City Council - Regular Meeting

Mic, please.

Microphone, please.

I will continue on to our Pledge of Allegiance. Please join if you are able. Pledge allegiance to the flag

United Of States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Before the microphone was on, had mentioned that we met, started our meeting this evening at 05:15 in a closed session and we have nothing to report from that closed session. We are now going to continue on to our public forum. I'm going to read opening statement for public forum. This portion of the meeting is when members of the public can speak to the council on any item that is not on tonight's agenda.

If you would like to speak on a matter that is on the agenda, please reserve your comments for when that agenda item is called. The purpose of public forum is to provide the public with an opportunity to be heard. However, if your comments do not address a topic that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city or if your comments are disruptive, I will provide a warning. If the warning is not followed, I will direct the city clerk to cut off the microphone. Each speaker is usually given three minutes.

This time may be adjusted at my discretion based on the number of speakers or number of items on the agenda. If you ask questions during public forum or during public comment with respect to an agenda item, those questions will not be answered during your allotted time. However, a member of the council may, at conclusion of public comments, direct your questions to staff for response. Pursuant to state law, the council may not discuss issues brought up at public forum, but council members or staff may provide brief responses to statements made. I'm now looking at our city clerk, Anna Brown. Do we have any speakers either in chambers or online for public forum?

I have no speaker cards and there are no hands raised online.

Okay. We'll go ahead and close public forum and we will move on now to presentation. Tonight, we have a presentation for American Red Cross month and I'm going to go ahead and read the proclamation here. And it will be accepted by Catherine McCrow from the Red Cross and she will hopefully share a few comments with us after the proclamation. Okay.

City of Piedmont proclamation. Whereas March is American Red Cross month when we honor our neighbors who make its humanitarian mission possible in Piedmont. Every day, their acts of kindness change lives, bring relief, comfort, and hope when help can't wait. This compassionate spirit runs deep in our community, just as it has for one hundred and forty five years through the American Red Cross. And whereas today, volunteers, blood and platelet donors and supporters light the way during emergencies, whether it's delivering shelter, food and comfort after disasters, providing a safe lifesaving blood supply for patients facing conditions like cancer treatments, childbirth complications and traumatic injuries, assisting military members, veterans and their families with 20 fourseven global support or empowering individuals with skills like first aid and CPR that save lives.

And whereas with 2223 volunteers in Alameda County, the American Red Cross assisted or responded to 141 disasters assisting two eighty six families and through our Sound the Alarm program, the American Red Cross installed eleven oh four smoke alarms making 300 homes safer. And whereas Alameda County residents donated 33,104 units of life saving blood, hosted eleven sixty five blood drives and trained 18,914 citizens in first aid, CPR, AED and aquatics, as well as providing three twenty three case services to military members and their families and provided humanitarian aid internationally. And whereas those collective efforts are powerful reminder that the strength of our community lies in our shared commitment to one another. As we mark Red Cross month, let's celebrate our local heroes and resolve to continue lifting each other up so no one faces an emergency alone. Now therefore I, Betsy Smagle Anderson, Mayor of the City Of Piedmont, in recognition of its service and dedication to the community, proclaim the month of March 2026 as American Red Cross Month.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Catherine and I'm a volunteer with the American Red Cross. So firstly, it is a tremendous honor to accept recognizing March as Red Cross Month. So each March we celebrate the people who make our mission possible, our volunteers, blood donors, community partners and supporters who deliver comfort, care and hope to individuals and families on some of the toughest days of their lives. So this began eighty years ago when President Franklin Roosevelt issued the first National Red Cross Proclamation Month and it has continued ever since. So 90% of our workforce are volunteers.

So this is very much neighbors helping neighbors supported by generous contributions and blood donors. So we are always ready to welcome new volunteers as well. I've been with the Red Cross now for two years and it's been wonderful experience and yeah, really bolstered by the incredible community partners like you guys. So thank you very much for having us. So yeah, we step forward to provide safety, shelter and emotional support and recovery assistance.

So in Alameda County volunteers respond every eight minutes. So normally this is to house fires, which uproot families every day. But we also have quite a large number and increasingly unfortunately a large number of disasters, so largest day of scale disasters. So recently this was a multi family fire here in Oakland, but we also have really complex disasters that we respond to as well, things like storms, fires and floods. So on behalf of American Red Cross, thank you so much for this proclamation and your support.

We are tremendously grateful for the partnership of city staff, local agencies as we work together to build better prepared communities And it really does make like a lot of difference having gone to different sort of disasters nationwide. So thank you for this honor and for supporting our mission of preventing and alleviating human suffering in the face of emergencies. And yes, thank you.

So we're gonna meet you for a photo. And if we could have our Okay, we are now moving on to our consent calendar. We have one item on our consent calendar, it's approval of the minutes for the City Council meeting of 02/17/2026. I'm looking at my colleagues. Do we need to have any discussion on the minutes?

If not, I will entertain a motion on the consent calendar.

So moved.

Second. Okay. So moved by Council Member Ramsey, seconded by Council Member Plumier. Let's go ahead and vote. Aye. Consent calendar passes unanimously. We are now moving on to our regular agenda item number two. It's a public hearing consideration of adoption of an ordinance and resolutions related to the State of California revolving loan sorry, revolving fund loan application for the Phase six sanitary sewer rehabilitation project. And with that, I turn it over to our city minister.

Thank you, Mayor Anderson. Presenting this item tonight is John Wenger, our city engineer who is joining us via Zoom.

Great. Welcome, Mr. Wenger.

Took me a minute to get off mute there. Good evening, City Council members and I wanted to correct my title. Some of you may or may not know I officially retired at the December. And what I've agreed to do since that time is to assist in completing some of the some of the projects, particularly in Piedmont that have been important to the city, and the Phase six sewer is one of those. Congratulations

on your return.

And thank

you for hanging in there with us on these projects.

