PREPARED BY: Alexa Nolder
Administrative Technician
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Finance Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/02/2025
ITEM NO: 8
ADDENDUM
DATE: December 1, 2025
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Chris Constantin, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize the Town Manager to Execute Agreements for Environmental Consultant Services with David J. Powers and Associates, EMC Planning Group, Inc., and Raney Planning and Management, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Town Manager to execute agreements for environmental consultant services with David J. Powers and Associates, EMC Planning Group, Inc., and Raney Planning and Management, Inc.
REMARKS:
Attachment 4 contains public comments received before 11:01 a.m. on Monday, December 1, 2025.
Attachments Received with the Staff Report:
1. Draft DJP&A Agreement with Exhibit A - Proposal
2. Draft EMC Agreement, with Exhibit A - Proposal
3. Draft Raney Agreement with Exhibit A - Proposal
Attachment Received with this Addendum:
4. Public comment
From: Lynley Kerr Hogan
To: Clerk
Subject: Re: Re Tuesday Agenda, Environmental
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 5:12:16 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
### Understanding the Town Services in Question
From the agenda report you shared (Item No. 8 for the December 2, 2025, Los Gatos Town Council meeting), this isn't about general "town services" like asset management software (e.g., OpenGov/Cartegraph from our prior discussion). Instead, it's specifically about **authorizing contracts with three private environmental consulting firms** (David J. Powers and Associates, EMC Planning Group, Inc., and Raney Planning and Management, Inc.) to provide expertise on **California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance** for development projects. These consultants help town staff evaluate environmental impacts, recommend review levels, and prepare documents like initial studies, exemptions, negative declarations, and full Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs).
Key context from the report:
- **Triggered by**: A September 8, 2025, Request for Proposals (RFP) with submissions due October 3, 2025—standard competitive bidding to select qualified vendors. - **Fiscal note**: Zero cost to the town; developers/applicants pay all fees, which is a common "applicant-funded" model under CEQA.
- **Purpose**: Supports review of private development proposals (e.g., housing, commercial builds) to ensure legal compliance and environmental protection.
Los Gatos (population ~33,000 as of 2024 U.S. Census estimates, up slightly from 30,505 in 2015) is a small, affluent Silicon Valley town in Santa Clara County with moderate development activity. It processes dozens of projects annually—e.g., 20–40 pending planning applications at any time, including SB 9 housing (duplex lots), commercial infill, and remodels—per the town's Pending Planning Projects Map and annual reports. Its Community Development Department (Planning Division) has a small staff (5–10 planners/environmental analysts), so external help is routine for complex reviews.
Now, to your core question: **Are these consulting services absolutely necessary? Can there be another way? What's the best approach?**
### Are These Services Absolutely Necessary?
**No, they're not a legal or operational *requirement* for every small California town—but in practice, for a place like Los Gatos, skipping them entirely would be risky, inefficient, and potentially unlawful.** CEQA (enacted 1970) mandates that local agencies like the town *must* assess environmental impacts for *discretionary* projects (e.g., anything needing a permit beyond basic ministerial approvals like single-family remodels). Failure to comply can lead to lawsuits, project delays, or invalid approvals—CEQA litigation is notoriously common in California, with over 5,000 cases filed since 1998, many in the Bay Area.
That said:
- If your town had **zero development** (rare for growing areas), you could handle it inhouse with basic training. - For low-volume/simple projects, exemptions or quick checklists might suffice without ATTACHMENT 4
consultants.
