cities' borders? For example, if I drive from my home to San Francisco and back, is my total voyage included in
"transportation".
Transportation includes on -road and off-road emissions within the city borders. We use the "origin destination model,"
which includes half of trips that originate or end in Cupertino as well. You can read more about how this is calculated
in our 2015 report: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/14938/636524760503430000
Sectors and potential CAP strategies
§ Eliminate the use of natural gas at quinlan, blackberry farm, city hall, the library and community hall
Thank you for the feedback!
§ Will the city work and support and team with sun run to electrify and decarbonize nonprofits and low-income
households?
Hi, is there a specific program or initiative you had in mind re Sun Run?
§ Does the city have plans for drought management? For example, Stevens Creek and the reservoir are drying up fast
resulting in loss of biodiversity in the surroundings.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
7
Yes, we do. We have a new site dedicated to the response to the recent drought and emergency water shortage:
Cupertino drought response / resources: Cupertino.org/drought
§ Does the city have plans for creating/expanding current carbon sinks?
Yes, we will incorporate this type of action as part of the CAP update.
§ We have installed solar panels and also drive an electric car. Can you suggest other measures we can undertake at a
personal level?
https://cupertinoclimatechallenge.org/ is a great resource which has dozens of actions for residents and learn about
local programs, rebates, and resources for each action.
§ In the Transportation and Land Use sector, does land use include our parks?
Transportation & land use refers mostly towards density land use planning but Natural Spaces is where most of the
parks actions are listed.
§ Please consider banning plastic in takeout containers.
We are currently creating a single use plastics ordinance that follows Santa Clara County’s framework. This is a 2021
City Work Program project. New website on this topic is coming soon...
§ Please inform businesses to not use "compostable' clamshells. According to Recology they are neither compostable
NOR recyclable.
We are currently working on a single-use plastics ordinance that targets take out containers. This is going before City
Council this year.
§ Any regulations for single use plastic containers or packaging in supermarkets?
Yes, the City is working on a local code to address single -use plastic food ware.
Questions not answered during the webinar:
Climate Action Plan process
§ How do you reach the 30% who have no concern or awareness of the climate crisis?
§ Is there any consideration to coordinating the Climate Action Plan with the city's 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Element
process? According to UC Berkeley's CoolClimate project, Cupertino's highest opportunities for reducing its carbon
footprint are in electrification, reducing VMT, and infill development. Building new, energy-efficient, denser housing
near transit and jobs would hit all three of those opportunities and the legally mandatory Housing Element process
provides a unique chance to act on those opportunities.
§ Those of us here are the choir pretty much. How are we thinking about getting both education and action from the
whole congregation?
§ Does the public have access to Via statistics?
Greenhouse gas emissions and targets
§ I notice that natural gas went up, I know this is due to Apple's bloom energy facility, what is the plan to stop this?
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
8
§ I would like the plan to include a plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels for transportation of city owned and operated
assets well before 2035.
§ Can you give more details is included in mitigation, i.e. conserving H2O, draw down CO2? If so, then how will you
measure these at the neighborhood level?
§ How might Earth’s atmosphere, land, and ocean systems respond to changes in carbon dioxide over time?
Sectors and potential CAP strategies
§ What is the city’s number one priorities in the short term (next 5 years) and the long term (next 10-30 years) for GHG
reduction?
§ What can we, as residents of Cupertino, do to help improve the climate? (We are doing the bike challenge and
enjoying it!)
§ In 2010 we had low hanging fruit available to grab, in the form of the Silicon Valley Clean Energy. Is there similar low
hanging fruit now? Andre said that we're looking for big impact actions. Do you have any in mind?
§ How will you enforce any recommendations for mitigation with private citizens?
§ So, what is happening with Lehigh? Can we close it down?
§ How could the city influence reducing single use plastic use in schools?
§ Can the City support and run a textile recycling program? https://www.roadrunnerwm.com/blog/textile-waste-
environmental-crisis
§ Is it true that 40% of all food produced in the US is thrown away?
§ Tell me about Bloom energy, I suggest we ban this technology.
§ My understanding is that municipalities across the US are struggling on solid waste storage / dumping, especially given
larger supply chain events around recycling - how does Cupertino stand on waste? Are we constrained in our capacity
or our contractor's capacity to handle our waste?
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
9
Sector Priorities
In the Vision, Priorities & Initial Actions section of the workshop, the City presented an overview of each sector and potential
actions. Cascadia then facilitated a brief multiple-choice poll asking, “What is your top priority for the City to accomplish in this
focus area?” Next, participants were invited to add any other ideas, thoughts, or considerations for the City into the chat box.
Results from these activities are summarized below.
Buildings & Energy Consumption
The top two priority focus areas that respondents indicated were: to retrofit older buildings to be more efficient (39%, 12
responses) and to retrofit older buildings to replace gas with cleaner electric appliances (29%, 9 responses). There were 31
total responses to the poll question.
Comments submitted indicated some support for a transition away from natural gas in new and existing buildings and
interest in resources to assist appliance replacements.
Comments
§ I would like the city to eliminate natural gas usage in all city buildings
§ Tying goals to increased density or specifying tangible targets related to TOD housing units
§ I would like to ban any permits for fuel cells
§ A burnout ordinance
§ Resources for residential appliance replacements (water heaters, stoves, etc.)
