Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. McRae presented information on the CCEAP advisory team members and noted that each of the team members where highly knowledgeable regarding a variety of energy and sustainability areas. Mr. McRae further noted that the advisory team members had been extremely helpful to staff in providing feedback and prioritization regarding the CCEAP. Mr. McRae described the public engagement process that had been used by staff to develop the CCEAP and briefly noted each of the public outreach events that had been conducted. Mr. McRae also noted the six action areas that had been used to develop the CCEAP during the public engagement process. Mr. McRae stated that over 500 participants from the community had been involved in the CCEAP public engagement process. Mr. McRae referred to the copy of the draft CCEAP that had been provided to the council and briefly outlined the contents of the document. Mr. McRae elaborated upon each of the six main topic areas of the CCEAP and noted how each category related to the overall goals of the plan. Mr. McRae briefed the council members on the next steps for the CCEAP and noted that those steps involved significant fact-finding efforts, the determination of climate and energy action targets, and further discussion meetings with community partners. Ms. Piercy appreciated the great breadth of community partners who had been involved in the development of the CCEAP and agreed that the plan needed to be reviewed in relation to other City planning processes. Mr. McRae, responding to a question from Ms. Piercy, noted that he had conferred with representatives from Lane County and the City’s Wastewater division staff to hold discussions on how methane digesters might be of benefit to the region. Mr. McRae, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, stated that the appendix of compiled priority action items from the CCEAP was only a different layout of the information contained in the draft CCEAP and did not contain any additional action items. Ms. Taylor asked if Country Club Drive was in the flood zone. Mr. McRae could not answer the question but stated that the City’s flood zones were being reviewed as part of the ECLA process. Ms. Taylor asked how issues related to airshed and watershed capacity had been incorporated into the development of the CCEAP. Mr. McRae noted that those issues had not been thoroughly discussed during the development of the CCEAP but further mentioned that both the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency and EWEB had each been involved in extensive discussions regarding local air quality and water source issues. Ms. Taylor hoped that the CCEAP would include references to more direct actions the City could take and further suggested that the council refrain from serving meat during its meetings. Mr. Ruiz responded to Ms. Taylor’s comments and reminded her that there were additional parallel efforts underway to reduce the City’s overall carbon footprint and energy consumption levels. Mr. Clark appreciated the level of detail that had been incorporated into the CCEAP. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2010 Page 6 Work Session