You betcha. And, along with us tonight is also Steve Vansong. Steve manages all engineering services out of, Coastline DCCM's, Santa Rosa office. And Steve has been doing capital projects for Piedmont for probably the last eight years, nine years. He's very, very familiar, and and I started integrating Steve, in weekly meetings that I've had with Daniel for probably the last eight months.

So he's he's very, very much up to speed. This is an item Steve's gonna gonna walk you through it, but bottom line is it's an important item that's associated with the consent decree. It's the next phase of our sewer project. So with that, Steve, if you don't mind, go ahead and take it away with the details.

Sure. Thank you, John. Good evening, everyone. As John mentioned, this so this is for the phase six sewer rehabilitation project. It's our next sewer rehab project as part of our consent decree efforts to rehabilitate the city's sanitary sewer system.

This tonight in front of you is a consideration for an adoption of an ordinance and resolution with respect to a reimbursement of our pending SRF loan for the project. So SRF is the state revolving fund that is going to be used to finance the construction and the inspection as well as the engineering of the project. The application has been ongoing with the state for some time. This particular project and the SRF loan have been brought to council before a number of occasions with respect to authorizing the loan application, the approval of the environmental documents. So this one is the next step as we near our final approval or agreement for the new loan.

So phase six sewer, for those that don't know, is quite a large project and includes about 17,000 lineal feet of sewer rehabilitation via pipe bursting or liner. Again, we're pending funding with SRF. They've been asking for some more information on the technical side, but we're nearing the homestretch as far as the application. The construction bid documents are at a 100% bid excuse me, design level, and they're anticipated to be finalized in June to be ready for bid in preparation of the loan agreement being executed with the state. Once the bids come in I'm sorry, once the agreement is in place and the bid documents are completed, we'll advertise for public bidding sometime in July is the anticipated schedule.

Once the bids are received, we'll have to go back to the state to finalize the budgetary number. We won't know until the anticipated construction costs are finalized until our bids have come in and brought to the city council. If the construction contract is approved, we're anticipating construction starting sometime this fall with final completion in October 2027, so the following year. So the construction duration is anticipated at this time to be about 11:11.5 months. I think that's my quick rundown. Happy to answer any questions. So John, if you had anything to add?

Yes, I do have something to add because I anticipate that council members may ask this question, but there's been a discussion in the past as far as the percentage of our system that's complete, you know, where we're at kind of in the overall scheme of things. And before phase six has started, there's been a total of 207,937 lineal feet of our sewer system that has been rehabilitated. The the overall footage in the system is about 256,845. So prior to Phase six starting, we've completed 80.95% of rehabilitating our entire collection system. When Phase six is done, that will bring us it's actually slightly different than what's in the staff report.

It's going to bring us to 87.8% of our system being rehabilitated. And then Phase seven, which is already currently under design, we anticipate to start that within the next couple of years. And that will conclude, all remaining, repair, rehabilitation in our system, which would bring us to a 100% complete. So I I just wanted to mention that because, when I ran the numbers, they were just slightly different than what was shown in the staff report. So that concludes the presentation.

Great. Thank you. Okay. I appreciate that information and that context because I do recall that we have inquired in the past about kind of where we are in terms of the whole project. It does feel like we've been in Phase six for a long time. So I do feel a little bit like Monty Python running towards the castle for those of you who have seen that movie. Any questions from my colleagues at this time?

Yes.

John, could you so we have this state revolving fund request, we have the dollar amount, we have design documents done for that and a cost. Could you talk about maybe high level in general from Phases one through five, how what's our track record on hitting all of those construction costs and completion up until now? Did we is there something we learned that's in this Phase six? Or are we doing pretty good? I don't need exact numbers, just how have the projects gone so far?

We have been doing pretty good. Phases one through three, I wasn't involved in because that was before my time as city engineer. But I have been, involved in phases four and five, and I do know some of the other phases prior to when I became city engineer. Almost all of it has been funded through the state revolving fund program. And I know when I became city engineer, there was the finance director at the time had run, I I wanna say it was like a fifty year, spreadsheet showing, funding of each phase and debt service and payments, etcetera.

And I can tell you that for the most part, at least for phases four and five, those bids came in slightly under what was estimated and which was great news because we didn't end up having to borrow as much as we anticipated. The way Phase six is structured right now, we have something called a bid alternate, which means it will give us some flexibility depending upon what bids we receive for the base bid that we have the ability to award a little bit more. The other thing I will tell you that we did learn in the most recent Phase five was some of the agencies, in particular PG and E and East Bay MUD, have changed, some of the requirements that they have when agencies come in and use a technique, as Steve mentioned, called pipe bursting. And if you're within a certain amount of footage of their facilities, they will either ask that you not use that or that you monitor it. And it's because when when, that kind of rehabilitation takes place, they actually burst the existing pipe and then they pull a new pipe through it.

So it has a little bit of deformation around the outside of the pipe and both East Bay Mudd and PG and E get pretty concerned about if we're too close to their facilities, will it have an impact on them. So we were able to implement that with the design in Phase six. The design engineer has taken that into account and due to that, we're pretty confident that we're going to be able to squeeze in all of the bid alternate and still come in under what we're anticipating as far as the state revolving fund loan.

Great. Thank you. I do have one more if I can go off script just a little bit. Absolutely.

Okay.

Great.

John, I'd like to, thank you for your service too for to the City of Piedmont. You are a consultant, but you're actually a very trusted advisor and your work over the years have been very valuable. So I couldn't let you go without saying that.

Thank you very much. And I'll tell you after seventeen years of being the City Engineer, I very much feel like I've been a staff member at the city. And and it's been an absolute honor and privilege to be able to serve the city. And I've mentioned this to to Daniel and Rosanna, but Piedmont by far and away in my entire career has been, my favorite place to be able to work. So thank you. I

appreciate All right.

Yes, that's great. And now you're no longer employed for Coastline, you can say that, right?