§ The city council actually has to approve new buildings if new energy standards are going to matter.
§ To eliminate the use of natural gas in buildings and make insulation more efficient
§ Looking into the possibility of a natural gas ban
§ Resources in the form of databases for contractors familiar with this work, perhaps subsidies or assistance for lower
income residents to help with the capital cost of appliance replacements
§ Ban the sale of natural gas appliances in Cupertino
§ If wood can be substituted for concrete or steel, please do it.
Retrofit older buildings to
be more efficient
39%
Retrofit older buildings to
replace gas with cleaner
electric appliances
29%
Encourage use of low
carbon materials for
buildings
19%
Other
10%
Help us to save money
on utilities
3%
Buildings & Energy Consumption Priorities
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
10
Renewable Energy
The majority of respondents listed “Promote neighborhood solar or ‘micro-grids’ to protect critical infrastructure and
homes” as their top priority focus area (51%, 19 responses). There were 37 total responses to the poll question.
Comments submitted indicated support for solar, micro-grids, and a transition away from natural gas in new and existing
buildings, and interest in resources and information about eliminating natural gas.
Comments
§ I am an owner and landlord, would like to see tax rebates to eliminate natural gas usage in my rental homes
§ Concierge service to help me understand savings associated with eliminating natural gas. I would like to see an
incentive program to install batteries on my home and rentals
§ Will the City support sun run?
§ Not to be too negative but I would personally be disappointed to see the City investing in "cleaner" natural gas
sources, I don't think energy and resources are best served by investment there when state policies may eliminate or
shift usage of those sources anyways - better to focus on new development standards and reduce opportunities for net
new consumers of natural gas.
§ I agree with Sean; it would be better to phase out the old gas pipelines for new and existing buildings and move
towards full electrification
§ Solar must be a huge part of any development going forward.
§ In addition to solar, battery backup is critical.
Promote neighborhood
solar or “micro-grids” to
protect critical
infrastructure and
homes
51%Streamline permitting and
technical support for installing
clean energy on my property
24%
Promote clean energy
jobs and innovation
hubs in Cupertino
11%
Find sources of low-carbon
gas, such as bio-gas for the
existing pipeline system
8%
Support renters and fixed-
income residents to reduce their
energy costs
6%
Renewable Energy Priorities
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
11
Transportation and Land Use
The top two priority focus areas for Transportation and Land use are to “Improve public transit access and/or infrastructure”
(34%, 11 responses) and “Increase the walkability and bikeability of Cupertino (28%; 9 responses). There were 32 total
responses to the poll question.
Comments submitted indicated support for housing density, especially near transit. One commenter noted that permits for
duplex houses in single house lots will support equity.
Comments
§ I would love to see a tie between enabling more high-density housing development, to make the cost/benefit for
transit projects more attractive
§ To reduce personal car ownership, we need to build more densely, in coordination with the housing element
§ Creating more permits for duplex houses in single house lots would be extremely beneficial and also help with social
equity
Improve public
transit access
and/or
infrastructure.
34%
Increase the walkability and
bikeability of Cupertino.
28%
Encourage electric
vehicle charging stations
and subsidize the cost of
electric vehicles
16%
Invest in better alternative
options to connect to
neighboring cities such as VIA
community Shuttle, Car
Share, or e-bikes
16%
Improve public transit
guideway highway 85
3%
Other
3%
Transportation & Land Use Priorities
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
12
Solid Waste
The majority of respondents listed “Reduce single-use plastic, such as take-out food containers and other packaging” as their
top priority focus area (58%, 19 responses). There were 33 total responses to the poll question.
Comments from participants indicated support for residential composting and concern about compostable clamshell
containers.
Comments
§ All of the above
§ Encourage compost for apartments and townhouses
§ Please inform businesses to not use "compostable' clamshells. According to Recology they are neither compostable
NOR recyclable
Reduce single-use plastic,
such as take-out food
containers and other
packaging.
58%
Encourage companies or
producers to be responsible
for material disposal or
recycling
21%
Minimize food waste and
ensure edible food is
rescued for hunger relief.
9%
Reduce dependence on
other plastic products
9%
Other
3%
Solid Waste Priorities
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
13
Carbon Sequestration & Natural Systems
The highest number of respondents indicated that their top priority focus area for Carbon Sequestration & Natural Systems is
to “Increase the number of trees and amount of shade in Cupertino” (41%, 13 responses). There were 32 total responses to
the poll question.
Comments
One comment was submitted in support of increasing biodiversity at residences:
§ The City of Santa Monica has a “Cash for Grass” program where they pay residents to take out grass and put in
biodiverse plants. Something to consider https://www.smgov.net/Departments/OSE/categories/water.aspx
Increase the
number of trees and
amount of shade in
Cupertino.
41%
Update water system infrastructure
Increase water conservation education
and programs
19%
Improve
ecosystem health
and reduce
pollution
16%
Encourage plant-
rich diets
12%
Preserve and manage open
spaces; conserve wildlife
12%
Carbon Sequestration & Natural Systems
Priorities
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
14
Resilient Communities
The top two priority focus areas for Resilient Communities are to “Support communities that are most affected by climate
change impacts” (31%, 10 responses) and “Improve disaster preparedness and communication” (27%; 9 responses). There
were 33 total responses to the poll question.
