Speaker 0: Gentlemen. Sorry. Cars.
Speaker 2: I think item 39 is next.
Speaker 0: 39 Report from Economic Development Recommendation to adopt resolution declaring city owned property located at 3917 Long Beach Boulevard as Surplus Land District eight.
Speaker 2: Staff report.
Speaker 0: Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. Mary Tours will be giving us a short staff report on this item, which also includes the new Surplus Land Act as defined by the state. Mary, would you like to present it?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor. Members of the city council. I think I will skip slide one, which covers the government code section amendments that we just reviewed in the previous item. The property before you. At 3917, Long Beach Boulevard has operated as Fire Station nine until July of 2019. The first complained of visible mold at the site occurred in 2000. Since that time, a number of investigations have occurred, including mold, fungal, asbestos, led based paint and indoor air quality. Remediation attempts were made, but fungal mold and water leakage issues persisted. The property is currently vacant as the personnel that formerly operated there was relocated to a temporary station at 2019 Wardlow Road. The remediation that's required includes removal, replacement and or redesign of several areas required to remediate a return to have broken condition, including roof drains, windows, framing, flooring, support and joints. The Planning Commission or Environmental Impact Report was considered a Planning Commission's June 17th agenda for potential demolition of the building, but did not preclude re-use. The vote to accept the air was held over until the city could solicit interest in the subject property. Solicitation of proposals, various adoptive or otherwise prior to surplus could potentially violate the Surplus Land Act and subject the city to possible monetary fine. The city initiated compliance with Turpel-Lafond Act, the first step of which is for the local agency to declare surplus or surplus, which is the item before you. Once all compliance is completed, the air would still need to be certified with a planning permission for any reuse of the site. So compliance does not bypass planning permissions consideration of the air at a future date. The compliance requirements related to the Surplus Landecker declaration include or include finding that the property is no longer needed for the fit for public use. The city's reuse requires significant and costly modifications, long term risk, as well as maintenance and security measures, resulting in an ongoing obligation to the general fund. The disposition would allow interested parties an opportunity to reactivate the property, generate sales proceeds, and return the property to the tax rolls. Disposition is used neutral, allowing interested parties to propose different uses, including re-use of the building or not as feasible. Disposition does require the local agency's government body to adopt a resolution declaring as either surplus or exempt at a regular meeting. The subject property does not qualify as exempt land under the exemptions available in the in the SLA. Upon adoption of the resolution, the city would then be required to follow a process outlined in the Surplus Land Act. And once that process is completed, should an agreement not be reached with any of the entities that are required to be noticed? A request for proposals could be released. And any re-use of the subject property would be subject to environmental review. Just the next steps on the timeline for this process. It's a little bit more involved for a property that's declared surplus versus exempt. Once the resolution or should the resolution be adopted, declaring it surplus tonight, a written notice of availability would be issued to local public agencies, HPD and housing sponsors that noticed HPD of their interest to be noticed. That would occur in October. They would be allowed a 60 day response period, which would bring us to December of 2021. If an interested party notices the city in that time. The city would then commence good faith negotiations for a minimum of 90 days. That would bring us to the spring of 2022. If an agreement is reached with a public agency or housing sponsor, that agreement would be brought to the council facility for consideration. If there is no agreement or no interest received, then a request for proposal would be released. The city would then complete the request for proposal process, which does include allowing prospective parties to tour the site. And prepare their proposals. Those proposals would be reviewed and a recommendation would be brought to City Council sometime in summer of 2022. And then by fall, summer or fall of 2022, the Planning Commission could be updated and reconsider the air. Therefore, the recommendation before you tonight is to adopt a resolution declaring the city owned property at 3917 Long Beach Boulevard a surplus land and authorize the city manager. Do we need to take any actions and execute any documents necessary to ensure compliance with the SLA and state regulations? This concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: Kevin, listen, the second component is you want to start. Thank you. And I am proud to move this motion. First of all, I'd like to appreciate it. Can we go to a public comment for public comment? The following individuals please line up for public comment. LAVONNE Janine Williams. My own acre.
