Talent subcommittee reviews RFQ scores for two housing teams, names acting chair and plans interviews

Members of a Talent subcommittee met to review staff scoring of two teams that responded to a request for qualifications for a housing development on a city-owned site and to set next steps in the selection process.

During roll call the panel recorded Board member Colle and Board member Pestizo as present and noted Mayor Ayersflood was absent. Staff members Alex Campbell and Rick Zylstra were listed as present.

The group first designated an acting chair after the mayor failed to join. A participant nominated Dave Pastizzo for the role; Pastizzo accepted the nomination, and members agreed to the appointment by assent.

Staff presented the RFQ scoring matrix used to evaluate proposals. "So what we have in front of us is the scoring matrix," Rick Zylstra said, explaining the rubric and point ranges. He said the rubric is a guidance tool rather than a binding formula and walked members through subcategories including development-team readiness, resource allocation, housing, commercial development, environmental stewardship, landscape preservation, open-space connections, urban design, and financial understanding.

On housing and scale, Zylstra reported the two applicants proposed roughly similar unit counts: "about 90 units from Hacienda and about 86 units total from Edlin," figures he said informed the housing scores. He also said the two firms differed on commercial square footage: one proposal listed about 8,000 square feet while the other reached about 13,000, a disparity that affected site- and commercial-development scoring.

A subcommittee member raised a potential conflict of interest on the record, saying, "I previously served on the board of the land trust that's 1 part of the team on the Edel Edelon team," and noted this could create bias even if no direct conflict existed. Another member, identifying as an employee of the Talent Business Alliance, said they would feel uncomfortable scoring Hacienda if Hacienda pursued the business-incubator work. Staff said they would contact applicants to clarify intent.

Members asked for more detail on several points: whether Hacienda had local projects in San Bernardino; what construction methods (for example, prefab techniques) the teams planned to use and their track records; and how teams calculated commercial square footage and live-work unit counts on the street-facing parcels. The team that scored higher on connections and urban design was credited with better alignment to the Salazar and Leland planning documents and stronger proposed street connections, while the other scored better on some financial points tied to demonstrated financing experience.

The subcommittee endorsed a next-step process rather than reopening the solicitation. The presiding member proposed that subcommittee members provide independent scores, that staff compile a list of clarification questions for both teams, and that staff schedule interviews (aiming for December or the first meeting in January). "Scores from the subcommittee members are strongly encouraged," the presiding member said, and staff agreed to reach out to both teams to set interviews and return to the subcommittee with results and recommendations for the full board.

No final selection or formal vote to award the project occurred at the meeting. The session paused and the feed was scheduled to resume in five minutes for the planning commission.

The subcommittee asked staff to supply the scoring workbook, share plans and packet page references, and return with clarified financials and examples of prior projects for each respondent before the interviews.