Hermosa Beach commission recommends traditional design-bid-build for city yard after long debate

The Hermosa Beach Public Works Commission voted 4–1 on July (date not specified) to recommend that the City Council pursue a traditional design‑bid‑build procurement method for the city yard project, after a multihour staff presentation and extensive commissioner debate about cost, schedule and risk.

Commission members reached the recommendation after hearing staff and consultants describe two delivery options for the project — a traditional design‑bid‑build approach and a progressive design‑build (PDB) model — and after lengthy discussion about environmental cleanup, financing and the level of control the city would retain over design and cost.

Public Works Director Joe San Clemente told commissioners the yard project is not fully funded but the city has enough money to start preliminary work. "This is not a completely funded project. Currently, our CIP has $1,000,000 budgeted in this current fiscal year. There's also $900,000 in set aside reserve funds in the CIP," San Clemente said. He said the city’s currently budgeted funds are sufficient to begin environmental and design programming work but that the full project will likely be in the $15 million–$20 million range once scope and remediation are defined.

Senior consulting engineer John Oskweave outlined the two delivery models and the tradeoffs. He said progressive design‑build can compress schedule by overlapping design and some construction tasks, but it typically shifts more design risk and pricing decisions to the design‑builder and gives the city less ability to rely on competitive public bidding for final construction pricing. "In progressive design‑build ... you don't know how much it's gonna cost," Oskweave said, describing the later timing of a guaranteed maximum price in that model.

Commissioners raised several recurring concerns: Commission Burton warned the PDB approach could leave the city exposed to unchecked cost escalation and limited competition. "I have a big problem with this ... it's basically an open checkbook," Burton said. Several other commissioners said the city’s internal staffing capacity, the need for public input, and the complexity of environmental remediation at the former landfill site made the traditional approach preferable. Vice Chair Griffin and Commissioner Bridal both argued for strong owner representation and careful early programming regardless of which delivery model the council ultimately chooses.

Commissioners and staff agreed on several near‑term tasks that would happen under either procurement route: hire an owner’s representative to lead procurement and oversight; perform updated environmental and geotechnical investigations and any required remediation before major construction; complete detailed programming that documents operational needs (workflows, equipment and storage); and develop a financing plan as soft costs and remediation estimates firm up.

Director San Clemente and city engineer Saad Malam told the commission the yard site has environmental and geotechnical issues that must be studied and addressed before turning the site over to a contractor. San Clemente also said a number of the yard’s existing buildings are likely unsalvageable and that the preferred path will be shaped by the programming exercise that defines operations, storage and circulation needs.

After deliberation the commission voted on a motion to recommend the traditional design‑bid‑build procurement method to City Council. Chairperson Hayes moved the recommendation; Commissioner Bridal seconded. The roll call showed four votes in favor and one opposed (Commissioner Burton). The commission also directed staff to return to council with next steps, including solicitation for an owner’s representative and an updated environmental scope.

Staff and consultants emphasized that whichever delivery model the Council selects, the city should invest early in strong programming, independent cost estimating and constructability review to reduce change orders and schedule risk. San Clemente said the staff team will bring a recommendation and supporting materials to City Council at an upcoming meeting with the commission’s guidance recorded in the staff report.

Votes at a glance

- Recommendation to Council: use traditional design‑bid‑build procurement for the city yard project. Motion moved by Chairperson Hayes; seconded by Commissioner Bridal. Vote: 4 yes, 1 no (Commissioner Burton). Outcome: approved by the commission. (See provenance below.)

- Other formal actions this meeting: March and May Public Works Commission minutes were approved; a public hearing on a single tree removal at 1838 Valley Park Avenue was continued to the next meeting. Those formal items were approved by roll call during the consent calendar portion of the meeting.

The commission’s recommendation is advisory; the City Council will make the final procurement decision and determine funding paths. Staff said the currently appropriated funds will be used to begin environmental work and programming, followed by owner’s‑rep procurement and, depending on Council direction, a design procurement and later a construction contract.