That's awesome. Thank you so much. That's great. Thank you. Appreciate you going off script and echo those remarks as well. Tom, we're to miss you. So I'm glad you're actually not gone quite yet. You So for staying question about the state revolving fund program. Could you speak a little bit to that financing and kind of what the interest rates are and how that works for the city?

Yes, state revolving fund typically runs half of what the bond market is. So it's of late, it's probably going to be somewhere in high 2% range, maybe low 3% range. I haven't gotten those final numbers and I'm not sure whether Keyron knows any different than that. But it's quite a good deal and the payback is over quite a number of years. So what ends up happening is the debt service on that is well worth borrowing those funds and it does give us the ability to complete bigger chunks of rehabilitation.

I think as a council knows, the consent decree mandates that we rehabilitate a little over 3,000 feet a year. And after COVID, we got behind a little bit on that, but we've made meetings with the EPA folks and the consent decree folks have explained kind of the philosophy in what we're going to do with Phase six and seven, because those are much larger chunks of lineal feet of sewage being rehabbed. And they they're very open and appreciative of us letting them know that. But the bottom line with the SRF funding, it's a significant reduction in what you can go and borrow privately and it does allow us to get a lot done.

Yes, for sure. Okay, great. Good to know. And then my other question has to do with in terms of disruption to neighbors when the work is being done. If you could talk a little bit about how disruptive or not this type of work is on the when we're working on various streets and if we ever try to couple this work with other work that we have to do on those streets.

Sure. Steve, I'll take a shot at this. And if you have anything to add, please add to it. Sure. There's two methods that we're going to to employ in phase six.

One is called cast in place pipe or cured in place pipe, excuse me. And we just completed a bunch of that with the truss pipe project that we just completed in December. But bottom line in that type of project, they they insert a flexible sock basically inside the existing pipe. They they heat it up and activate some resin and bottom line is you get an entire new inside lining of the pipe. The other method that we're going to use in phase six is going to be pipe bursting and that literally bursts the pipe and pulls a new pipe right behind it.

In both of those methods, there is not large trenching in the street for the most part. The the cured in place pipe, as a matter of fact, they could not only do the mainline, but they could do some work up in laterals. We anticipate that there's going to be some disruption with respect to streets where we're going to have to reconstruct the laterals. But the mainline portion of it, we don't expect much in the way of disruption. So we're doing what we can to minimize it, which also brings down the cost a little bit rather than having to dig all the lines up and replace them.

So there will most definitely be some disruptions and it'll be neighborhood by neighborhood and certainly we're going to require contractors to notify those residents well in advance of when they're going to be there. But it's mainly going to be on replacing the lower portion of the sewer laterals within the roadway.

Got you. And for some, I know there is a requirement now when you sell a property in Piedmont, right, you have to have the sewer lateral replaced. Could you speak a little bit to how that works with this project?

Yes. So the East Bay Mud actually operates a program that the city has implemented over over a lot of years. And it's been when resident sells, they have to go in and do investigations into the condition of their sewer lateral. And if the sewer lateral is in, has either been replaced already or is in good shape, they can get a certificate that lasts, I believe, it's it's ten years. But if when they sell they find that the sewer lateral has been in poor condition, then they're required to replace it either as part of the sale or before the sale.

And what we will do as we go along with phase six project, if there have been any sewer laterals that have already been replaced, certainly we're not going to replace those, we'll just reconnect them. But if there if the older sewer laterals are there that have not been rehabilitated, We're going to be replacing the portion of the sewer main, and this is consistent with the previous phases. We're to be replacing the portion of the sewer lateral, excuse me, from the main to the sidewalk. And if there's not sidewalk there, it'll be the back of curb.

Okay. So that effectively reduces the amount that a homeowner might have to replace Correct. Okay. That's good news. That's good news for homeowners. Okay, any other questions? Okay, Councilmember Plumier.

I have one question which is in looking at the maps, the areas are very piecemeal and I'm curious how you have determined which sections of sewer to replace in each of the phases.

So it started off when the program started off, there's been a lot of video inspections of the inside of the sewer pipes by both city crews and initially it was East Bay Mud Cruise. But we're required to video the inside of the sewer lines to check on their condition. I think we have to get through the entire system. I believe it's once every five years. And so what's happened in prior phases is we have rehabilitated for the most part kind of the worst case scenario, of sewer mains.

And so that it's it's been worst case first with respect to rehabilitation. There have been some locations and and a lot of them, you will probably see in the phase seven project that, should be before the council within about a year or so. There have been some very difficult, locations that have been kind of saved for last. And and a lot of it has to do with, areas that are very difficult to access. So a lot of that is going to be included, within the phase seven project for those locations that are still remaining.

But it's pretty much been a worse we want to replace the worst pipelines first.

Thank you. Okay, great. That's all really good information to have. We should probably ask at this point for if there's any public comment on this agenda item number two.

I see none in the audience and there are none online.

Okay. Closing public comment bringing it back to counsel. This is an action item. Do we need at this point to have any continued discussion before we entertain a motion? My understanding from the staff report is we need to have separate motions.

Is that right?

Mary, the maker of the motion can refer to the each of the three action items in one go, and that would suffice. Okay.

I'll make the motion if there's no

more discussion.

Okay. I move to, number one, approve the introduction of first reading of ordinance approving the borrowing of funds through agreements with the state water resources control board. Also, to approve the reimbursement resolution regarding the city's intent to finance project c and expectation of reimbursement for project costs from the state of California. And item three, approve the resolution dedicating a source of revenue for repayment of the state revolving fund loan in accordance with the state water resources control board's requirements.

Second. Okay. Motion has been made by Councilman Ramsey, seconded by Councilmember Plumier. Let's go ahead and vote. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much for being here. Steve and John appreciate all the detail and your studious work on moving this project forward. Thank you.

Welcome. Thank you. Thank you.

And John, hope we see you again.

You bet. Thank you.

