THE CITY OF
PLEASANTON.
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 28, 2024
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
6 6
Re: March 5, 2024, Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission The following action was taken after the Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission report was finalized for your regular meeting on March 5, 2024.
P24- 0028, Eden Housing
Application for Design Review approval to modify existing awnings, fencing, exterior lighting, and ADA- accessible parking located at an existing affordable residential apartment complex, operated by Eden Housing, at 5200 Case Avenue.
Approved. Appeal period expires March 3, 2024. ( Natalie Amos, 931- 5613) From: Jocelyn Kwong
To: Christina Casha
Subject: FW: Wayside Park bandstand design status.
Date: Monday, March 4, 2024 12: 35: 32 PM
Supplemental material.
From: Les Duman
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 2: 27 PM
To: Karla Brown< kbrownPcityofpleasantonca. gov>; Jack Balch < ibalchCcDcityofpleasantonca. goy>; Valerie Arkin < varkin( @cityofpleasantonca. gov>; Jeff Nibert< inibertt@citv_ pfoleasantonca. gov>; Julie Testa< jtesta( @cityofpleasantonca. gov>
Cc: Gerry Beaudin < gbeaudinftcit) lofpleasantonca. gov>; Matthew Gruber mgruberPcityofpleasantonca. gov>; Heidi Murphy< hmurphhypcityofpleasantonca. gov> Subject: Wayside Park bandstand design status.
IEXTERNALI This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.***
Hello again Mayor Brown and Council,
Thankyou!
I greatly appreciate the time and resources that City staff and Council have invested in reconsidering the design features for the City's new bandstand. I am specifically thankful for the virtual meeting that Matt Gruber arranged, which included two of the consultants as well as Matt and me. The results of that meeting, as shown in Option 1, appear to have addressed the interests of all parties:
The application requirements of projecting sound forward, of providing a large enough space (for music and theatrical events), of keeping an architectural alignment with the surrounding community, of keeping within the cost and timeline constraints, have all been included in the new Staff recommended design. Below is a quote from my original email of November 27th.
As a community member who has performed on our current bandstand at over 40 events, and as a musician who has attended well over 100 other performances, I am hoping to sway your decision so that the chosen final design is the most effective and efficient as a performance venue. To my knowledge all uses of the bandstand have been for musical performances, and as such the features and design should focus on sound quality and performance presentation rather than on what looks" most attractive".
At next week' s Council meeting, it would best serve our Pleasanton Community if Design Option 1 is adopted.
I look forward to any additional involvement with this project as the final designs are being considered for this year' s construction as well as any " phase 2" that will follow in the coming years. I know that there remain many details/ design elements to be fleshed out in the coming weeks rincluding final dimensioning, functional design aspects, and stage orientation..
Sincerely, with gratitude,
Les Duman
Pleasanton.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
March 5, 2024
Responses to City Council agenda items — March 5, 2024
Agenda Item # 14
Q: What is the $ 19 million going to be spent on? The report only mentions the 1 million for the defeasance, where is the other $ 18M going? A: The $ 19 million will be allocated to use $ 14 million for the three pipe improvement locations on Bernal Avenue, Stoneridge Drive, and Sunol Blvd, as well as the new booster station and turnout# 4 at the corner of Stoneridge Drive and Hopyard Road. An additional $ 4 million is for regional groundwater exploration/ design work with Zone 7 for new ground wells to pump the City' s groundwater quota.
Q: What is the basis for the increased costs? If it is the initial $ 6 million staff estimated during then and now it' s $ 19 million ( or $ 18 million without the defeasance), that' s a 300% increase without any mention of it in the staff report.
Did the scope change?
A: When the water rate study process began, the assumptions had to be fixed so the $ 6 million estimate was based on a booster station at T- 4 without increasing capacity and minor piping, along with initial funding to design the water supply alternative project. The model and modeling were not done at that time and Wells 5 & 6 were still in operation.