- But Los Gatos' volume (e.g., 50+ CEQA reviews/year based on similar Santa Clara towns) and complexity (e.g., hillside developments near creeks, traffic/GHG impacts in a high-density region) make full in-house capacity unrealistic without major budget hikes. **Bottom line**: The *contracts* aren't necessary (you could pick one firm or none), but the *expertise* is essential to avoid legal pitfalls. Courts have struck down approvals for inadequate CEQA docs, costing towns far more in delays/litigation (e.g., $1M+ per case). ### Alternatives: Other Ways to Handle CEQA/Environmental Reviews Yes, there are viable paths beyond hiring these specific firms. Many small California towns (pop. <50k) use a mix to keep costs down and flexibility up. Here's a comparison based on practices in similar jurisdictions (e.g., Santa Clara County, Atherton, Saratoga near Los Gatos):
| Approach | How It Works | Typical Cost (Applicant-Funded) | Pros | Cons | Examples in Small CA Towns |
|----------|--------------|---------------------------------|------|------|----------------------------| | **1. Multi-Firm On-Call Contracts (Like Proposed)** | Pre-qualify 2–4 consultants via RFP; assign per project based on expertise. Town oversees. | $5k–$50k per project (varies by complexity; town pays $0). | Expertise on-demand; competitive bidding keeps rates fair; no staff overload. | Admin time for RFPs/contracts; potential firm bias if not rotated. | Los Gatos (proposed), Palo Alto, Mountain View—handles 30–60 projects/year. | | **2. Single Retained Consultant** | Long-term contract with one firm for all reviews (e.g., 3–5 years). | $10k–$100k/year total (still applicant-paid). | Simpler management; potential volume discounts; consistent quality. | Less competition; risk of over-reliance if firm underperforms. | Saratoga (uses one firm for most CEQA); smaller towns like Portola Valley. | | **3. In-House Staff Only** | Hire/train full-time environmental planner (1–2 FTEs); use free state templates/checklists. | $150k–$250k/year salary/benefits (town-funded). | Full control; builds institutional knowledge; no external dependencies. | High upfront cost; staff burnout on complex EIRs; training gaps lead to errors. | Rare for small towns; Cupertino tries but supplements with consultants. |
| **4. Regional/County Shared Services** | Partner with Santa Clara County or a Council of Governments (COG) for pooled consultants/staff. | $2k–$20k per project (shared overhead). | Cost-sharing; access to county expertise (e.g., GIS tools); scalable for low-volume towns. | Slower turnaround; less customization to town policies. | Atherton/Menlo Park share with county; LAFCO encourages for efficiency. |
| **5. Streamlined Tools + Exemptions** | Maximize CEQA exemptions (e.g., categorical for infill housing); use OPR's free checklists/apps for simple reviews. Outsource only big projects. | $0–$10k per simple project. | Fast/cheap for 70% of cases; reduces consultant need by 50%. | Not viable for EIR-level projects (e.g., large subdivisions); still needs basic staff review. | Los Altos uses for SB 35 housing; state-wide via OPR's Site Check tool. | - **Hybrid Option**: Start with #5 for routine stuff (e.g., 60–80% of Los Gatos' projects qualify as "exempt" or "negative declaration"), then #1 or #4 for the rest. This cuts external reliance by 30–50%.
### Which Is the Best Way for a Town Like Los Gatos?
**The proposed multi-firm model (#1) is likely the *best overall* for Los Gatos—practical, cost-neutral, and compliant.** Why?
- **Fits the scale**: With 20–40 active projects (many CEQA-triggering, like the 10+ SB 9 apps listed on their site), a small planning team can't handle EIRs (which take 6–18 months) without help. Multi-firms ensure specialized skills (e.g., EMC for air quality, Raney for biology).
- **Risk mitigation**: CEQA lawsuits in Santa Clara County spiked 20% post-2020 (per OAG data); consultants reduce "deficient analysis" claims. - **Efficiency gains**: RFP process ensures fresh, qualified vendors; applicant pays, so no taxpayer hit.
- **Compared to alternatives**: In-house (#3) would cost $200k+ annually (vs. $0 here), and regional (#4) might delay approvals in a fast-paced area like Silicon Valley. Single-firm (#2) works but limits options.
If development slows (e.g., due to recessions), shift to #5 for streamlining—California's 2023 CEQA reforms (AB 819) make exemptions easier for housing. For even leaner ops, join a county "on-call list" like Santa Clara's, where pre-vetted consultants handle 70% of smalltown reviews. ### Recommendations Before Tuesday's Meeting
- **Support with tweaks**: Vote yes, but add language for annual reviews/rotations to avoid favoritism.
- **Ask at the meeting**: "How many projects will use these firms yearly? What's our exemption rate to minimize consultant use?"
- **Long-term**: Invest in staff training (e.g., UC Davis CEQA courses, ~$500/person) or OPR's free tools to handle more in-house.
If this ties back to broader town ops (e.g., integrating CEQA data into OpenGov for tracking), or you share more agenda details, I can refine this. What's your biggest concern—cost, transparency, or something else?
Lynley Kerr Hogan
Sent from Proton Mail for Android.
-------- Original Message --------
On Wednesday, 11/26/25 at 17:03 Lynley Kerr Hogan wrote:
Is it necessary and what are the alternatives ?
In my opinion there's always a better way than the most expensive one. Who is really benefiting by spending all this money on open gov? Great question.
The short answer: **No, using OpenGov (or any single commercial platform like Cartegraph/OpenGov, Tyler/Munis, Cityworks, Accela, etc.) is not absolutely necessary.** Many towns and cities run perfectly well without it — and some do it better, cheaper, or more transparently than others who pay six or seven figures for OpenGov.
