CITY OF HERMOSA BEACHCITY COUNCILRegular Meeting Agenda - AddendumTuesday, November 12, 2024 5:00 P.m. - 6:00 P.m.Council Chambers1315 Valley DriveHermosa Beach, CA 90254CITY COUNCILDean Francois, Mayor Rob Saemann, Mayor Pro TemMike Detoy, Councilmember Ray Jackson, CouncilmemberJustin Massey, CouncilmemberKaren Nowicki, City Treasurer APPOINTED OFFICIALSSuja Lowenthal, City Manager Patrick Donegan, City Attorney EXECUTIVE TEAMBrandon Walker, Administrative Services DirectorMyra Maravilla, City ClerkLisa Nichols, Community Resources DirectorAngela Crespi, Deputy City ManagerPaul LeBaron, Police Chief Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at [email protected] at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach City Council meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89968207828? pwd=bXZmWS83dmxHWDZLbWRTK2RVaUxaUT092 Phone: Toll Free: (833) 548 0276; Meeting ID: 899 6820 7828, then #; Passcode: 472825 Comment: Submit an eComment no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. Supplemental Email: Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to [email protected]. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item and meeting date in the subject line and must be received no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible. Thus, in order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. Cable TV: Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofHermosaBeach90254 Live Stream: www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. View City Council staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. 17.MUNICIPAL MATTERS Public Comments: Attachment No. 5 . SUPPLEMENTAL Memo was added to item 17.c 17.cREJECT BID RECEIVED FROM CSI SERVICES AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF FOR CIP 682 PARKING LOT D IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - 24-PW-041 Attachments | Public Comments1.CIP 682 PARKING LOT D IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - REJECT BIDS - 24-PW-041.pdf2.1. Bid Summary Log.pdf3.2. Bid Documents.pdf4.3. Contract Documents and Special Provisions.pdf5.4. Project Plans .pdf6.5. SUPPLEMENTAL Memo.pdf(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)Recommended Action:Staff recommends City Council: Reject the bid received from CSI Services for CIP 682 Parking Lot D Improvements Project; andDirect staff on how to proceed with the project based on the available options as outlined in this report. No Item Selected Attachments (0) | Public Comments (0)This item has no attachments.1.CIP 682 PARKING LOT D IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - REJECT BIDS - 24-PW-041.pdf2.1. Bid Summary Log.pdf3.2. Bid Documents.pdf4.3. Contract Documents and Special Provisions.pdf5.4. Project Plans .pdf6.5. SUPPLEMENTAL Memo.pdfThis item has no public commentTodd Tullis (No Position)I agree with most recommendations of the plan as it pertains to our parks and facilities - they are all good (if unoriginal) ideas! I oppose the premature recommendations in "Key Strategy 6" for increased funding, staffing and titles (including, amazingly, suggestions to hire FTE project managers and park rangers). These are premature because they presume that all recommendations in the plan should be pursued. Given the economic situation of Hermosa Beach, we must get better at prioritizing CIPs/projects. Hard choices need to be made about why we should do X rather than Y, and I ask our Council to use our community values & voices to make those choices. Only when we decide which CIPs/projects are most important should we allocate or add funding or Staff. Overall I'm underwhelmed by the lack of original thought or analysis in this plan, as well as some lack of attention to detail (how is it possible that visitor traffic for pickleball courts is high on Sundays when the courts are closed?). If this deliverable actually cost us $400k, I hope the City will more carefully consider alternatives and/or reduced scope for future projects of this sort. Additionally, there are a few items in the plan & appendices that are confusing and/or concerning, among them: - Concerns about "unpermitted activities" are used to rationalize hiring a FTE Park Ranger, but the stakeholder interview and community engagement details lump this in with "dog waste, dogs on leash, eBikes..." I've heard fellow residents discuss these three divisive topics, but never "unpermitted activities" so I don't understand where this "unpermitted activities" concern is actually coming from - A recommendation to "Hire a project manager to oversee and execute the findings and recommendations of the program" - I've been a consultant in my career...I see what is going on here🙂 - "Currently the City does not maintain 53 volleyball courts within what is known as the "residential zone"...This is a practice the City needs to correct to reduce liability...while ensuring safety for the general public" - unclear what "correct" means in this context but I'd hypothesize the liability risk is far less than the cost of the City trying to maintain these 53 courts (that are used extensively and for the most part well taken care of)Anthony Higgins (-)please see PDF above