That information changed as we developed additional details during the rate approval process; however, $ 6 million could not be adjusted without redoing the rate study and Prop 218 process. This would have taken additional time, delaying the rate increase well into 2024. As it was, last year the City did not meet its debt covenant for one loan and almost missed meeting it for the State Revolving Fund loan which would have put us in jeopardy of applying for a SRF loan now.
As well, the approved 30%/ 12% water rate increases do not provide the $ 6 million.
Q: What is the status of allocating/ spending the $ 19 million? We' ve approved the pipe upgrade over the Bernal bridge near Fire Station 1 — How much was that? Is that part of these funds?
A: Yes, the Bernal Avenue Pipeline, CIP 27172 total project expenditures of$ 2, 205, 420 are included in the $ 19 million.
Q: This funding shows you' d sell / receive funds in June ( please confirm) so when would the projects be bid, awarded, completed? Have we missed this summer 2024?
A: The award of the Stoneridge and Sunol Boulevard construction contract will be on the March 19 City Council agenda. Although all the pipelines will not be completed and put in service prior to this summer' s peak demands, critical tie- ins will be completed before the summer demands ( so as to not impact operations). Should there be a delay( s) in awarding the project bid, we would not be able to complete the tie- ins prior to the summer peak demands.
Q: If this is for upgrading the system to accept additional Zone 7 deliveries, and it now costs $ 18 million, while two new wells without Zone 7 are expected ( based upon the Brown & Caldwell Report presented 10/ 17/ 23) to be $ 23 million and with Zone 7 would be expected to be $ 8-$ 10. 2 million, did staff evaluate other options? A: These improvements are necessary with or without new wells, as they are needed for all of the alternatives in the Water Supply Alternatives study and are also identified as being needed in the capacity analysis and condition assessments that are being completed as part of the Water System Management Plan.
Q: If we' ve missed 2024 for additional capacity of water deliveries, have we considered abandoning that and putting the money to the two new well project that may be just a year out) and then staging these upgrades for later? A: We are managing risk and these improvements are necessary to implement the two new wells and to manage peaking demands and to address known/ current capacity issues. The water supply alternatives study identified that the well projects could possibly be completed in 2027 assuming full design was started before the end of 2023; however, the City would not be able to fully incorporate the PFAS/ well study that Zone 7 is currently completing. The preliminary design and studies are underway and the current schedule — working in partnership with Zone 7 — is the end of 2028.
Q: What is the total cost of paying off the current loan? Staff notes that we' ll save 17,000 in interest, but what is the total cost to pay this off and refinance? A: The outstanding debt for the 2017 Revenue Bond is about $ 980, 000 ( principal).
In terms of interest expense, it depends on how we structure and repay the debt. As an example, if we borrow money from the Equipment Internal Service Fund and charge an interest rate that is based on our current investment return ( about 1. 5%) with a repayment period of 3- 5 years, the interest expenses are estimated to be $ 22, 000 - 38, 000, with the total payment more than $ 1 million including principal. Alternatively, if we repay the outstanding debt through bond issuance, the overall interest expense will be higher since the debt will be repaid over a 30- year period. In that case, we will issue two series of bonds. The first series of debt will be about $ 1 million to pay off the outstanding revenue bond in year 1. The second series of debt will be for $ 18 million with a repayment term of 30 years. Since the outstanding debt will be paid off first, we will incur more interest cost on the $ 18 million of debt. importantly, we don' t have the revenue to cover a $ 1 million debt and $ 1. 2 million in debt service payment in year 1, so the $ 18 million debt may need to be structured in a way that only interest payment will be made in year 1. The issuance costs are also expected to increase by approximately 10,000. Borrowing from an internal service fund to prepay the debt is a less expensive option.
Vo..
2 Item # 15 — Tree Preservation Ordinance/ UFMP
Q: At this time, is there a list of agreements/ payment plans for tree removal? A: There is currently one payment plan in place for tree removal at 5151 Greentree Court. On a related note, there are current developments ( Merritt, Lester, Avalon, etc.) that have a requirement to pay into the Urban Forestry Fund.
Q: How many tree removal permit applications are received yearly? A: The City has received on average 350 tree removal requests per year. 3