Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the NEPA topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks staff to scope NEPA options and to identify outside NEPA counsel
Summary
Members directed staff to evaluate EIS/SEIS options, consider sole‑source versus RFP procurement for specialized NEPA counsel, and return with scoping, budget and suggested timelines to support bridge repair or replacement work.
Council and staff discussed the NEPA path required for different bridge and entrance alternatives and agreed to retain outside counsel with NEPA experience to help scope and execute any EIS or supplemental EIS.
City staff advised that scoping must define whether a full EIS, a supplemental EIS (SEIS) or another NEPA instrument (EA or categorical exclusion) is required depending on the option pursued. Jen (staff) said the city must decide the scope and procurement approach—sole source versus RFP—and bring back a recommended path and cost estimate.
Council asked that scoping documents explicitly evaluate the fastest feasible paths to authorization for each scenario (repair, 2‑lane replacement, 3‑lane replacement) and that staff include polling and public‑outreach budgets in their return report.