Comments
There was one comment submitted questioning how success will be measured for Resilient Communities actions:
§ This is understandably hard to do, but will there be tangible goals associated with community resiliency and goals
around helping impacted communities?
Support communities
that are most affected by
climate change impacts.
31%
Improve disaster preparedness
and communication.
27%
Create and improve public
resources such as cooling
centers to support residents
during wildfire smoke and
heat events.
18%
Support workforce
education and training
create jobs in clean energy
and natural systems
18%
Ensure vulnerable
populations are prioritized
during climate events
3%
Other
3%
Resilient Communities Priorities
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
15
Participant Demographics
27 (51%) of 53 participants responded to the demographic survey questions.
Race/Ethnicity
Most respondents (52%) were Asian or Asian American; the remaining 48% were White or Caucasian.
Race/Ethnicity # %
Asian or Asian
American 14 52
White or
Caucasian 13 48
Age
The highest percentage of respondents (22%) were under 18 years old.
Age # %
Under 18 6 22%
18-24 2 8%
25-34 5 19%
35-44 3 11%
45-54 2 7%
65-74 3 11%
75 + 2 7%
Asian or
Asian
American
52%
White or
Caucasian
48%
Race/Ethnicity
18-24
8%
25-34
19%
35-44
11%
45-54
7%55-64
15%
65-74
11%
75 or over
7%
Under 18
22%
Age
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
16
Gender
There were equal numbers of respondents who identified as men (48%) and women (48%), and one non-binary participant.
Gender # %
Woman 13 48%
Man 13 48%
Non-binary or
non-conforming 1 4%
Man
48%
Non-binary/non-
conforming
4%
Woman
48%
Gender
1
Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update
Subcommittee Meeting #2 | August 19, 2021 | 4:00 – 5:00PM | Zoom
Table of Contents
Background ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Meeting Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Agenda Overview ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Meeting Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Participants ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Action Items ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Background
The Climate Action Plan Update Subcommittee will review and discuss policy options and receive diverse stakeholder feedback
related to the CAP update. The Subcommittee will be a key intermediary and liaison throughout the climate planning
process—bridging the broader community with City leadership and bringing together public/stakeholder input and technical
information to arrive at recommendations for Council. At upcoming stakeholder and public meetings, the subcommittee will
listen, ask probing questions, bring back discoveries to the Sustainability Commission, and lead conversations at Commission
meetings to form recommendations for the CAP.
The second meeting between the Subcommittee and Cascadia team will focus on gathering strategic Subcommittee feedback
on the: 1) goals and targets for Cupertino’s CAP update, 2) strategies and actions, and 3) upcoming public engagement
opportunities.
Meeting Objectives
- Review draft CAP targets
- Brainstorm high impact strategies and actions to achieve draft CAP targets
- Review upcoming public engagement and options for outreach activities
Agenda Overview
Total meeting length: 60 minutes
Time Item
5 min Introduction
30 min Discuss targets
20 min Additional outreach considerations
5 min Conclusion
2
Meeting Summary
Participants
Name Affiliation
Vignesh Swaminathan City of Cupertino Sustainability Commissioner
Gary Latshaw City of Cupertino Sustainability Commissioner
Victoria Morin City of Cupertino
Andre Duuvoort City of Cupertino
Kelsey Bennett Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Ryan Gardner Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Mike Chang Cascadia Consulting
Discussion
Discussion Topic Key Themes
CAP Targets and
Measures
• Cupertino’s CAP targets are aligned with the Paris Climate Accords, which is considered the “gold
standard” of GHG reduction. These targets are more aggressive than the state emission reduction
targets.
o Reduce 60.7% by 2030
o Net Zero by 2040
• Meeting the minimum state standards – which the Cupertino CAP Update will do – will help
streamline projects under CEQA.
• The CAP Subcommittee would like to see aggressive reductions from City-owned buildings and
operations since the City has control over their own facilities. They want the City to be an
example to the rest of the community.
• Rincon is building a scenario planning tool to inform the CAP measures.
• The CAP Subcommittee recommends:
o If the City can’t pass ambitious and aggressive actions at the community-level, the City
can make policy requests or lobby for actions at the State or regional level (e.g.,
Governor’s office).
o The City should be aggressive in its measures that it has control over – for example,
issuing building permits, banning gas in buildings, utilizing CCAs to supersede renewable
portfolio trajectories, or implementing ordinances for EV charging.
o Utilize Rincon’s scenario planning tool to identify feasible pathways to reach aggressive
targets. For example:
§ Identify the # of parking spaces that are EV capable.
§ Natural gas reduction opportunities.
§ VMT reduction – although notoriously difficult based on best available science.
§ Electrification impacts to the energy grid.
o Partner with private businesses – such as construction companies or gardeners – to
reduce their usage of gas.
o Partner with regional organizations – such as CalTrans – to successfully implement
measures that reduce GHG emissions in Cupertino.
o Leverage Cupertino’s existing EV infrastructure – which is about 6% adoption,
approximately twice the rate as comparable jurisdictions – to continuously expand EV
adoption from residents.