Take care. Bye. Okay. We have closed out a regular agenda item number two. We are moving now to agenda item number three, which is an informational report, not an action item regarding request for qualifications and RFQ approaches for one or more city owned parcels located within the Moraga Canyon specific plan area. Parcel numbers are listed on the agenda. And I'm going to turn it over to our city administrator.

Thank you, Mayor Anderson. This is an item that we've been working on for quite some time and returning to you this evening is an item that we're checking in with you on providing both an update on the status of our solicitation as well as confirming the direction that we're headed, with the solicitation. So, Director Jackson will be outlining for you, the status of our effort and we're hoping to receive, some feedback from you this evening. So with that, I'll hand over to our planning and building director.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor Smigel Anderson and council members Ramsey and Plymier. I'm Kevin Jackson, planning and building director. First, I'd like to recognize senior planner, Pierce McDonald, who has been leading the specific plan project and Jason Moody of economic planning systems, the consultant assisting with the preparation of an RFQ. Both are available to help answer questions and also joining us is Karen Murphy from the city attorney's office who specializes in housing.

Staff is recommending that the city issue a request for qualifications or an RFQ to solicit interest from developers for multifamily housing in the Moroccan Canyon specific plan study area. Staff is seeking confirmation from the city council that this approach meets its objective. We're recommending an RFQ rather than a request for proposals because we expect a greater number of responses as compared to an RFP. That's because the time, effort, and cost for a developer to prepare a request for proposal would likely limit the number of willing that are willing to submit responses and all the time and effort for that. So with an RFQ the city can focus on the quality and track record of potential development partners and also with an RFQ the city preserves more local control and would have a greater role in the design and features of potential development project.

And that would be through negotiations once a developer has been selected with whom we want to negotiate. On pages four and five of the agenda report, we list eight parts of the RFQ that we're recommending in which the city will provide information to developers and describe the information we seek from developers. The developers will need to describe their team and their experience with similar developments. Developers will need to provide the basic concepts of a plan, I. E.

The number of housing units, both market rate and affordable, the general the general building types, the amenities, the methods of financing, and how the project will comply with the specific plan vision. And in addition, there are three specific topic areas of the rf q that staff is highlighting for council's attention. One, staff is recommending that the developer responses are ranked under four areas of qualification. Those would be project team experience, financial capability, project understanding, phasing and approach, and fourth, overall completeness, accuracy, and quality of the submission. Number two, the second specific topic area is the description of the city owned land and the city's intended lease and or sale of the land to the selected developer or development team.

Just wanna confirm, as in our past discussions and study sessions, that the land would be conveyed. And three, the third specific topic area is the membership of a committee established to review developer qualifications and make a recommendation to the city council. Staff is recommending a committee consisting of senior city staff and subject matter experts in one or more of the following fields, real estate, finance, economics, law, housing development, land use planning, and architecture, and our thought is to use consultants with that expertise. Finally, staff is recommending a ninety day period to allow developers to prepare and submit their qualifications in response to the RFQ. During this period, staff would provide a tour of the site and host a pre proposal meeting to answer questions and enable market rate and affordable housing developers to form partnerships.

The review committee would evaluate the responses, hold interviews, check references, and ultimately make a recommendation to the city council. And in conclusion, staff is recommending the issuance of a request for qualifications and seeks your confirmation that this approach is favored because it is expected to gain the most responses and provide the city with greater control and flexibility over the development process. And with that I'll be happy to answer any questions if we can.

Great. Okay. Turning to my colleagues at this time. I know council member Ramsey has some questions. I have some questions.

Yeah. Thank you for that overview and for the report. Let's see, I'll start with

the Microphone please.

Microphone. You.

I'll start with the review committee membership and process and talking about SMEs on that. Is this typical of cities? Do other cities do review process like this? Is this unique or?

I think this is fairly typical. I mean, Karen can weigh in and also Jason if he has any insight as that. But that is my understanding, yes.

Yes, I agree that this would be typical to have a committee of staff and then consultants that are specifically versed in areas that the city would like the review on.

Okay.

That's good. Let's see, did I do like your this is more of a comment, I can't make this a question. Dang it. Anyways, I am going to do it. So you talk a lot about the RFQ versus RFP request for proposal or request for qualifications.

And you talk about it in terms of a bigger net, right? More people would do that. It's I was wondering if you would agree that in RFQ, then it focuses more on setting up a partnership and a partnership first, right? Or as opposed to an RFP that is starts right off with a transactional relationship first and that an RFQ might invite more partnership opportunities as opposed to a RFQ going into an RFQ right away that makes everything transactional. I wonder if that's a do you think that's a benefit to going in an RFQ approach too?

Well, I think the one of the big benefits as we expect would be that we get more responses from an RFQ because one of the consistent messages we we meaning senior planner Pierce McDonnell and I, when we were talking to people in the development field, really talked about in their decision making on whether to respond to a request for proposals or qualifications is whether they have the time and money and effort to put into it, particularly depending on how the potential revenue that they would or possibilities that they would get from that project. Meaning depending on the size of the project, a larger project potentially would have more benefits to them. Ours is not that large. And so we thought that engaging developers, evaluating based on their qualifications but also learning from them in their submissions that they agree that they could fulfill the vision we have in the specific plan and give us some basic elements of how they think they are doing that either from where they are citing it, what kind of building types, the number of units they have in mind, so that we can confirm that in this process as well.

Rather than an RFP, get most, not a fully baked, but a much more baked design and location site planning as part of that, which might be would be expected a little more difficult to negotiate away from because they've already invested a lot in that design and proposal. And so I think it gives us a little better edge to select a developer that we have a lot of confidence in that will follow through and that we can get a project from and really kind of negotiate those fine details during that process.

So it's developed together as opposed to Correct. Kind of independently. Great.