Here’s a breakdown of the real alternatives and which approach tends to work “best” depending on your city’s size, budget, and goals. | Approach | How it works | Typical cost range (2025) | Who it works well for | Pros | Cons |
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 1. Full commercial suite (OpenGov, Cityworks, Infor, etc.) | One vendor, cloud ERP + asset management + budgeting + permitting | $150k–$2M+ initial + $100k–$500k/year | Mid-size to large cities (50k–500k+ pop) with complex needs and staff capacity | Turnkey, mobile apps, good support, frequent updates | Very expensive, vendor lock-in, annual fees rise, you own no code | | 2. Best-of-breed mix (pick separate tools) | Separate systems: Lucity or Brightly for assets, OpenGov or ClearGov just for budgeting, Neon or GovPilot for permitting, SeeClickFix/311 for requests | $40k–$250k/year total | Small to midsize (5k–150k pop) that want to avoid mega-contracts | Lower cost, choose exactly what you need, easier to switch later | More integrations to maintain, multiple logins for staff |
| 3. Home-grown or heavily customized open-source | Build on low-code platforms (Microsoft Power Platform, Appian, ServiceNow) or open-source (QKview, OpenCities, LibreCity) + GIS | $20k–$150k upfront + $10k–$80k/year | Tech-savvy cities or those with a strong internal IT/GIS team | Full ownership, exactly the workflows you want, no recurring SaaS bloat | Needs skilled staff, higher risk, slower feature updates |
| 4. Lean commercial core + Excel/GIS for the rest | Basic 311 system + Esri ArcGIS Online + Excel/SharePoint for asset registry | $15k–$60k/year | Very small towns (<25k pop) or budget-constrained cities | Extremely cheap, you already own most of it | Staff spends time wrangling spreadsheets, hard to scale | | 5. Regional cooperative or state-provided system | Join a county-wide, COG, or state platform (e.g., some states offer free asset modules to locals) | Often $0– $50k/year | Small towns inside cooperative regions | Near-zero cost, shared support | Limited customization, slower innovation |
### Which way is actually “best” in practice?
| City/Town Size | Most common successful path in 2025 | | -------------- | ----------------------------------- | | < 15,000 pop | Option 4 or 5 (Lean + GIS or regional co-op). Many are perfectly happy with Esri ArcGIS Online + a cheap 311 app and Excel. No need for OpenGov/Cartegraph. |
| 15,000–75,000 | Option 2 or 3 (Best-of-breed or low-code internal build). Cities like Burlington VT, Missoula MT, and Durham NH run very transparent, efficient operations this way at 20–40 % of OpenGov cost. |
| 75,000–300,000 | Option 1 or 2. This is the sweet spot where OpenGov/Cityworks often wins sales, but many peers (e.g., Boise ID, Asheville NC, Eugene OR) still mix tools and save hundreds of thousands per year. | | > 300,000 | Usually Option 1 (enterprise suite), because the staff capacity and complexity justify it. |
### Real-world examples of cities that skipped the big suite and thrive - **Chattanooga, TN** (~185k) – Built most functions on Microsoft Power Platform + Esri. Saved >$1M vs. OpenGov quotes.
- **Durham, NH** (~15k) – Uses free Esri Community maps + Google Sheets + SeeClickFix. Residents love the transparency; total software budget < $18k/year. - **Arlington, VA** (~240k) – Uses a mix: Cityworks for assets (pre-dates OpenGov acquisition), OpenGov only for budgeting/transparency, custom permitting. They avoided paying for the full OpenGov ERP. - **Montgomery County, MD** – Runs a shared asset platform for all 19 municipalities inside the county — many small towns pay almost nothing. ### So what should YOU do?
Ask these five questions before anyone tries to sell you the full OpenGov/Cartegraph package:
1. Do we actually have more than ~150 public works / parks / facilities staff who would all log in daily? → If no, you probably don’t need the Cadillac version.
2. Are we receiving big federal infrastructure grants that require sophisticated reporting? → Sometimes yes, that pushes you toward a commercial system.
3. Do we have at least one strong GIS analyst or IT person who enjoys building things? → If yes, lean or home-grown becomes very viable.
4. Are neighboring cities or our county already sharing a system? → Joining is almost always cheaper.
5. When the sales rep quotes you $400k–$900k/year, are citizens willing to pay the equivalent of $25–$80 per household for it? → Frame it that way to council; suddenly cheaper options look attractive.
Bottom line
OpenGov + ex-Cartegraph is excellent software, but it is a luxury purchase, not a necessity. Thousands of cities and towns deliver transparent, efficient asset management and operations without it — often at 10–30 % of the price — and many of them score higher on resident satisfaction surveys.
If you tell me your city/town size, rough budget situation, and current pain points, I can suggest the exact mix that tends to work best for places like yours.
Lynley Kerr Hogan
Sent from Proton Mail for Android.