3
Discussion Topic Key Themes
Public Outreach
& Engagement
• There is a new website: Cupertino.org/climateaction. The City is seeing visitation and
engagement peaks aligning with public outreach efforts.
• Survey currently has 48 responses – 47 in English and 1 in Spanish.
• Some initial survey results:
o 3 top priorities for the CAP are:
§ Ensuring high quality of life for future generations
§ Improving air quality
§ Preserving natural spaces and habitats
o Biggest concerns are:
§ Smoke/fires
§ Drought and water supply
o Demographics:
§ Primarily Cupertino residents.
§ Need more Black and Indigenous people to take the survey to have it be more
representative of Cupertino.
• Upcoming public engagement includes:
o Fall Festival tabling , September 11 from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
o Stakeholder workshop #2 (targeted affordable housing), September 30 from 5:30 to 7
p.m.
o Public workshop #2 (virtual), October - Date TBD
o Subcommittee Meeting #3, October – Date TBD
o Stakeholder workshop #3, Tent - October 27
o Public workshop #3, December 2021
o Stakeholder workshop #4, January 2022
• Key considerations from the Subcommittee include:
o Utilize the networks of Subcommittee Members to amplify survey. For example, Gary
can share the survey and website with Rotary Club members.
o Would like to see more flyers and postcards in grocery stores and public right of ways,
such as sidewalks.
o There should be intentional outreach to schools and educational institutions, especially
with high schools and De Anza College. Should get the survey out to them as well.
Action Items
• Rincon will:
o Send the CAP Subcommittee the six pillars for the CAP measures.
• CAP Subcommittee will:
o Email Rincon and Cupertino City staff with other questions and ideas about CAP Measures.
o Gary will distribute survey to Rotary Club members.
o Gary and Vignesh will email dates they aren’t available for public workshop #2.
o Subcommittee will let the City know if they need any materials and the City can print them off.
1
Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update
Stakeholder Engagement Workshop #2 Summary
September 30, 2021 | 5:30-7:00pm | Zoom
Contents
Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Meeting Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Agenda Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Participants ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Icebreaker ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
CAP Update Overview and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 3
Discussion Highlights and Themes ................................................................................................................... 3
Demographic Polling ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Background
To reach frontline communities and historically underserved populations, the City plans to host targeted
meetings with representatives of priority communities—including Black, Indigenous, and communities of
color, people with limited English proficiency, unhoused and low-income people, and the elderly, among
others. The aim will be to build meaningful, long-term relationships with critical perspectives (e.g.,
community-based organizations, marginalized communities, faith-based organizations) to create space
for their voices in the process and leverage their expertise. The second stakeholder workshop focused on
advocates for affordable and low-income housing.
Meeting Objectives
• Build early awareness of the CAP process.
• Gather high-level ideas, priorities, and concerns.
• Build relationships with key stakeholder groups.
Agenda Overview
Time Item
15 min Introduction
25 min CAP Overview Presentation and Q&A
40 min Discussion on CAP Priorities and Strategies
10 min Conclusion and Next Steps
2
Participants
Workshop Participants
Name Affiliation
Rachel Hart LEAB
Mair Dundon N/A
Eun Young Kim N/A
Zixuan Tian N/A
Micki S. N/A
Kathi Chew N/A
Rebecca Smith St. Jude’s Episcopal Church
Ricky Parsaoran N/A
Hui Tian N/A
Hong Jiang N/A
Project Staff
Name Affiliation
Gilee Corral City of Cupertino
Andre Duuvoort City of Cupertino
Victoria Morin City of Cupertino
Gabriel Borden City of Cupertino
Karen Chen City of Cupertino
Mike Chang Cascadia Consulting Group
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. Cascadia provided an overview of Zoom tips and of the
meeting’s agenda.
Icebreaker
As an icebreaker near the start of the workshop, participants were asked a series of questions using
PollEverywhere, including:
• What is your favorite natural feature in and around Cupertino?
• How familiar are you with climate change concepts – such as causes and impacts of
climate change and actions needed to mitigate it?
• What is one thing you’ve noticed changing in our region and environment?
Below are the answers from our icebreaker questions.
3
Icebreaker Question Answers
What is your favorite natural
feature in Cupertino?
• Midpeninsula open space
• Blackberry farm
• Stevens Creek at Blackberry Farm
• The library
How familiar are you with
climate change concepts – such
as causes and impacts of
climate change and actions
needed to mitigate it?
If you could see one thing
included in this climate action
plan update, what would that
be?
• Housing continues to be a
massive challenge
• More people are aware of
the environment and our
impact
• All of the fires
• More fires nearby
• Vallco Mall lot is barren
• Lots of traffic
• Wildfire smoke
• Fire danger
CAP Update Overview and Discussion
City staff presented an overview of climate change, the climate action planning process, and the City’s
progress so far and then answered questions from participants. Following this presentation, participants were
divided into two breakout groups to discuss more about the CAP, its goals, and its measures.
Discussion Highlights and Themes
Discussion
Question
Highlights and Themes
Vision: In 2050, I
want to see
Cupertino be
_______________.
• Multicultural
• Resilient
• Truly inclusive and interconnected community
• Universal basic income
• Green initiatives that integrate traditionally disenfranchised communities
• Accessible public transportation
• Economically diverse that is powered by local residents who work and live here
• Access to home ownership
• Convenient charging stations for EVs
• More bike-friendly and walkable city that is safe for residents
• Knowledgeable about how to sell and recycle gas-powered cars
How will
eliminating natural
gas in buildings
affect housing and
affordability?
