Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP CM15-158 for the purchase and development opportunity at 120 East 3rd Street, Assessor Parcel Number 7280-020-907 (Subject Property); Declare the City-owned Subject Property as surplus; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all necessary documents including a Purchase and Sale Agreement with William Morris Commercial, Inc., a California corporation, for the sale of the Subject Property in the amount of $480,000; and Accept Categorical Exemption CE 16-126. (District 2)
Is that sound right? So it's item 21. It's three votes. It's item 20, 21 and 22. Then we'll take the two items related to homelessness 14 and 25. Item 20. I am told, a report from Economic and Property Development and Development Services recommendation to adopt specifications for the purchase and development opportunity at 120 East Third Street declared the city owned subject property as surplus and authorize city manager to execute all necessary documents with William Morris Commercial for the sales of the subject property in the amount of $480,000 in District two. Thank you. I going to let the staff report go before Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Mr. West. Mr. Mayor. Council members, this is one of our successor agency properties. What you hear tonight is a recommendation for a purchase and sale agreement by our Economic and Property Development Director Michael Connelly. Mayor Garcia, Members of the City Council. The property located at 1/23 Street between Pine and the Promenade, is a vacant two story 2400 square foot building located on a 1250 square foot lot. The properties identified in the long range property management plan as future development, which proposes disposition through a request for proposal process. The property was categorized as future development, with the anticipation that adjoining property owners might seek to assemble the property and propose a consolidated development project that included the surrounding property. However, there were no responses received at proposed a consolidated development project. The review panel then proceeded to analyze the proposals from a best value perspective and in that regard. Of the four proposals received, the proposal from William Morris commercial offered the highest purchase price. The proposed highest investment value in the property and proposed a mix of uses that furthers the innovative, flexible and adaptive entrepreneurial spaces that are currently trending as desirable uses in the downtown. While there is little in the way of market data that demonstrates unmet demand for entrepreneurial office space, the panel believed that creating a supply will generate new demand and therefore grow our small business base. A protest of the award was received from Janet and Dev Mosby, adjoining property owners. The general basis of their protest suggests that assembly with their adjoining property is the most appropriate outcome of the RFP process. However, assembly is appropriate if a consolidated development project is proposed. The protesting party did not propose a consolidated development project. Instead, the proposal was to purchase, rehabilitate and tenant the property, although there was no tenant identified. Consequently, the proposal was reviewed in the context of the best value to the city. The panel unanimously selected William Morris commercial as the proposal, offering the best value to city staff. Request City Council Adopt Specifications Number RFP CM 15 Dash 158. Declare the property as surplus. Authorize the city manager to execute any and all documents necessary for the. Sale of the property for $480,000 and accept categorical exemption. CD 16 DASH 126 and this concludes my report. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over now to Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to. Think the staff for their work on the RFP process. I know that in selecting the proposed team. That there's disappointment among those that also submitted. A proposal, but I am confident in staff's work and assessment for what is appropriate for this particular location. I've worked in the downtown for many, many years and I'm intimately familiar with the various sites that are available and the development opportunities that are possible. And this is a very small footprint. It's 1250 square foot of land, I believe, with a 2400 square foot building, a usable building. And so the adaptive reuse of that can be tricky. And I think Mr. Conway articulated well why the staff recommendation is the one that I would support. Thank you. Councilman Gonzales. Public comment, please, on this item. Please come forward. Good evening. My name is Janet Maulvi. And I first would like to tell you that. We've been a part of Long Beach since 1980. We purchased our first house in the Wrigley area. We started our business Safe Navigation downtown in 1985. And we have been located in and around the downtown. Long Beach area. Since then. In 2009, we purchased the property on Pine in third. To. Relocate, relocate our business and we were looking. For a better location for our business. And at that time we felt Pine. Avenue was. A very vibrant place. And we liked the prestige that. Having an address on Pine Avenue and Long Beach. Held. And over the years. We have dealt with vandalism and break ins. At the. Property in question. 