Can I ask a follow-up question So to if you're in your you have a exclusive negotiating agreement with the the top developer that you've chosen? Is there any heightened risk to the city because all those project details are not laid out already? Or is that all part of the negotiating process and what happens? This is a second this is a two part question again, I guess. What happens then if those negotiations fail?

Yes, and to answer the first part of the question, the exclusive negotiating agreement would set forth a certain term for the city and the chosen developer to meet and try to come to agreement on a term sheet to move forward. It wouldn't commit either party to the agreement, but it would set forth more the process for negotiation. So also if certain time frames are not met or terms are not agreed upon, then the agreement would terminate And then the city could determine how to proceed, which could be proceeding with another developer.

I could go

on. You know, I do have a question, just so we understand the ask too more clearly, is to ask for criteria also, are you asking us to weight the criteria too or No. Edit? No.

Not necessarily. No. We're this it's really to really, we're asking you if you find anything way off, and let us know if, no, we don't agree with this approach or this aspect. So really, we think we've got a pretty well fleshed out concept on how to issue a request for qualifications, what that will result in, and how that is in the best interest of the city. But if council in reviewing this identifies something that you think is not meets your vision and your goals, let us know.

So we will in the RFQ or separately figure out how we are going to rank and evaluate those. Basic the four basic categories of qualifications would be those in the staff report that I mentioned.

Okay. And then one question on one of the criteria, financial capability. So that's financial capability of the team that is presenting their qualifications. Is there also a financial aspect in terms of cost or benefit to the city too that the proposal might that the response might present?

Largely, we're looking for their qualifications in being able to finance projects like the one we envision. So their history and their other strengths in that regards are really what we're looking at. There is a a portion of the RFQ that ask for basically the basics of a a proposal that includes not just the housing, but the other infrastructure, whether that be they say, oh, we can do this ourselves, which is doubtful, or that they say we envision partnership with the city to seek grant funds and other financing for those roadway and infrastructure improvements that are going to need to be done. So that's really what we're looking for, not necessarily putting numbers to that, but asking them to tell us how they think the best approach is.

Or could that financial question then maybe, could that come in terms of say their experience? Like what is their, you know, for the cities that they've operated in, has been the cost or benefit or both?

That is definitely what we will be looking at. We're asking for past examples of their work. And so we'll look at those, we'll contact the staff in those jurisdictions to see how the relationship was, whether everybody followed through, you know, and so we're looking to fully vet the developers and their qualifications.

Okay. And then one more clarification. So there's a line in here asking us to comment on the line here transfer and or lease of city owned land. Is that could you clarify what the RFQ is actually asking? Is it asking the potential team what's your best proposal or a cost benefit analysis of either? What is the ask there?

So really, so we in in the the RFQ, we will be providing information to the developers so that they can prepare a response. And so one of that pieces of information is how the city envisions the disposition of the land to occur. And from our previous conversations and study sessions with council, it's been mentioned that the most likely scenario for the market rate housing is for the sale of land because the penciling out of for sale units would require that. Whereas for the affordable housing, it could go either with a long term land lease or a sale. And so what we wanted to get confirmation on you that that thinking is correct from your point of view, and then two, seek the developers response on what what they want.

Right? They are the ones who putting together their financing and their numbers and so if they could go either way, they let us know or say we are only interested in doing this project if the land is sold fee simple or whatnot. So that's the two pronged part of this.

So are you asking for us to prescribe an approach or

No, just to confirm that in fact our previous conversations with you provide clarity that yes, you are willing to either sale or do a long term lease for the two different types of development.

And it depends on the sales price.

Yes, I mean there's big asterisk with that.

Right. It does. So that's not

before us.

Right. And I had a follow-up question to that which is that if we're only talking about the 4.78 acres, we're not talking about all of Moraga Canyon, we're just talking about the amount that is identified by the developer which is with respect to our Moraga Canyon specific plan of less than five acres, is that correct?

That's correct. Okay. Go

ahead.

I just wanted to clarify that also includes the point three one acres for the two single family lots or no?

This is not seeking development of those two parcels. Okay.

Okay. They're identified in the it's confusing to me. Oh, maybe that's just in the background, not Yeah.

Specific. Okay. Got it. Okay.

So I had some questions and we can certainly make colleagues can jump in if they have more questions as we're talking here. But in terms of the project team experience, are we limiting it to California? And the reason I ask is because California building code is complicated and these projects are seems somewhat unique to the State of California in terms of what the requirements might be. So I don't know who I should be asking that question to, but are we really looking for developers who are experienced in California?

I think we are looking for I don't know that we want to limit ourselves to that, but we are certainly not intending to send the or issue the RFQ to people outside, really outside of the Bay Area or California with that knowledge. And I think that would certainly come into play in the evaluation of the proposals as their experience in California and particularly the Bay Area.

Great. And same with the the local the sorry, the consultants that we would be looking on our to participate in our review committee. Those would also be local folks, right, who would be familiar with? Correct. Okay. Great. Okay. Terrific. And then okay. So we talked about it before this idea of infrastructure costs. So the idea is that a response to the RFQ would not necessarily have an answer but would potentially have an approach to how the developer or developer team is going to be is thinking about those infrastructure costs, is that correct?

Correct.

And then if counsel first if we decide to proceed with RFQ process as outlined here, what is the next chance for public participation in this process?

That would be when a recommendation for a developer comes forward to you, generally at the same time, we bring an exclusive negotiation agreement with you for that. So we the committee recommends the developer, they've agreed to the terms of an exclusive negotiation agreement, and we bring that to counsel together. That would be at a public hearing. Subsequent to that, negotiations under that agreement negotiating agreement would occur in closed session. At the end of that, once the city and the developer have worked through the details, there would be a disposition and development agreement and then about the same time permit applications in.

Okay, thank you.

So there are many steps to this process. The next public step in an open session would be the ENA, exclusive negotiating agreement.

Okay. Any other questions before we go to public comment or clarifications? Okay. Let's go ahead and go to public comment. First, let's take any public comment in the room.