• Actions to consider:
o Support the transition to electric heaters.
o Cupertino needs to incentivize or subsidize air purifiers or swamp
coolers.
o Have backup emergency generators to for housing complexes,
especially for senior residents.
o Education efforts to teach residents to prepare for extreme climate-
related events.
4
Discussion
Question
Highlights and Themes
o Educate the public to wear a mask around leaf blowers.
• Additional considerations:
o Don’t like gas stoves because of fear that it will cause fires.
o Need to consider the disability community – keeping cool, water
shortages, and wildfires affect this community and their ability to
respond.
o Rely less on PG&E, especially considering that there is conflict of
interest being a privately-owned public utility.
o Clean energy transition should lead to affordability co-benefits.
How will converting
all vehicles to
electric affect
housing and
affordability?
• Actions to consider:
o N/A
• Additional considerations:
o While gas is expensive, electricity can also be expensive and drive up
energy costs.
o Gas cars still may be preferable because they have a longer driving
range. However, EVs are improving this aspect.
How will requiring
compost at all
homes affect
housing and
affordability?
• Actions to consider:
o Support actions that make it easier for people to compost.
• Additional considerations:
o Support for composting newspaper and cardboard, though unsure
about whether should compost food scraps.
o Composting can be difficult in a multi-family unit since this will require
cooperation from all units.
How will prioritizing
multifamily homes
in zoning & land use
affect housing and
affordability?
• Actions to consider:
o Limit dust and other airborne particulates for new construction to
improve air quality for nearby residences.
o Education to not conflate the different types of multi-family housing
options and communicate the importance of this to reach climate
action goals and support housing affordability.
o Build more affordable housing to allow people to have access to
services and amenities. This can help increase community resiliency
and creativity for new climate solutions.
• Additional considerations:
o General support of this, while acknowledging that there will be
pushback from others (e.g., affluent homeowners, NIMBYs).
What is top of mind
in your life and
experience when
you think about
these issues?
• Wildfire smoke and poor air quality
o Actions to consider:
§ Distribute N-95 masks during wildfire smoke days at key
community centers, such as the City library.
o Additional considerations
§ Concern for children because they will be most impacted.
§ Hard for the elderly.
5
Discussion
Question
Highlights and Themes
§ If people have to stay indoors, there may be other associated
impacts (e.g., lack of physical activity, mental health
considerations).
§ Increased insurance costs.
• Water shortage and drought
o Actions to consider:
§ Encourage personal behavior change to conserve water, such
as taking shorter showers and stop watering lawns during
droughts.
§ Tap into alternative water sources.
o Additional considerations:
§ Concerns about California population growth.
§ Concerns about rising water bills with more restricted supply.
• Keeping cool during more frequent heat waves
o Concern for children and the elderly.
• Power shutoffs from wildfire season and very hot days
o Actions to consider:
§ City should loan out generators for low-income households.
o Additional considerations:
§ Concern that refrigerated food will go bad.
§ Affordability and access concerns – for example, purchasing an
electric generator isn’t a viable option for everyone, especially
those who may need it (e.g., for medical reasons, such as
reliant on ventilators or other devices).
§ If you have an electric generator, can also plug it into your car
if outage is long.
6
Demographic Polling
1. Select all that apply: Which of the following best represents your race/ethnicity?
Race Number of Participants Percentage
White or Caucasian 2/10 20%
Asian or Asian American 1/10 10%
Latino, Latina, or Latinx 0/10 0%
Middle Eastern, North
African, or Arab American
0/10 0%
Other 0/10 0%
Prefer not to say 6/10 60%
Black or African American 1/10 10%
Native American, American
Indian, or Alaska Native
0/10 0%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander
0/10 0%
2. What is your gender identity?
Gender Identity Number of Participants Percentage
Man 0/10 0%
Woman 3/10 30%
Non-binary/non-
conforming
1/10 10%
Other 0/10 0%
Prefer not to say 6/10 60%
3. What is your age?
Age Number of Participants Percentage
Under 18 0/10 0%
18-24 0/10 0%
25-34 0/10 0%
35-44 0/10 0%
45-54 1/10 10%
55-64 2/10 20%
65-74 1/10 10%
75+ 0/10 0%
Prefer not to say 6/10 60%
Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update
Public Workshop #2 Summary
Introduction
This document summarizes participation, activities, and feedback from the Cupertino CAP Public Workshop #2.
Workshop Objectives
By hosting the workshop, the CAP team aimed to:
§ Provide updates about the Cupertino CAP’s emission forecasts and GHG reduction targets.
§ Present the draft Mitigation Measures.
§ Gather feedback about the draft Mitigation Measures.
