Holder Law Group holderecolaw.com
2940 Summit St, Suite 2D
Oakland, CA 94609-3416
(510) 338-3759
[email protected]
October 13, 2025
Via Email Only (Please Confirm Receipt)
City of Arcata
City Council (4 Members)
Alexandra Stillman, Mayor
Kimberley White, Vice-Mayor
Meredith Matthews, Councilmember
Sarah Schaefer, Councilmember
C/O City Clerk:
Email: [email protected]
City of Arcata Planning Department
ATTN: David Loya, Community Dev. Director
736 F Street
Arcata, CA 95521
Email: [email protected]
Re: Consent Calendar, Item 9.g.: Roger’s Garage – Request to Pull from Consent and Deny/Continue Contract Award to HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. and Objections to the August 19, 2025 RFQP for CEQA/NEPA Services (1622 & 1632 Old Arcata Road; File No. 242-020)
Dear Mayor Stillman, Councilmembers, and Planning Staff:
On behalf of Building Bayside Better (“BBB”), we respectfully (1) object to the proposed consent-calendar award of a CEQA/NEPA services contract to HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. for the Roger’s Garage / Valley View Commons project (“Project”) and (2) submit comprehensive comments on the City’s August 19, 2025 Request for Qualifications & Proposals (“RFQP”) for the same work.
The RFQP was issued without public notice or opportunity for input.1 While BBB appreciates that the City has moved away from claiming CEQA exemption, the RFQP precommits to a “Focused EIR” and otherwise constrains the scope of analysis in ways that are procedurally and substantively improper. Staff now asks the Council to approve a consultant contract premised on that defective RFQP — and proposes to do so on consent, without public discussion. For the reasons below, the Council should (i) pull the item from consent and allow 1 In our prior correspondence, we have repeatedly requested notice of all City actions, proceedings, and reports for the proposed Project. Despite this specific request for notice, we did not receive any notice of the City’s decision to issue an RFQP for the Project’s required environmental review in August. BBB obtained the RFQP from an investigative reporter, not from City staff.
City of Arcata, City Council October 13, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Comments re Consent Item – Contract for Roger’s Garage Project Env. Rev. Page 2 public comment, (ii) deny or continue the contract award, and (iii) direct staff to correct the RFQP and process sequence before returning with any contract.
I. Introduction
As issued, the RFQP predetermines the EIR type and scope, omits material regulatory context, and misstates the City’s CEQA/NEPA sequencing and responsibilities. Approving a consultant contract based on that RFQP would embed those defects into the City’s environmental review from the outset, undermining defensibility and public confidence.
BBB therefore requests that the Council remove the HELIX contract item from consent, take public comment, and withhold approval until the RFQP is corrected and the process follows the required order (1. application completeness, 2. Initial Study & scoping, 3. define scope, 4. contract).
II. Discussion: Awarding the EIR Contract Based on a Defective RFQP Would be Procedurally and Substantively Improper.
A. Key Procedural and Substantive Deficiencies in the RFQP
1. Issuing the RFQP Before the Application Is Complete Reverses CEQA and Local Procedure
City records reflect that the Roger’s Garage application has not been accepted as complete. The City’s April 21, 2025 “Incomplete Application” letter sought additional project design, infrastructure, and environmental materials; as of the August 19 RFQP release, those materials remained outstanding. Under Arcata Municipal Code § 9.78.110(A), an application is not complete “without sufficient information to allow for a determination whether environmental review is required and, if so, the type of environmental document to be prepared.” Until completeness is established and a stable, finite project description exists, the City cannot lawfully decide on an EIR type or scope, much less instruct a consultant to “screen issues that do not warrant further analysis.”2
CEQA requires a stable, accurate project description.3 Proceeding with a moving target is improper.
Requested corrective action: Formally accept a complete application first; then prepare the Initial Study to identify the proper CEQA document and scope. 2 RFQP, p. 3 [Task 2].
3 County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193; Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, 18.