Speaker 1: Hi. I'm going to start off tonight, Gene Williams. I am the executive on the executive board of the Ill CNE, which is the Lo Cerritos Neighborhood Association. An email was sent today from the LC and A and I'll read it now again to you, dear Mayor Garcia and council members. The neighborhood associations and community groups below are requesting the Long Beach City Council for a 90 day delay regarding fire station nine at 3917 Long Beach Boulevard becoming surplus city property. This delay will give the community additional time to study the feasibility of utilizing the building as a community center or other reuse. We are asking for this pause to meet with the Economic Development Department. At this time, we request a postponement on agenda item 39. For nearly two and a half years, we have been denied entrance to the building to review its feasibility as a community asset and need this additional time to continue our access efforts. Regards. Bob Gallo, Cerritos Neighborhood Association Cosign Supporting Neighborhood Associations and Community Groups. The American Legion Post 560, Huffington Post. Bixby North Neighborhood Association, California Heights Neighborhood Association. Citizens About Responsible Planning or Caap Coalition of Neighborhood Organizations or Colonial Country Club Manor Neighborhood Association. DeForest Park Neighborhood Association, which is a nine. The District nine Friends of Bixby Park, Lakewood Village Neighborhood Association, which I believe is in District five, Long Beach, Gray Panthers, Long Beach Heritage and Low Cerritos Bixby North Clean Street neighbor Naples Neighborhood Watch, which I believe is District three. The Neighborhood Association in District nine. People of Long Beach, Ridgewood Triangle Neighborhood Association, Sleepy Hollow Neighborhood Association, South Street Community Watch, Wrigley Area Neighborhood Alliance, which is in seven Wrigley Clinton team Wrigley is going green and there's a lot through this neighborhood association as in seven and eight. You know, also, I like the the firefighters museum downtown is showing an interest, but they did not want to commit to they had their meeting tomorrow night to go over the details. And Bob Gale could not make it tonight, which is the president of LCA, because right now he is meeting by Zoom with all the associations to increase the communication between our neighborhood group. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name's Lavonne Miller. I'm in District eight and the Long Beach Heritage. Long Beach Heritage has authorized me to. To read this statement. Long Beach Heritage is extremely concerned about the possible declaration of Fire Station nine as surplus property by the Long Beach by the city of Long Beach. This Tudor revival style building was designed by a notable local architect, W Horace Austin, in 1938 and constructed by the Works Progress Administration under President Franklin Roosevelt. The exterior retains its architectural integrity, and the original plan is intact and may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources . It definitely meets the criteria for a Long Beach historic landmark, and it should not be torn down without first exploring an adaptive reuse alternative. Although a draft environmental impact report was prepared for Fire Station nine, a final air has never been completed nor approved. The Planning Commission recommended the Preservation and Adaptive Reuse alternative for the building. The Planning Commission denied the resolution for declaring the fire station surplus property. This matter should be returned to the Planning Commission and the final year should be prepared before the structure can be deemed surplus property by the City Council. Long Beach Heritage recommends that you vote against approval of item 20 1-1029 on October 5th. I also have been authorized to read a statement. From Gordon Barney. He writes. Dear Council members, the undersigned has over 50 years experience in the construction and forensics industries, including mold, investigation and remediation. In all those years and having investigated thousands of structures and renovated hundreds of both residential and commercial structures, I have never seen a single structure needing to be demolished due to the presence of mold. It is my professional opinion that with proper investigation and scope of remediation, this structure can and should be saved from the wrecking ball . And in my last 33 seconds, I just like to put my $0.02 in as a beautiful property. A. It's historic. And it's in a neighborhood that appreciates it and needs a community center very much. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Inexplicably the tumor stickers.
Speaker 1: We're here together.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Good evening, Mayor and vice mayor and city council members. My name is Leif Ackerley, and this is my Aichner. We're from the Wrigley area. And we're also Long Beach heritage members. What I what I like to say is that the assumption is that the fire station has no value being designated a surplus property, which concerns all who have written letters of protest of you. As you've seen before, there are many groups that are interested in this property and want to see it saved. As I mentioned to you in my letters, our historic properties have value and require stewardship. I appreciate the communication from Councilman Austin's office to clarify what the Surplus Land Act is and that the building still requires an e r. However, we heritage are concerned that the process would still allow demolition as an option, and we'd like that removed to a time indefinite to find a buyer. Finding a buyer takes takes a lot of time. It takes a person with vision, and it takes a person who has the resources to rehabilitate that building. That doesn't mean that they're not out there. They are out there. We just have to have the time to find them. And I would please allow interested community groups to enter the premises to assess the viability of the building. Thank you for your time. Good evening.