Workshop Overview
Date & Time Monday, October 11th, 2021, 5:30-7:00pm
Location Online – Zoom Webinar
# of Registrants 77
# of Participants 40
# of Panelists 7
# of Responses Submitted 238
# of Questions Submitted 47
Audience Members of the general public attended. The following organization affiliations were
indicated during registration:
§ City of Cupertino
§ The Forum at Rancho San Antonio
§ Cupertino Village Shopping Center
/ Kimco Realty
§ Cupertino City Council
§ Santa Clara Audubon Society
§ Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
§ Silicon Valley Clean Energy
§ San Jose Water Company
§ CYCAC
§ First Maganson Holdings
§ Utkal University
§ Bay Area Regional Collaborative
§ Apple Inc.
§ Santa Clara University
§ Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Demographic Summary
20 (50%) of 40 participants responded to the demographic survey. See
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
2
Participant Demographics section for more detail.
Age Most common age range was 25-34 or 75 or over
u 10% under 18
u 20% in 25-34
u 5% in 35-44
u 10% in 45-54
u 15% in 55-64
u 15% in 65-74
u 20% in 75 or over
u 5% Prefer not to say
Race/Ethnicity Majority White or Caucasian
u 50% White or Caucasian
u 35% Asian or Asian American
u 5% Prefer not to say
u 10% Multiracial (5% Asian or Asian
American and Latino, Latina, or Latinx;
and 5% White or Caucasian and Asian or
Asian American)
Gender Majority men
u 50% men
u 45% women
u 5% Prefer not to say
Workshop Agenda
Time Item
15 min
5:30-5:45
Introduction
§ Andre Duurvoort (City of Cupertino) welcome participants to the workshop and provided an overview of
workshop objectives and goals.
§ Mike Chang (Cascadia) provided an overview of Zoom webinar functions and facilitated a series of
icebreaker questions.
20 min
5:45-6:05
CAP Presentation: Emissions Forecast and Targets
§ Andre Duurvoort provided an overview of anticipated climate impacts, emission forecast and largest GHG
emissions sources, actions taken to date, emission reduction targets, and what it means for life for
Cupertino residents in 2030.
§ Gilee Corral (City of Cupertino) and Victoria Morin (City of Cupertino) answered questions from the Q&A
chat box.
§ Gilee Corral moderated a Q&A session after the presentation.
50 min
6:05-6:55
Discussion: Mitigation Measures and Actions
§ Mike Chang facilitated a discussion around the following measures and goals: 1) half of Cupertino
buildings are completely electric; 2) most of your everyday trips are by public transport, walking, biking,
scootering, or wheelchair and we shift away from single-occupancy vehicles; 3) when you do drive, you
use an electric vehicle; and 4) you are creating less waste in the landfill.
§ For each measure and goal, Mike Chang facilitated gathering feedback around the following three
questions:
- What challenges or barriers do you see for yourself that will prevent you from making this change?
For your family? For your neighbors?
- What would be needed for you to make this change?
- What are the equity considerations? Who would benefit? Who would be harmed?
§ After going through each of the measures, Mike Chang provided an overview of what life in 2030 would
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
3
Workshop Outcomes
Introductory Polls
Question #1: What is one thing you want to see the City do or change in this Climate Action Plan? (15 responses)
§ Go zero waste
§ I do not want natural gas appliances banned
§ How will Cupertino go net zero?
§ I would like to see the city be a bit more
aggressive/ambitious with it’s GHG reduction goals
§ Be a leader for other California cities on reducing
GHGs
§ Less use of water in public spaces (don’t water the
grass as much), encourage more sustainable (e.g.
plant-based) food alternatives
§ Significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
from power plants
§ I would like the city to prioritize the environment
more, and be more aggressive in plans
§ Encourage more non-vehicle transportation such as
walking or biking to school/work. It seems like a small
thing, but it makes a BIG difference
§ Incentivize upgrades to homes, especially those being
rented out
§ Set a goal to eliminate natural gas distribution in
Cupertino
§ Stronger support for walking/biking infrastructure
§ Eliminate gas operated city vehicles
§ I want to see the city asking the State and Federal
representatives to support actions that will reduce
our footprint
§ I would like to see the City use the Pareto principle in
choosing what to do
Question #2: What is one thing you want to do or change to reduce your carbon footprint? (20 responses)
§ Drive less
§ Electric car and solar panel installation
§ Would like to use more public transport
§ Increase the insulation in my house in preparation for
heat pump
§ Install solar panels, use only the electricity I generate
§ Plant trees for carbon offset!!! (I think that’s how it
works…)
§ Move out of a standalone house into a small
apartment
§ Use my bike more to go on errands
§ Use less plastic
§ Bike more on safe roads
§ Upgrade my home’s windows and insulation
§ Replace gas with electrical appliance
§ Use less fossil fuels
§ Reduce waste => compost more and plastic recycling
§ Install a heat pump furnace
§ Replace our gas furnace with a heat pump.
§ Install a heat pump water heater and furnace in my
rental buildings
§ Replace my hybrid with an electric car.
§ Wear smaller shoes
Time Item
look like for Cupertino residents. Mike then facilitated gathering feedback on the following questions:
- What do you think of this life for yourself? Do you see barriers?
- What else is missing (e.g., adaptation, community resilience, etc.)?