I have one speaker card right now for Andy Madera.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Madera for being here with us. Is the little green light on the microphone?

Yeah, I'm all set. Good evening everybody, Annie Madera. First, I wanted to just say congratulations on completing the call center. I went and did the tour, it's fabulous, it's long overdue upgrading the facilities that really we need for residents to be served properly and frankly also for staff to be able to do their job like the bathroom, etcetera. So congratulations on that.

And super happy that we're at this point, we still have a long way to go but step at a time. So just sort of broad comments on the process of on what you're proposing. I do agree with the queue process rather than the queue process. I have responded to a bunch of these, I've won some of them and you know, RFQ RFPs a little bit of a term of art. I think the queue gives you more flexibility upon how there we go, upon how you enter.

I keep looking at the clock, I'm like, oh, I'm getting all kinds of time here. About how you are able to enter into negotiation with the developer or development team that you choose. But that I would be really clear about what it is that you're asking for. The specific plan is big, not necessarily in geography, but it really includes a lot of stuff and includes lot of public improvements and you got to be clear about what it is that you're asking this developer team to propose on. They're proposing on the housing.

Well, what else are you asking them to propose on? And it is not clear if you're just looking at the specific plan and say, well has to comply. I think they need more direction than that. If they have less direction, that is when you're going to scare people off because they're not going to want to have this sort of very, very vague box. They don't know where the sides are and they're going to spend a bunch of time applying for something that they don't really know how you're going to evaluate because you don't know what you want.

I would also make sure that you're asking for site plans and elevations. It sounds P ish but it happens in queues. I would ask for the full design team as well because they do have

a

big impact upon what happens. You should allow multiple design teams to be a multiple teams. I don't think that should be a problem but ask for the design team. And as you go into this, I think you should think about not just the development, but that you were really seeking a long term partner. So, somebody that is going to be with you for decades, particularly if it's on the affordable side.

So it is not just can they build it, but it's who's going to come, how are we going to have a relationship between the residents, the management company and you over time. And then depending upon the population that is going to be served, how services will be provided to the site and to the larger community. Selection committee, I've seen processes be like this where they use a selection committee. I would encourage you to have people at residents be on that selection committee. There is all the resid all the you know, expertise in the house, have you know, former undersecretaries of HUD and all kinds of things like that.

So I think there's there's plenty of help here for you. And then finally, would really when you're picking somebody, don't pick the person that promises everything because what happens is you get in the danger of retrading. There are folks that will basically tell you what you want to hear and then when we get into negotiation, tell you that you can't have it and we don't want this thing to be dragging on longer We and want to get to

a point so where we're much. Really appreciate it. And if you want to send those comments to us in email that would be most welcome. Thank you very much. Okay, next speaker please.

Carol Colante.

I'm just going to piggyback

on a few things that Andy mentioned and say I too am thrilled that we're at this place and that we're actually talking about getting development help in here. I too think there's a fine line between an RFQ and RFP in order to get the actual information you need and want to be making the decision about whether this is a developer that you really feel that you can work with. And Andy's comments about retrading and falling in love with you know they promise everything but they can't deliver and want you to pay for it all. And I've been involved in a lot of RFPs and sometimes won, sometimes didn't and sometimes when you didn't is because you were too honest about what you could and couldn't actually accomplish. And they went with somebody who promised the moon and then couldn't deliver.

And a year later, they're back out. Look at Concord Naval Air Station. I know it's a lot more complicated than what you're talking about, but like I think they're on you know year 20 and they're on a new exclusive negotiating agreement. So you know it's I don't know whether it's year 20, I'm making up the number, but it's a lot of years. So, with that said, I think you've done a pretty good job from just a staff report of asking for a lot more than some RFQs would ask for.

I would suggest you go maybe one or two steps deeper than it seems like you've been thinking, and that is I would really when you're getting their vision and you're getting their ideas, I would also get their instinct on what is the residual land value under certain assumptions. Okay, so they can say, well if all the infrastructure is paid by blah, blah, blah, blah, then the land residual would be X. You know, mean you can they can not give you like that the answer, but they can give you the way they're thinking about it and the cost implications to you of the way they're thinking about. Then you can have a negotiation with them about that when the time comes. I also would not get wedded to just coming through the RFQ process.

I think it's great to filter out the stuff that really isn't going to be right. But maybe you have those interview processes and go the next step deeper with the selection committee with more than one. Not forever but just to get a little deeper so you don' get too stuck. The last thing I want to say is due diligence references from other cities is great you need bank references you need equity references, where does their money come from, what defaults have they had. I mean you need to do a really good

Great. Thank you so much.

Proctology exam on

these guys. Thank you so much. Again, I any email comments that you want to share in terms of thoughts about this process. And that goes for folks at home who might be watching. Absolutely email us your thoughts and advice. We accept it all. Any other public comments in the room or online?

I see no other comments in the chambers,

and there are no online.

Great. I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment and I will bring it back to counsel and I'm gonna ask a couple of the questions that were brought up. I thought they both speakers raised some really good points for us to think about. One of them is how do do in this process we get at that unearth that over promising and under delivering, like how would that come out through this process?

So I think one of the reasons we really heavily weighed the benefits of the RFQ is because the RFP pathway was heavily oriented towards conceptual design plans and really shiny pretty objects that could draw the city toward a particular bid package. And what we're trying to do is really think long and hard about the team's track record and past experience so that the projects themselves are able to demonstrate what a team can deliver, not a concept that may or may not be realized for Piedmont. So I think those are fantastic points and we're going to be thinking through ways to ground the information that we're validating in these teams in the best ways we can. If you want to add to that further, Kenneth?

No, that was pretty thorough. I would say the comments we heard from Ms. Galante and Mr. Maderas are all well taken and all very good. We have discussed some of that in our own internal meetings, but it's valuable to hear it again.