for reasons council should NOT approve Parks Masterplan but simply "receive & file" thank youMatt McCool (Against)I am respectfully requesting agenda item 17.e “CITY MANAGER CONTRACT AMENDMENT” be moved up on the November 12, 2024 agenda before the public hearings. This is the most important item of the year! The people have a right to be heard by their elected officials. The City Manager packed the agenda, and placed her contract item last. This is an intentional act to obstruct transparency and limit public comment. I called this out last year when this item was discussed after midnight. It must not happen again. As I stated last year, if the City Manager performed at a high level this agenda item would be placed high on the agenda. However, this agenda item is placed at the bottom because the City Manager performed at the bottom. John Burry (-)If this City Council should have learned one thing from the defeat of Measure HB, it is the importance of public trust. Trust is hard-won, but easily eroded. Residents have grown tired of the wasteful spending and the mismanagement of expensive projects. They are tired of being told that the city needs more staff, and that yet again the City Manager needs to be paid a large bonus for outstanding performance. Once again, the City Manager's performance targets are undisclosed and the subject of her remuneration is scheduled to take place at the last possible moment for this council, probably at midnight. Seemingly, you have learned nothing about public trust over the last two years. Measure FP was overwhelmingly received in Redondo, and Measure MBB passed in Manhattan Beach. Measure HB failed miserably here, despite (perhaps because of) the best efforts of the city and its surrogates. It's an issue of trust and transparency, rather than economics. This council and staff need to begin the journey to rebuild public trust. If this handling of the City Manager's contract is an indicator of how you intend to conduct business, then you have a very difficult road ahead. Hermosa Deserves Better.Anthony Higgins (Against)Dear City Council, In approving the 2024 sales tax ballot initiative our council could have NEVER imagined that our city manager would try bamboozling the public by telling residents that the city's obviously pro-sales tax glossy-mailers and infomercials were EDUCATIONAL in nature. I hope you reflect on this when you consider offering the city manager another pay increase or bonus. And i hope you consider the city manager's strategy to hire a PR firm for about $60k to spin the sales tax increase in part led to another boondoggle: the margin of defeat almost doubled from 54% to 58% comparing the 2022 election results to 2024. Then consider the Clark building , the parking lot D and the parks restrooms fiascos and the fact that after 6 years of our city managers leadership the city yard requirements have yet to be defined while the budget estimate has ballooned to 22 million dollars. Once again, I ask the council consider this and reject any City Manager pay increase or bonus and call her to account. anthony higgins. Anthony Higgins (No Position)Dear City Council, I believe Joe SanClemente is a capable administrator but much still needs to be done. Consider the Parks Masterplan just completed by RJM DESIGN Group and that is up for approval tonight (Agenda Item 17b). RJM didn't really design a damn thing and it cost the tax payers at least $400,000. Then consider the 2022 CIP study session where Director SanClemente said an element of the Parks Masterplan was to DEFINE the lighting needs in our Community Parks. RJM DESIGN didn't define the lighting needs either. Moreover, there were two other Parks Lighting studies in addition to the Parks Masterplan discussed in the May 2022 CIP Study Session that also focused on lighting: CIP 503 the City Park Lighting Conceptual Design and CIP 621 the Comprehensive Downtown Lighting Plan that presumably included the Strand and Noble Park. During the 2022 CIP Study Session Councilman Jackson repeatedly questioned the wisdom of multiple lighting studies and Director SanClemente reassured Jackson that multiple studies were what was needed to get the Parks Lighting project done more quickly. Well it's been 30 months since that Study Session and neither CIP 503 nor CIP 621 have started, much less been completed AND the Parks Master plan barely mentions lighting at all. In fact, all the Parks Masterplan says about lighting is the City needs to a study of Clark Field, Valley Park and South Park lighting needs. Study begets Study. i get that priorities change but the City, in setting aside CIP621 Downtown Lighting Comprehensive Plan) that the Economic Development Committee considered a high priority project and that almost certainly had a significant public safety component AND instead spending $400,000 on a 30 year Parks Masterplan requires an explanation. Moreover, last night around 830pm, a large groups of teenagers gathered at Valley Park and the last two nights cherrybombs or M-80s could be heard coming from the park. Where are the new park lights? Where are the obviously needed Valley Park cameras? Thank You for Considering anthony higgins