RLN Meeting! Thur Jan 14, 7pm, SF Public Library Plymouth @ Ocean Ave.

MeetingSFPL

Please join us this Thursday – it should be a very fun meeting as we have some bids to review for the proposed work on Parcel 1!

Date: Thursday January 14

Time: 7:00-8:30pm

Location: SFPL, Ocean Avenue Branch, Community Room

***meeting notes added 1/20/16***

INTRODUCTIONS
New to the group: Jonathan Goldberg who is with DPW’s Green Benefit District Program.  He assists with the Street Parks unit, and will be the DPW liaison with SF Parks Alliance projects.
December minutes were approved
DPW UPDATE
Sandra reported that $85,000 of our funds have been moved from the city to our SFPA account.  The rest ($!5,000) should be transferred soon.  It is expected that this amount will cover the 1st Phase expenses.
The time for grant applications and additional allocations of city money is coming up soon.  It was suggested that we (Robert M.) reach out to Sup. Avalos in February for additional for Phase 2 funding.
SFPA is hosting a Grants Funding Workshop on January 20.  We should all have received e-mails about this.  The workshop will cover: types of funding available;  application process; types of projects funded, etc for City funded sources of money.  The workshop will take place at 1663 Mission St., 7th floor from 5:30 to 8pm.  Hopefully one (or more) of us will be able to attend.  Julia will set aside copies of the handouts for us, at any rate.
Encroachments: the plan is that DPW will send out encroachment notices to the relevant parties when we send out a notice to all in the neighborhood regarding the implementation of the Phase 1 improvements and beautification.
RFP PROCESS 
AAU
Heather had raised concern about the possible need for a design firm to draw up an official detailed design before we turn over the work to the contractor.  Sandra said that since the Phase 1 stretch is basically uncomplicated in regards to grade, etc., there is no need for official engineered stamped drawings, although having a construction/planting design drawn up based on Nahal’s work is a good idea.
Also, we are insured under the City and SFPA, so there are no liability issues for AAU or Nahal.
Proposals:
We looked at the 3 proposals that were submitted. These are available online (and via email).
The proposal from Anvil Builders was much more costly than the other 2, so we rejected that out of hand.
The proposals from Catmex Maintenance and Madrono Landscape Design are more comparable (and reasonable).
Catmex
Eric let us know that Catmex had spoken with Brennan Cox, the owner of Groundworks (where Eric is employed) who offered to provide construction/planting drawings at a greatly reduced price.  This is included in the Catmex quote. This would likely lead to our getting closest to Nahal’s design plans, which we all liked and approved.
Catmex has done a number of projects with SFPA.  Julia says they work well with the communities and are very open to their input.  Two current projects are Tunneltop (at 25th St. and Pennsylvania) and Angel Alley (22nd St. and Tennessee).  We should go take a look at these.
We had some questions about the proposal, and would like additional information and details, more in line with what was provided by Madrono, such as: break downs of materials and labor; info on the thickness of the concrete and what it would cost for the colored concrete we want; warrantee info; cost for the drip irrigation system installation, and approximate time frames.  Julia will contact them and ask for this.
Madrono
Although this proposal is more detailed, (and more expensive), it does not include a figure for contingency issues, so Julia will ask for an idea of a cap for this. Madrono has also done projects with SFPA, but Julia is not familiar with those, so she will ask folks at her office who have worked with them about their experience. There is no item in the proposal for construction drawings.  When Patricia met with Geoff Coffey for the onsite visit, she was impressed with his sensitivity to the site, but we don’t know how closely his ideas will align with Nahal’s design elements.  Not sure about the need for an almost $13,000 project management fee (not an item in the Catmex quote).
There were some questions about the irrigation needs –  Patricia is pretty sure we do not need to have the contractor install a backflow, as that is included in the PUC grant we got, but there is some uncertainty about that grant – is there anything else we have to do for it; does it have to be used within a certain time frame; where is that money sitting?  Patricia will look into this, as she procured the grant.  There seems to be a call out now for this years water grants.
We are fortunate to have quotes within our budget from 2 companies, either of which will likely be very good to work with.
As we need more info and want fuller participation in the decision making, we decided to put off the contractor choice until our February 11 meeting.
Do we want to have a Steering Committee meeting once we have the additional info and have had a chance to look at the local projects the two contractors have worked on, but before the February general meeting? 
Do we want the vote to be limited to Steering Committee members?
At this point, everyone should do the background work necessary to be able to make a decision at the February meeting.  If you cannot attend, be sure to send an email with your preference (and reasons why, if you want). 
Next meeting: Thursday, February 11, 7pm at the Ingleside Library.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s