5 min
6:55-7:00
Conclusion & Next Steps
§ Andre Duurvoort wrapped up the workshop by providing some other engagement opportunities and
contact information. Mike Chang facilitated a Zoom poll to gather demographic data from participants.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan | Public Workshop #1 Summary
4
§ Reduce automobile use—requires a bike/pedestrian
friendly city
Question #3: Why did you decide to attend the workshop today? (17 responses)
§ To support effective measures to decarbonize
Cupertino
§ To learn more about future plans
§ I'm an environmental activist and hope to learn more
about Cupertino's plan!
§ To see how aggressive the climate goals are for the
city.
§ Opportunities like these are not too common, and
people need to speak up if we hope to survive climate
change.
§ Recently moved back to Cupertino and want to see
what the City is up to
§ would like to be involved with Cupertino’s climate
plan, in order to best facilitate environmental
progress.
§ To make sure the youth voice was present and
because I’ve found a lot of value in the past
workshops :)
§ Because I feel that acting locally is important.
§ To better understand the interaction between
individual actions and government policy
§ I'm here as senior from CHS and I wanted to hear
more about how students can get involved and how
we can be supported by the city Learn about
programs available to residents
§ I am concerned that the plans for changes do not
consider the cost to our lower income residents and
renters.
§ Would like to do something to fight climate change
rather than feel helpless.
§ Learn what I can do to help myself and Cupertino be
more sustainable
§ Interested in reducing climate change by acting
§ Because I feel that the climate action plan is not
focused on the highest payback actions
§ Supporting walk/bike to school especially (since I am
a student) and make a sizeable change in our carbon
footprint
CAP Emissions Forecast and Targets Presentation
Questions from Chat (5 questions)
§ How does the 24% reduction (assuming that is Cupertino) compared to the rest of the state. If that is the state
number, how do you measure Cupertino’s individual reduction?
§ Follow up: It was a simple question: What has the state done during the same period? It would be helpful to not be
redirected off into the internet vs staying focused and engaged on this meeting.
§ I can see natural gas increased because of APPLE`s Bloom Energy Fuel Cells
§ Is there a reason why Natural Gas usage has increased over the years? Is it an electricity replacement?
§ But they went up between 2019 and 2020 due to APPLE.
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?
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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 c ity 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 low-
income 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
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
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
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
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.
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/public-
works/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 all-
electric, 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.
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, non-
profits, 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.
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
50%Woman
45%
Prefer not to say
5%
Gender
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)
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%
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)
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
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)
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
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)
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
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
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
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
12
ü Replace certain tree species with drought-
tolerant 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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
3
Introduction
City staff and the consultant team provided a brief introduction of the CAP project team and welcomed
all the participants to the stakeholder meeting. City staff provided an overview of the meeting’s agenda
and goals.
As an icebreaker at the beginning of the workshop, participants were asked to share their name,
organization, and favorite summer activity in the Zoom chat. Below are the answers to the favorite
summer activity icebreaker question.
• Open water swimming
• Family trip to Montana
• Sitting on our back porch with the fans on with our puppies
• High Sierra hiking/swimming in rivers and lakes
• Ride my bike to our local library!
• Summer camping
• Road bike, mountain bike, motorcycle, and camping!
• Trips to the ocean—but just to walk and enjoy, not swim
• Hiking, going to the beach, and outdoor parks
CAP 2.0 Overview and Q&A
City staff presented an overview of the CAP 2.0, the climate action planning process, the City’s progress so far,
and how previous feedback has been integrated. City staff reminded participants of the emissions reduction
targets and the largest emissions sources and reviewed the five sectors addressed in the CAP 2.0.
Question & Answer
Question Answer
Was there input to this plan from organizations
that are focused on equity? I can see that
eliminating any use of natural gas will be very
expensive for those living in apartments or rental
homes (40% of Cupertino) that cannot use solar
power, as they are at the mercy of their landlords
and PG&E.
Andre will address this question during Energy Section
in the presentation.
Discussion of CAP Mitigation Measures and Actions
After the initial presentation by City staff, the meeting focused on proposed mitigation measures and actions
in each of the five CAP focus areas. City staff presented on mitigation measures and actions and then asked
participants, “what questions do you have?” and “what other considerations or changes would you like to see
to increase your support?” Meeting participants shared questions and comments verbally and in the Zoom
chat. At the end of each focus area section, participants were asked to respond to a Zoom poll, which asked,
“On a scale of 1–5, how supportive are you of these measures and actions?”
4
Cleaning the Air – Renewable Energy and Electrification
Question & Answer & Chat Comments
Question 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.
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 low-
income 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
10
Adaptation and Resilience
Question & Answer & Chat Comments
No questions asked.
Conclusion & Next Steps
City and consultant staff reviewed key themes from the discussion and discussed next steps with public
review and finalizing the CAP. Staff reviewed upcoming dates, including the close of the online survey,
Sustainability Commission voting on CAP 2.0, City Council study session, and City Council adoption. At the end
of the meeting, participants were given the choice to answer optional demographic questions.
11
Question & Answer & Chat Comments
Question Answer
How long does the survey take? 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%
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%
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
Visitors VisitsPageviews
1 Sep '21 1 Jan '22 1 May '22
250
500
750
1000
Engage Cupertino : Summary Report for 23 July 2021 to 17 May 2022
PARTICIPANT SUMMARY
ENGAGED
INFORMED
AWARE
277 ENGAGED PARTICIPANTS
000
12012418
000
006
013
343
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
Page 2 of 5
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
Page 3 of 5
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
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
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
Page 5RI5
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
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.