120 East Third Street. Being the adjoining building. We were right in the middle of all of the issues that were going on. We have been interested in acquiring the building at 1/23 since that time. As it. Occupies that little corner of our parcel. We had, in fact, been in contact with the order. To purchase that property. And I do have paperwork related to that. If I could submit it to you, that would be fantastic. We when we did submit our proposal at that time. The RDA. Was very interested in. It, but at that time they couldn't finalize any. Sales. I believe something to do with the State. Holding. All RDA properties. Not not being able to process the orders. Sorry. Our plan for the old safe navigation location. Location was to find and help businesses that were in the best interest of the local community. Also, as a way to help local entrepreneurs and small businesses to get a bigger audience for their goods and services. We were introduced to the concept of localism. Localism and felt that this was something we could get behind and help support. And now that. We've submitted. This additional information. To you, we hope you would reconsider as we feel as a long term. Our proposal would be better for the city. And if the. Amount of money is something that is an issue. I would like to state. That our order, our offer was. $25,000 less than the accepted. Offer. So if I could submit this. At this time. You can submit it to the clerk over here. Actually pick up. Thank you. Scott. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton. Thank you for your time. I'll be brief. I've been following the property on Third Street for many years. As you said, the property was taken by the RDA to become part of a larger project that was proposed for the corner of Third and Pine. Since it was going to make for a better downtown, I thought it was a smart decision and I think keeping that parcel together is still a smart decision. The owner of the surrounding property. The movies had an offer on the property when it was still with the RDA and they spent thousands of dollars and music for appraisals and for plans for a high rise development that was all yanked away when the RDA was dissolved. To make matters worse, the movies had a rundown, boarded up eyesore literally attached to their building for years. The movies turned down 99 cent store lease proposals in favor of taking a financial loss to put made in that is actually a Long Beach business incubator. This business model was done to the benefit of all of us on Pine Avenue and to the detriment of the movie's bottom line. I'm sure when the decision was made to divide up the parcel, those that made the decision did not know or did not realize that the movies had already done so much to purchase the property that the state of the building negatively affected their his property or the movie's property for years. And the corner being kept as one parcel will dramatically improve the prospect of a near future development. The movies have already facilitated a 12,500 square foot incubator space on Pine Avenue. And I can tell you it's struggling. That property is literally at the property on third street is literally attached and surrounded by the obvious property. Knowing all this, I hope that you guys will agree this property is that selling the property to the movies is the best thing for Long Beach and the best thing for us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, thank you so much. City Council Staff. My name is Toliver Morris. I am president, CEO of William Morris Commercial. And I'm excited about this project. I'm a commercial real estate broker in downtown Long Beach. I've got about a million and a half square feet in downtown, primarily office, some retail. And I've studied this project, you know, throughout the country. Co-working is the new incubator model that's coming. And I would propose to do a first class, top rated co-working facility in this building. I think it'll be a catalyst for new co-working facilities. It'll be an innovator. It'll be an innovation hub. It'll bring together small business. I think it'll be exciting project for this property. I'm going to take the building back to its former glory. It's a 1920s, beautiful gym in our downtown. It shouldn't be demolished. It shouldn't be part of some mega plan. I think that, you know, we talked a lot about the folks here about assemblage. And obviously that's an important part of our important tool for downtowns and the cities. But assemblage, you know, should not be done when it destroys our local character, doesn't serve the community and primarily benefits one company or individual. So that's all I have. Thank you so much. Thank you. And let me turn this back over to Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Any other comments? Okay. Let me. Councilman Gonzalez giving any comments. Okay. So any other public comment on this item? Okay. See, now I just want to add just one thing and that's, you know, one thing which as a as I heard everyone, everyone speak, it's the why don't you take us one step back into the process for all of these projects and the way that they're distributed as far as the staff is, is pretty laid out in our in our management plan. I know, Mr. Conway, I know there's a very specific way that that these projects and the way that they are either sold or the way they're either developed as part of our plan with the states, they know the process is very. Prescriptive. Very prescriptive. Right. And and I think one of the I think just making some assumptions in your processors. We're getting a lot of quality interest from a lot of people and all of these parcels and projects. That's correct. And many of the proposals are very similar in nature. So decision making can be challenging. And I think one of the things that's it's been interesting to me as these projects come to to the council is all the all the projects and the proposals are really great people and really great people that care about the city that are there making these proposals. And so I just want to say that because I think that that's going to happen, what's happening today with people not getting, you know, certain certain projects is going to continue to happen, I think, as the committee makes decisions or many decisions in the future on these projects. And so, I mean, I don't envy what you and the panel are doing, but I do know that there's a lot of quality projects out there. And so I just want to thank everyone that bids competitively for these different projects. With that, we're going to take a vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 21, please.