Speaker 1: And I'd like to reiterate that, you know, Long Beach has a has a sort of a sordid past about historic properties going down before their time, for example, the Jurgens Trust. But we also have a history of having positive outcomes as well, such as the American Hotel on Broadway. So please, hopefully we can have Fire Station nine be one of those success stories. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. There's a motion in a second. Go back to councilman. Awesome. I thank you. And I want to, first of all, thank you staff for a very thorough. Reporter I think you have answered a lot of questions and dispelled a lot of, I think, misinformation that may be in the atmosphere. I also want to thank the people who came forward and took the time out today to come out and give comments and send emails to my office related to this matter. Again, I think the staff report was very, very thorough and answered a lot of questions for me and my colleagues. First off, I want to state that fire station nine, the building was determined by our city manager, fire department safety experts to no longer serve or suitable for a firefighter to live in the building. And my number one priority over the last few years since that has happened have been to and I believe it's the city's number one priority for the district. I know the community. From what I've heard, one of the top priorities for the district is to actually build a new fire station. And so I've asked out of my office and anybody related to this project to make that a focus for the eighth District. Well, Engine and Rescue nine worked out of a temporary station right now. And we're now we've also had the opportunity to acquire a new site for fire station nine, just a few almost a block away from the old fire station. We've secured over $8 million for new power stations to build it, and our team is working currently to finalize designs for that new power station. We also have to secure additional resources. I'm sorry. We still have to secure additional resources to complete the construction of the fire station. So tonight's action does not and will not determine what the future use of that property will be. We will determine that it will. No. We have already determined that it will not be a fire station. It won't be a place where we house city employees. And I know that there are some interested parties, and we've heard from a couple this evening and would like to see the building adaptively reused. And we cannot get to that point of making that determination, in my opinion, or allowing intrastate community groups to submit proposals for such use until we follow state law and first comply with the state law plus land. That I've heard from comment that this action is bypassing the Planning Commission and fast track in an effort to demolish the building. So I want to clear the air and make sure that I have an understanding before we go any further this evening. Is that the case that this action tonight. Move us forward to a demolition process. Councilmember. I'll ask Christopher Coons to talk about the planning commission process. This this surplus land act process does not circumvent any local decision making or approval. Uh, thank you for the question, Councilman Orson. I mean, in summary, the surplus process is a legal process doing it, having to do with the property ownership. But whether the city is the owner or a nonprofit as the owner or a for profit entity or an individual of the owner, they're all subject to the city's land use controls. So no matter what happens to this building, no matter who it's owned by, at source, go through the land use process. It has to go through the environmental process and whatever project has to be will come back to the Planning Commission. Okay. And since I have you there, Mr. Korn, what was the planning decision Planning Commission's decision related to this particular property? I know it's a separate track. Sure. So the Planning Commission was presented with in the air that would have allowed, among other options, demolition of the site. The commission declined to approve that item, and what they instructed staff to do was to delay any action on that approval and actually hand it back to economic development, which is what we did to find out what the marketplace would support that if the city could no longer use the property, what would other possibilities be? And my understanding is that's part of what this request process was going to do. And thank you for clarifying that. And that's the way I understand this. And so really by but that information and the way I understand this this evening, postponing this evening's action does not really in any way further advance the opportunity for adaptive reuse of the site. In fact, it only proposed postpones and makes the discussion. More longer. So a city staff is laid out from the memo that my office shared with the community back in April of this evening's discussion. The only way to get to the opportunity for our party, for this property or community groups, interested organizations along with anyone to submit proposals for the desired uses for this property is the first comply with the Surplus Land Act, which has to be declared this evening. And so it's only going to go through this process that the city staff of my office can then report back to the Planning Commission with additional alternatives for the site they requested before taking action on the air. And nothing will happen with this building, and for that matter, returns to the Planning Commission for consideration of the air will have that correct. Yes, that is correct. And this will allow us to move forward to to receive proposals from any group that's interested in reusing this property. Okay. So we've hopefully cleared up some of the confusion that is out there in the community. Again, no outcomes have been determined here this evening and no outcomes are being determined here this evening. What we are should be determining in this council determining is a process to get us to a place where we can actually have a conversation about adaptive reuse if there's an opportunity to do that with fire station. I move that we improve staff recommendations and ask my colleagues for their support. Thank you. It is emotionally second cousin Ringo. Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank accounts, remember asking for clarifying all the issues involved with this process. And it is a process. And just to reiterate that, it's a process that will continue into the future, because we are looking at options. We are going to be offering it out there for additional purposes of reuse. But the one question I do have one question. Has there been an assessment made on that property as to the value that we might be looking at in the future?