The concept of asking applicants to explain their thinking on residual land value, mean that is really intriguing to me because I do think that would give insight into how they're thinking about the financing piece of this. And then also the question of like how much can we dig into where is the money coming from, because there might be certain sources of investment that we don't necessarily want to be aligned with. So how much can we dig into that in this process? Who wants to take that one? I'm going

to ask Jason to come up and talk about that.

We will certainly ask them their sources of financing and most reputable developers will have bank relationships and lenders who they will be a primary source of funding and they'll also have equity investors and they'll have a track record of and they'll also have assets that they can pledge to secure loans. So all that stuff will come. Where that money comes from before then is a really complicated chain. So it's really hard to go to down that but we just want to make sure they have a track record of financing projects. Some of them have funds that they've worked with that continually provide them money for other investments.

So we can look at all that. Who funds those funds? I mean you know you can keep going down further and further and you might not know. So I wouldn't I guess it's gonna be hard to like find out where the money is ultimately coming from. We just wanna make sure that they are well financed and that they have assets and and strong credit records and all that stuff and not defaults that don't have defaults and are essentially credit worthy developers.

Do my colleagues have any other questions arising from the public comment or in in our discussion that you want to ask at this time. Go ahead.

The one question that I had was about the talking about making a smaller package out of the specific plan so that it's more digestible for a developer and if that was something that you had talked about internally and that you feel able to effectively do.

Yeah, we talked about that internally and I think we're have a good idea of what we want to ask the developers as far as plans. I think the comments Mr. Madera made are well taken. I think there's a good balance in there that we can zero in on. That doesn't overburden them and doesn't scare anybody off from making submission or response, but isn't that burdensome as well. I think really definitely the asking for a lot of detail on the design team is valuable.

Okay. Good. All right. So I just want to circle back with respect to public participation because it is always very helpful to have members of the public come and comment at our meetings on this. So I just wanted to talk about kind of where we are in this process again. We have approved as a counsel the Morgan Stanley specific plan. We are now on the stage and we're considering an RFQ to go out and find partners to partner with. And then Karen Murphy who is our subject matter expert in this could talk a little bit more about where we go from here.

So as was noted earlier, the next step in terms of the public participation will be the ultimate exclusive negotiating agreement and the decision to go with a specific developer. And that exclusive negotiating agreement would typically have a certain timeframe for which the city would negotiate with the developer and to see whether a deal could be reached. And during that time, there would be check ins and ultimately a term sheet, I would envision that would be approved by the council at a public meeting. So the public would be informed of what the ultimate agreement would be. And then after that, then there will be your more specific agreements drafted with check ins with the council as appropriate as we go through that process.

And then of course, the agreements, land use approvals, all of that would be before both the Planning Commission in terms of the land use approvals and development agreement, as well as the council. So again, it's a long process with check ins throughout and the public will have the chance to comment.

Because I know one of the things that we've heard from our public is kind of this where would the housing be cited and so when in this process would that kind of come back to the council?

Yeah, that's a great question and certainly with choosing developer, they will have a preferred approach. So there might be at that point, we might know that or it might be a developer that wants to pursue the alternate sites, so that might also continue to be negotiated. Think it will depend on what responses we get to the RFQ and if anyone has any other thoughts on that.

I think we should know fairly early in the process what the intended site would be. And

then we've discussed a lot about the A1 funds that are sitting waiting for us to potentially use them. Could someone speak to our timing with this process and what we need to have in place to qualify for those funds?

Sure. I'll ask senior planner, Pierce McDonald. She's been the one who's in conversation with HCD all the time on this.

Great. Thank you. Thank

you very much, director Jax.

And maybe if you could explain what those funds are.

Yes. Sure. I'm happy to. So measure a one is a countywide initiative that was approved in 2016, and the city has free has submitted multiple requests to extend our deadlines so that we

can

access our local allocation of the measure a one funding and it's approximately $2.12200000.0 dollars. It's a it's a loan. It's a loan to the developer, but the city has to be a partner to the application to use the funding. And so our last request to extend the deadline was approved by the board and it's for December 2026.

So what do we have to have in place by December 2026 in order to qualify for those funds at this time?

I believe the council would need to feel confident that this was the development partner we wanted to move forward with. We would need to submit they call it an over the counter application to county staff. And then later in 2027, that loan agreement and all of the the details would be worked out and brought before the county board of supervisors.

Okay. Great.

Go ahead. I have

a follow-up to that. So if for some reason we don't have that person and aren't don't have a finalized agreement, is it possible to get another extension, especially given how far along we've come in the process?

I can't it's a great question. I have not talked to county staff about that yet, so I don't know personally how open they would be to that. I think that, you know, from my own point of view, this is an amazing project, amazing opportunity. So perhaps city administrator can answer.

I think we'll do our best to secure the opportunity. The last conversation we had with the county, we were advised that we were the last of two jurisdictions to participate. They were absolutely oriented to ensuring every jurisdiction had an opportunity to deliver a project. So I think the orientation is that every city, every community was part of the regional housing solutions that were being delivered. They did ask that this was the final extension, but I imagine there may be room for reconsideration.

Hard to say what the outcome of that would be, but the orientation in general was to ensure that each of us within Alameda County were participating.

That's hopeful and hopefully won't be necessary.

And then my follow-up comment is on the current timeline that we're on, is feasible to meet this deadline?

I think their expectation was that we were negotiating with developer. So I think we're on the path to that occurring.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilman Ramsey, do you have a comment or question?

Yeah, I was going to, just one follow-up on that. So, we don't need a contract in place, we just need the negotiating agreement in place, correct?

That's correct. One of the key features of A1 funding is serving a very specific population. So until our developer discussions evolve to a certain point, we don't know the exact population or populations funding that the affordable housing will braid funding to accomplish. So it's kind of a little bit of what comes first. Ideally, all of the timing will converge in a beautiful way that's elegant and ideal.

Okay. I'm sure that'll happen.