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 neutrality 1 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.
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.
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
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
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.
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 back-
casts, 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
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 electrification 8 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-Draft-
Ordinance.pdf
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/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/Power-Content-Label-2019-Res.pdf
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 Rate 11 Direct Access Usage rate 12 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-program-
low-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
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 non-
SVCE/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=𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸 𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹∗(1 −𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑥𝑥)+𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸 𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹∗𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 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
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 non-
SVCE/direct access usage rate (MT CO2e/kWh) 0.0000034 0.0000011
Weighted commercial electricity emissions factor at 2018 non-
SVCE/direct access usage rate (MT CO2e/kWh) 0.0000188 0.0000063
Weighted residential electricity emissions factor at target non-
SVCE/direct access usage rate (MT CO2e/kWh) 0.0000030 0.0000010
Weighted commercial electricity emissions factor at target non-
SVCE/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.
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 low-
income 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.
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
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 utility-
offered 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 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 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
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 end-
uses 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/wp-
content/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-Policy-
Calculator-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
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 lifespan 36 13
Average natural gas HVAC lifespan 37 21.5
Average natural gas stove lifespan 38 12
Natural gas usage that comes from water heater 39 50%
Natural gas usage that comes from heating/cooling 40 44%
Natural gas usage that comes from cooking 7%
Assumed noncompliance 41 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 non-
compliance 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.
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/customer-
service/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/our-
city/departments/community-development/housing/below-market-rate-housing-program
46 City of Berkeley. 2021. Existing Building Electrification Strategy.
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.synapse-
energy.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/
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 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
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
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/report-
electrifying-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
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.kw-
engineering.com/electrification-commercial-buildings-important-considerations/
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 lifespan 57 10
Average natural gas HVAC lifespan 58 23
Natural gas usage that comes from water heater 59 35%
Natural gas usage that comes from heating/cooling 60 35%
Assumed noncompliance 61 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 non-
compliance 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
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/customer-
service/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-new-
commercial-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/report-
electrifying-heating-existing-commercial-buildings-could-cut-their
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
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.
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.
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/customer-
service/home-services/renovating-and-building/benefits-of-electric-homes-and-buildings/benefits-of-electric-homes-and-buildings.page?
72 Appendix A.
73 Appendix A.
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
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/
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 multi-
pronged approach for incentivizing alternatives to fossil fuel-powered vehicle trips, including
shifting transportation mode share 77 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 emissions 78 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/the-
tough-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
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.
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
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
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-Cycling-
Scenario_Nov-2015.pdf
88 National Household Travel Survey. December 2021. Population Vehicle Trips Statistics. Accessed at: https://nhts.ornl.gov/vehicle-trips
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 123 89 169 90 0.72 23.2%91
City of Berkeley in
2021 50.8 92 221 93 0.23 9.7%94
City of Cupertino in
2030 90 95 160 96 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’.
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 target 100 15% 23%
Passenger trips/mile 101 0.1314 0.1325
Mode share increase from 2015 14% 22%
Passenger VMT 102 402,635,644 429,178,926
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 high-
quality 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
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
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/e-
scooters 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.
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
problem 110 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/
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 target 116 29% 29%
Passenger trips/mile 117 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
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 scenario 121 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-sacramento-
student-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
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 multi-
family 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.
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino CAP Update
42
Measure TR-3: Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption 126 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 re-
adoption 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.
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 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.
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
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-to-
public 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.
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 population 133 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
Population 139 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.
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
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 BE-
1 (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 low-
142 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
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.
Transportation Measures
GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 49
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
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
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-system-
information/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/
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-tax-
tcm#:~:text=The%20City%20imposes%20a%20Traffic,or%20private%20transit%20services%20vehicle.
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 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
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
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 off-
road 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 kWh 151 22.91
Convert gallons of gasoline to kWh 152 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.
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.
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-to-
door 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
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.
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.
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 diversion 159 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
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.
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, plant-
based 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
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.
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
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
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/greywater-
education/greywater-benefits/
163 Valley Water. December 2021. Water Education Programs and Events. Accessed at: https://www.valleywater.org/learning-
center/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-supply-
planning/desalination
166 City of Cupertino. December 2021. Climate Victory Gardens. Accessed at: https://www.cupertino.org/our-
city/departments/environment-sustainability/climate-gardens
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
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
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 carbon-
neutral future therefore includes carbon sequestration 169 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 strategies 170 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 2045 171
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.
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
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 (diesel-
gallon-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
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 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.
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://pg-
cloud.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.
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.
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 ecologically responsible recreation opportunities 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.
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
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
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-profit-
owned 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.
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 water-
efficiency 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
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
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 best-
practices 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
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
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
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.
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, drought-
tolerant 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
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 drought-
tolerant 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Table of Contents
Draft i
This page intentionally left blank.
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 ................................................................................................. 2 4
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
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
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).
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
City of Cupertino
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
8
Figure 2 City of Cupertino GHG Emissions Forecast, 2018 to 2045
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appendix A
Overview of GHG Emissions and Climate Change
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B
GHG Threshold Calculations
This page intentionally left blank.
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.
This page intentionally left blank.