those firms were actually selected.
I also want to point out I submitted prior written comments regarding contract services with the City on April 28, 2026 City Council discussion regarding the David L. Gates and Associates contract. During that Council discussion, Economic and Community Development Director Carmela Campbell reportedly explained that several prior firms had either gone out of business or were removed due to performance concerns, leaving Gates as effectively the only remaining consultant available to continue providing these services. If that is the practical basis for consultant retention through staff practices, it raises even greater concerns regarding competition, succession planning, consultant dependency, and the absence of a clearly documented re-solicitation process.
Additionally, although staff referenced RFQ submissions and consultant qualifications, the underlying Statements of Qualifications for the CEQA consultant pool are not meaningfully accessible to the public through the current agenda system. The City’s agenda packet format consolidates materials into a large single-file posting that is difficult to navigate, difficult to selectively download, and in some cases difficult to read clearly on standard devices. Given that individual consultant submissions may exceed 30 pages and contain critical information regarding qualifications, conflicts, staffing, methodologies, and prior project experience, the public is effectively unable to conduct meaningful independent review of the firms being approved. As a result, residents are being asked to approve and live with a long-term environmental consultant framework without practical visibility into the underlying materials supporting staff’s recommendations.
2. Internal Inconsistencies and Weak Governance Controls The RFQ states that the prequalified consultant list would have an initial term of four years.
However, the staff report and proposed resolution establish a five-year term.
That inconsistency alone warrants clarification before approval.
Additionally, the RFQ grants the City broad discretion to select firms from the list on an asneeded basis, including project-specific assignments, while providing almost no visible guardrails regarding:
- Rotation practices
- Mini-competition requirements
- Conflict-of-interest disclosures
- Repeat assignment concentration
- Public reporting requirements
- Recusal standards
- Consultant performance evaluations
This effectively creates a consultant gatekeeping structure with substantial administrative discretion but minimal public-facing accountability mechanisms.
3. CEQA Independence and Developer-Funded Review Concerns The staff report acknowledges that CEQA consultant costs are typically borne by project applicants or developers.
While that practice is common, it makes procedural independence even more important.
The agenda materials do not clearly explain:
- How consultant independence will be protected
- How project-specific conflicts will be screened
- Whether applicant communications are preserved in the administrative record - Whether repeat consultant relationships with developers are tracked - Whether firms with financial relationships to applicants will be restricted from peer review assignments
Environmental review only maintains public trust when the public can clearly understand who controls the analysis, who funds the analysis, and how neutrality is preserved.
4. Accessibility and Public Participation Gaps
The RFQ repeatedly references ADA-compliant deliverables and Title II accessibility expectations.
However, the City’s own agenda system continues to publish large consolidated packet files that make selective review difficult, particularly on mobile devices and assistive technologies.
The City should apply the same accessibility expectations to its own publication practices that it expects from environmental consultants.
In addition, the City should clarify how ADA compliance capability was evaluated during consultant selection and whether prior deliverables from these firms were reviewed for accessibility performance.
5. Long-Term Policy Implications
This item is more consequential than it appears. The selected firms may ultimately prepare or influence:
- Initial Studies
- Mitigated Negative Declarations
- Environmental Impact Reports
- Addenda
- Technical studies
- Peer review analyses
- Long-range planning environmental documents
These documents shape the legal defensibility of City decisions and materially affect development outcomes, infrastructure policy, transportation planning, environmental mitigation, and land use decisions. That level of influence deserves greater procedural transparency than what is currently reflected in the agenda materials.
Conclusion
Before approving this item, I respectfully request that the City Council direct staff to provide additional clarification regarding:
- Evaluation scoring and selection methodology
- Consultant conflict-of-interest screening
- Project assignment procedures
- Rotation and concentration controls
- ADA evaluation standards
- Annual reporting and oversight mechanisms
- The discrepancy between the RFQ’s four-year term and the proposed five-year term A brief public discussion would substantially strengthen the administrative record and improve public confidence in the integrity and independence of the City’s environmental review process.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Henry Soong