Yeah. It's just manifest optimism. Okay. This is not an action item. This is really you were seeking our input. Have we delivered the input that you sought? Or would you like some additional input from this body?

I think council and communities input has excellent tonight. Okay. We really appreciate the additional feedback.

Great. Okay. I'm looking at our special legal counsel. Do you need any other input from us at this time?

Thank you.

Really appreciate your efforts on our behalf and then this heavy lift continues. But this get this is an exciting phase and moving the ball forward in a great way. So we can all be excited about the next steps. So thank you so much for bringing this to council and for keeping us informed. And we are gonna go ahead and close out that agenda item. And that was our last regular agenda item. So now we're moving on to announcements, reports from council members, and discussion of future agenda items. Do you have any announcements or reports at this time?

I have one announcement which is just a save the date. Actually, I have two announcements. One is a save the date for our design and sustainability awards gala, which will be on April 15 at the community center.

It's a great event.

It's a great event. Yeah. So mark your calendars. We'll have another council meeting before then, but I want to to get get people aware of it.

And April is gonna be a busy month.

It is gonna be busy. Yeah. I mean. Yeah. And just a little bit for folks who don't know about the design and sustainability awards gala. It's an opportunity for community members to learn more about the projects selected for recognition, including meeting the contractors and design professionals and to hear from the homeowners themselves. And then the second announcement that I wanted to make was for the Piedmont No Kings event on March 28 at 10PM in Piedmont Park.

10AM, I hope. 10AM.

And there'll be a a brief sort of rally with speakers and such in the park and then a walk along Highland Ave.

Great. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Alright. Councilman Ramsey, you're up.

Just one again to remind everybody that Earth and Arbor Day returns celebration returns on Thursday, April 23, yet another event in April. So put that on your calendar and also I think you can still nominate a heritage tree. So go on the website and nominate your favorite tree.

We speak for the trees.

Yeah. You know what else you can still do?

What's that?

I'm going to turn it over to Anna Brown to say what else we can still do. Put you on the spot, sorry.

Thank you, Mayor. We extended the deadline for both commission applications and for volunteer of the year for our young volunteer of the year awardees or recipients. So that deadline is now Wednesday, the eighteenth.

Okay. So you got two two days left today.

Two days left.

Application. Is a 5PM cut off?

5PM cut off.

Alright. Wonderful. Wednesday. That's good. Yeah. And then I was gonna turn it to our city administrator to make some more April announcements.

We have some very exciting updates to share from Shelley Putzer, our rec director. She's always got exciting things Thank going you.

Here. You. Hi.

I always have something exciting going on. I'm here to update on some pool activity that has been happening in this past few weeks. A lot has been going on. A number of lifeguard trainings, things we've been able to do on dry land with our lifeguards and getting to know them, which has been awesome. We also last week launched our new registration software, which is REC Technologies, and that is rec.us/piedmont.

And that opens so that people could start creating their accounts and interacting with the site, and they definitely have been. We've had a lot of great traffic on the site, people trying out and practicing buying a pool pass, which isn't real yet. About 175 people have done that. We have about four fifteen residents that are now in the residency group. There's a new feature on the site, which is called Fast Track, which is great in the recreation world for anybody who has gone through the click race of swim lessons or trying to get into kids' carpentry.

This allows people to go and look at classes, load them into kind of like this wish, like holding spot, and fill out any of the forms that go along with it, which is usually what delays people when they're trying to check out or if you have multiple kids in your family. So there have been almost 300 fast track classes that have been put into people's holding spot out of the and these are the classes that we launched with, I should say, were our summer swim lessons. So we put out about 400 swim classes for this summer, and about 300 of them have already been put into somebody's wish list, which is a lot of interaction on the site. So pretty exciting. We also, we before we did Rec Technologies, we did all of our summer camp registrations.

So all of our swim camps, there's five of them, those are full, and two junior lifeguard camps that are coming. And one of our swim classes is swim tennis.

Mhmm.

So they do a half day of swim. The second part of the day, they do with Jim Landis, our tennis instructors.

And what's the clever name for that camp? Is it like turf or, like no. Yeah. You have

to you to think of something. Okay. There's a number of tennis balls in this in the pool, so we just kinda thought they'll just bring

I counted today. There were over 10.

There's a lot. And then finally, what we've been doing over the past week since we launched Rec Technologies is to do open lobby hours, and this has been a dual thing for us. We've brought in our front desk staff, and we've invited the community into the pool lobby to ask us questions, to test us, and see if they can come up with questions we can't answer. So it's been just a wonderful training opportunity for our front desk people and for rec staff and people coming by. So everybody's kind of pinching in and learning about how you buy a pass, how you get an account created, and the community is getting tours. So it's just been a really energized week and we're pretty excited.

Great. Yep. That was great. Opening day is still April 11.

Sure is. Nice.

Thank you for saying that. And the next big milestone or interaction with Rec Technologies is next Tuesday, and that is the opening of resident annual passes. And then the following Thursday after that, which is the thirty first, that is residents can go in and make facility reservations for the Smigel family poolside room or the Ellis Family Pavilion. So those are our next two milestones. Great.

Thank you. Thank you so much. That's terrific. Okay. Any other city announcements before I move on? I have one announcement this evening. The fire department has announced the retirement of firefighter paramedic Rob Hendrie effective 03/21/2026. Firefighter Hendry began his career with Piedmont on 10/24/2003. Over his twenty three year career, he has been a dedicated provider of life saving care and fire suppression for our community, the fact affirmed by numerous commendations and letters of appreciation over the years. His vast experience and unwavering standard of care has made him a reliable fixture within the department.

He will be deeply missed by his colleagues and our entire community. We will hold a retirement ceremony to honor his service at 8AM on Saturday, March 21 in front of the fire station and all are welcome to join. Thank you. Okay. I think that is it for me. The time is 07:19, and the meeting is adjourned.