Speaker 1: Malcolm in the first minute, an evaluation has not been conducted, but that will be part of the process as we move forward.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. That's all. Vice Mayor Richardson.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Mr. Mayor, and thanks, Councilman Austin and Councilman Turanga and city staff for the presentation. I think it was very informative, illuminating. Also want to take a moment just to acknowledge some of the neighborhood groups they reached. They came in toward Station 12 over the weekend. The which we adaptively reused in the ninth district. And we opened the new rest, the new station 12. And we, you know, so they reached out, they helped out with a clean up. And we had a conversation, told them kind of how we got to where we got to. And I think it was an important conversation. I think it helped inform tonight's conversation a bit. I do want to ask Mr. Koonce, I think it would be good for people to understand the differences or whoever is appropriate. I think Mr.. And perhaps Mr. Coons, the differences between how we adaptively reuse Station 12 versus Station nine and or Station 12, a lot of the concerns around the and this is perhaps around mold remediation. But if someone could just help clarify for the public how that that's very different.
Speaker 0: So, Mr. Vice Mayor, I'm going to answer your question, but I also want to say part of the surplus property process is, you know, we're going to be looking at what others creatively can come up with, which might be different than what the city came up with and its analysis. So prior in the years prior, you know, this property could no longer be used by the fire department. And we looked at with fire and public works and economic development, we looked at what are the issues with this property. So the mall, they've been remediated multiple times. And from a risk management standpoint, even if we remediated it once more, it was we're not going to be able to have a fire station at this location. So we would be. Accepting a different amount of risk than was the case. And in the fire station where your field office is today. The other thing that we looked at and again, if money were no object, maybe it's not a concern, but the historic nature of the property in order to remediate the mold in a way that would have finality and not have risk going forward, you'd need to remove the roof and build it back differently than what's there today. And you may have to remove large portions of exterior wall. There may be a way to just remove interior wall, but once you don't know until you're in there. So what that consultant team with consultants from USA Environmental Sciences found was that once you do all of that, once you remove the roof, build it back differently, remove portions of the wall. Even when you put the thing back together, it's actually lost its historic nature, which is different than the biggest issue with the fire station near District was it was not ADA compliant. So if you remember, we had to spend some amount of money on ramps and different door improvements, but we were still able to maintain what's called the integrity of the building. Does it have enough historic material in it to remain historic in nature? But again, I say that with the caveat of that was based on our analysis and our experts. But there is a lot of creativity out there among both for profit and nonprofits that might be interested in this property and they may be able to find a different solution.
Speaker 2: Certainly, I just thought it was important to raise that up. We had a great conversation over the weekend and I said I would inquire what the differences were. I think you articulated that, and I think it's important to note and underscore what we just heard councilman often say, that this doesn't preclude a conversation about what the future looks like for that site. Anything it more formalizes that process. I like when we can adaptively reuse buildings. I like when we can, you know, preserve the history of buildings. But I think the Surplus Land Act, I don't think that was even in place when we had the conversation about Station 12, which is a different landscape today with Station nine and 12 and 12. But thank you so much.
Speaker 0: There's a motion and a second. Please cast your vote.
Recommendation to adopt resolution declaring City-owned property located at 3917 Long Beach Boulevard (APN 7139-013-900) (Subject Property) as "surplus land" as defined in Government Code Section 54220 et seq.; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to take any actions and execute any documents necessary to ensure compliance with the Surplus Land Act and State regulations relating thereto.  (District 8)