City of Arcata, City Council October 13, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Comments re Consent Item – Contract for Roger’s Garage Project Env. Rev. Page 3
2. Predetermination of the Outcome (Pre-Commitment to a “Focused EIR”) The RFQP states the City “has chosen to prepare a Focused EIR.”4 Under CEQA and the City’s own Land Use Code, chapter 9.78, the Initial Study and scoping inform the decision on EIR type and content — not the other way around.5 Predetermining a “Focused EIR” unlawfully narrows analysis before the public and agencies can define issues. The RFQP also enumerates topics to cover, notably omitting water quality and (in part) geotechnical considerations, despite known contamination and required cleanup to residential standards.6 Predetermination and topic-screening at this stage are improper. 7 3. Improper Delegation of NEPA Responsibilities
The RFQP directs a “joint CEQA EIR / NEPA EA or EIS” and effectively treats the EA as default. As HUD’s Responsible Entity, the City — not a contractor — must determine whether an EIS is required under Title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, section 58.37, and must retain that decision-making responsibility. Delegating that threshold significance decision to a consultant risks federal non-compliance.
4. Misuse of “Tiering” from the 2045 General Plan EIR
The RFQP invites tiering from the 2045 General Plan Program EIR,8 but that document did not analyze redevelopment of a Cortese-listed contaminated site adjacent to a school and a storm-drain outfall/wetland. Under CEQA Guidelines § 15152(d) and § 15168, tiering and program EIRs may streamline later review only for issues already addressed at sufficient detail; they do not excuse new, site-specific analysis of hazards, water quality/hydrology, cleanup feasibility, or cumulative effects that were not previously evaluated.9 4 RFQP, p. 2, § 2.
5 CEQA Guidelines § 15063; see also Arcata Municipal Code § 9.78.110. 6 RFQP, p. 2, § 2 [“Anticipated areas of analysis include air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biology, soils, hazards, noise, cultural resources, and tribal and cultural resources”]. 7 See Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252, 270 [observing that the lead agency’s “significant responsibilities under CEQA included conducting an initial study to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the [proposed project] and determining, in response to the information provided in the initial study, whether to prepare an EIR or adopt a negative declaration”].)
8 See RFQP, p. 1 [Background and Goals section].
9 Guidelines § 15152(d).
City of Arcata, City Council October 13, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Comments re Consent Item – Contract for Roger’s Garage Project Env. Rev. Page 4
5. “Streamlined Pathway” Bias; Reference to a Potential AB 130 Exemption The RFQP frames joint documentation as “the most streamlined review pathway” and suggests AB 130 may provide an exemption.
10 Signaling exemption possibilities inside an EIR
solicitation biases the process toward minimizing review and risks repeating prior missteps. If an exemption were genuinely available, issuing an EIR RFQP would be inconsistent; conversely, if an EIR is required, the scope should be comprehensive, not “focused.”
6. Incomplete and Inaccurate Baseline; Failure to Reconcile the Environmental Record
While acknowledging contamination and the need for additional testing, the RFQP omits the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s active cleanup case and directives (e.g., bimonthly reporting, new sampling, and investigation of a storm-drain outfall beneath school property). A lawful baseline demands reconciliation of all historic and current data and coordination with the Water Board before scoping or tiering.
7. Omission of Current Regulatory Orders and Cortese-List Status The RFQP does not disclose the site’s State Cortese List status or current RWQCB direction. Soliciting bids without presenting the current regulatory posture misleads bidders and the public, practically guaranteeing under-scoped proposals and budget shortfalls.
8. Public Scoping Sequenced After Consultant Selection
The RFQP contemplates a City-run public scoping separate from — and before — contract award, but the remainder of the document and staff statements indicate the consultant would operate under pre-set directions. CEQA Guidelines § 15082(c) anticipates scoping to define the EIR’s content; the City should complete scoping first, with the consultant present, and then finalize the scope/contract.
9. Risk to Independence and Appearance of Fairness
By allowing staff to negotiate terms and incorporate the consultant’s own proposal into the City’s contract, the RFQP risks embedding methodologies and assumptions before Council oversight or public input, undermining the appearance of independence critical to a credible CEQA/NEPA process.
B. Objections to the Proposed Contract Award to HELIX (Consent Calendar) The proposed award of a CEQA/NEPA services contract to HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. should not proceed under the consent calendar. The action is neither routine nor 10 See RFQP, p. 2 [Background and Goals section].
City of Arcata, City Council October 13, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Comments re Consent Item – Contract for Roger’s Garage Project Env. Rev. Page 5 administrative. It represents the City’s formal adoption of a process framework and analytical scope that are already flawed. By approving this contract now, the City would effectively ratify the defective August 19 RFQP and lock the project into a legally inadequate environmental review before the process has even begun.
The consent-calendar procedure is particularly inappropriate for a matter of such public interest and legal significance. The City’s staff report presents the award as a straightforward procurement decision, but in substance it establishes the parameters of the EIR and NEPA analysis for a highly controversial project on a contaminated site adjacent to a school. CEQA emphasizes transparency and early public participation, yet the current approach would bypass both. Placing this decision on consent denies the community the opportunity to comment on who will conduct the analysis, what issues will be studied, and how public input will be incorporated.
