|
Montebello Condominium Unit Owners Association |
|
Advisory committee on Landscape Design and Management |
|
Committee Meeting |
|
1) The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: 7
Members Absent: None
Board Liaison: Present – via speakerphone
Guests: 6
2) The minutes of the May 15 meeting were reviewed and approved without objection.
3) Review draft RFP for Landscape Design/Architect – A Committee Member proposed a simplification of the draft RFP and distributed revised Exhibits One and Two. This might help to put the project in perspective, especially since the BOD has budgeted only $10K for this component. Regarding the Exhibits, the Committee agreed that:
A. We would elicit the best design advice and recommendations of the landscape designer without trying to tie his/her hands. This was particularly important with regard to whether or not memorial trees should or could be re-located, especially in the turf area used for public gatherings and other resident activities. The Committee may have a recommendation based on the recommended design, but ultimately this will be a BOD decision. Budget will also be a factor. B. Some clover in the turf is acceptable. If the standard is NO clover, then chemical usage is a given. As the BOD has already endorsed a move towards a reduction in the use of chemicals, encouraging a landscape that would require chemical applications is counter-productive. Further, we have some clover already and it appears not to be a problem for most residents. Indeed, it has some beneficial effects like nitrogen-fixing, i.e., a natural means of adding nitrogen to soil. This is one reason why most would regard some clover to be part of a healthy turf rather than a weed to be eradicated. Clover flowers will be removed at mowing. C. With regard to the perimeter fence, we will see what develops in connection with the assessment of invasives in the fence areas. It was noted that, if the fence has been compromised, this is a security problem and will need to be considered from that angle. D. The Committee discussed the concern about large fallen trees and what, if any, specific direction should be given to the landscape architect. We reviewed the consultant’s recommendation that we had an increased fuel load and that sawing the large trees into smaller units was not the best solution. Of particular concern was the large tree that has fallen behind Building 2. Since this tree is right along the edge of the parking area, it might, indeed, be sawed into smaller units, with a view to removing it from the premises. This will be a large budget item. It was agreed that we ask the designer to identify which fallen trees should be removed from the premises. We will also request that estimated cost for this be specified as a separate line item. E. A separate question was raised about removal of smaller branches. It was agreed that we will ask the designer give us his/her recommendations about this. With regard to the removal of prunings, we will ask the designer to give us an estimated cost. It is important to remember that any removal effort will need to be considered very carefully since the act of removal can damage other healthy, thriving plants and trees (including hardwood saplings) especially when machinery normally employed in removing large downed trees and branches. Smaller branches and material can be removed manually without damage. Our woodland is very capable of decomposing and utilizing the present amount of smaller downed material. F. We will ask the designer to examine the wisteria around the pool. If it is determined that the wisteria is an invasive, we will expect it to be part of a removal proposal. If the wisteria is damaging the fencing, we will want advice on how to prune it to reduce the effect on the fencing.
4) The Committee discussed the need for a bidders’ meeting and the evaluation template that would be used to compare proposals and share that template with potential bidders. While there are good reasons to do both, there were other factors that suggested they were, perhaps, unnecessary.
A. We sent our first RFP to 16 potential bidders; only two offered bids. We have 12 potential bidders for the second RFP and, based on preliminary contact with some of them, as well as our schedule, we do not anticipate a significant number of bids that would make comparison difficult. B. We issued a format for response in our first RFP. Neither bidder followed the format. We can probably easily handle dissimilar proposals. C. If a bidder requests a tour prior to making the bid, we will accommodate the request. D. All information made available to one bidder can be shared via e-mail. E. We are sharing our selection criteria as part of Exhibit 1. F. We will include a statement in the cover letter noting that the BOD has budgeted a maximum of $10,000 for this RFP.
|
|
A Committee Member proposed a simplification of the draft RFP and distributed revised Exhibits One and Two. This might help to put the project in perspective, especially since the BOD has budgeted only $10K for this component. |
May 22, 2006 |