Moreover, the proposed contract is premature. The City has not yet accepted the project application as complete, conducted an Initial Study, or held a public scoping meeting.
Each of these steps must occur before the City determines the appropriate level and scope of environmental review. Approving a contract now would require HELIX to begin work on an unstable project description that remains subject to change. This risks wasting public funds and producing an analysis that will require major revision.
Finally, the scope embedded in the RFQP—and therefore in the proposed HELIX contract—remains unlawfully narrow. The document presumes a “Focused EIR” and omits key subjects such as water quality, hydrology, and the cumulative effects of contamination and development near Jacoby Creek School. These omissions are incompatible with CEQA’s requirement that an EIR analyze all reasonably foreseeable significant impacts. Approving the contract without correcting those defects would pre-judge the outcome of the environmental process and invite subsequent legal challenge.
C. Legal Framework Requiring a Comprehensive EIR
California law provides a clear framework for determining when an EIR must be comprehensive rather than “focused.” CEQA requires that environmental analysis proceed from a factual baseline describing the existing physical conditions of the site and surrounding area.11 The lead agency may narrow its review only after establishing that baseline and demonstrating, with substantial evidence, that certain issues will not have a significant effect.
Here, the baseline is not only incomplete—it is actively evolving under the supervision of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, which continues to require new sampling and remediation at the site. Under these circumstances, a focused EIR would be premature and legally indefensible.
11 Guidelines § 15125.
City of Arcata, City Council October 13, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Comments re Consent Item – Contract for Roger’s Garage Project Env. Rev. Page 6 Tiering from the City’s 2045 General Plan EIR does not cure this defect. Tiering is permissible only when the earlier document adequately analyzed the issues relevant to the later project.12 The General Plan EIR did not address redevelopment of a contaminated, Cortese-listed property adjacent to a storm-drain outfall under a school. Because those conditions are unique to the Roger’s Garage site, they must be examined in a full, projectspecific EIR.
Equally important, CEQA and the case law interpreting it require a stable, finite project description. In County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 and Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, the courts held that an EIR prepared for an unstable or moving-target project violates CEQA’s informational requirements. Because the Roger’s Garage application remains incomplete, the City cannot yet provide the stable description necessary to support any EIR—much less a narrow, “focused” one.
Finally, under NEPA, the City—acting as HUD’s Responsible Entity—must independently determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement is required.13 That responsibility is non-delegable. Assigning it to a consultant, as the RFQP appears to do, would expose the City to federal compliance risks and undermine the integrity of the NEPA process.
D. Requested Council Actions
For these reasons, BBB respectfully urges the City Council to remove the HELIX contract award from the consent calendar, provide an opportunity for public comment, and withhold approval until the RFQP and process sequence are corrected. Before any contract is executed, the City should:
1. Accept a complete project application and establish a stable, publicly available project description;
2. Prepare an Initial Study and conduct public scoping to identify the full range of issues; and
3. Amend the RFQP or scope of work to eliminate any pre-commitment to a “Focused EIR,” ensure coordination with the Regional Water Board, acknowledge the site’s Cortese List and contamination status, and require comprehensive analysis of all potentially significant impacts.
Only by taking these steps can the City ensure a transparent, legally defensible, and publicly credible environmental review for the Roger’s Garage / Valley View Commons project. 12 Guidelines §§ 15152(d), 15168.
13 24 C.F.R. § 58.37.
City of Arcata, City Council October 13, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Comments re Consent Item – Contract for Roger’s Garage Project Env. Rev. Page 7 III. Conclusion
Proceeding to award the HELIX contract on consent would compound the RFQP’s defects, pre-judge CEQA scope, and jeopardize the credibility and legality of the City’s environmental review. BBB respectfully urges the Council to pull the item, allow public comment, and correct the process and scope before any contract is approved.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate and look forward to continued engagement. BBB reserves the right to provide further evidence and detailed arguments at future hearings.
* * *
As we previously requested in written correspondence concerning this Project, please provide notice of all future proceedings, communications, and public information concerning the Project to the undersigned via email at [email protected] and to BBB representatives at [email protected].
Very Truly Yours,
_________________________
Jason Holder
cc: (via email only)
Client Contacts
Merritt Perry, City Manager ([email protected])