On May 2, 2012, at the Planning Commission meeting a report was given by Robert Goldberg .…THAT FULLY EXPLAINED… how the “70%/30%” open space vs developed space has been confused and misguided for many years.  How much by design and how much by ignorance cannot be judged at this time but it was refreshing to hear someone appointed by the city stand up and tell it like it was.

Robert Goldberg’s Slide #1 was entitled  CONCERNS:  A- The EIR GREATLY underestimates the potential loss of open space. B- “My (Goldberg’s) estimate is the open space loss is approximately 1.5 acres not the 0.2 shown in the EIR . C- EIR does not accurately inform the publlic regarding a critical issue - loss of open space!” (WSUB Emphasis)

Part of same slide HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?   A- EIR incorrectly concludes that the legal description of the Specific Plan area does not support the use of 70/30.  B- EIR staff were provided with an incomplete Specific Plan map.   C-EIR incorrectly  uses Central Way as the ‘line in the sand” ….rathr than the 70/30 split it should have been

Next slide: Legal Description: Nothing to do with 70/30 land split.  It just describes the boundary of all property in the Specific Plan. It goes on to say that the “Legal Description” has no language regarding the 70/30 split (70% open space) or “where to draw the line.”   Further it does not describe the sub-area subject to Land Use Development Standards.  This sub-area is defined by the Land Use Development Map which is included as “Exhibit A”

The next slide shows the Land Use Development Map which clearly shows that all development is to on the ‘northerly’  part of the land.  That would be on the side of Central Street closest to Pacific Coast Highway…and that no development should be done on any portion of what would be the extension of Central.  The legal boundary map….on the same slide shows that part of the legal boundary is actually in the riverbed!

Next Goldberg asks the question …”SO WHICH MAP DO  WE USE FOR 70/30?”     Section A: Introduction  3-location describes the entire boundary of the Specific Plan   Section B   1-Loation ” the general location of all principle land uses is shown in Exhibit A”   3- Visitor Serving “northerly 30%” and 4-Open Space….the southerly 70%

Goldberg goes on to say “So what does all this mean?   It means that the llegal description includes 1.3 acres of river, levee rocks, and riverfront land that was intentionally not included in the LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PLAN!   Since the river/riverfront area was excluded by the the Land Use Development map this area is not covered by the 70/30 provisions of the Plan and was never intended to contribute to the 70% open space requirement.

A- Open Space provided by Specific Plan  totals 7.9 acres:  River/Riverfront area is 1.3 acres.  Development area is 6.6 acres (70% x 9.46 ac) B-Open Space provided by the Proposaltotals 6.4 acres:   River/riverfront area 1.2 acres; Development area: 5.2 acres.

That difference is 1.5 acres….not 0.2 acres as stated in the EIR

There are additional maps in Mr. Goldbergs presentation which you can find on line, HOWEVER, Mr Goldberg finishes with the following:

WHAT HAPPENED?

A- Its unclear.

B- the 1996 revisions (Resolution 4444) to the Specific Plan did not change the map.

C- A “user-friendly” version of the Specific Plan was created the next day by the City Staff

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

A-Use of the southern border of Central Way as the “line in the sand” by the EIR is clearly not the intent of the Specific Plan (…even if it might be what the  Bay City Partners would like. WSUB emphasis)

B-The EIR use of Central Way inappropriately underestimates potential loss of open space

Much of this report is technological jargon which gets confusing when one doesn’t have the maps in front of them.  Robert Goldberg’s report was excellent and we apologize for not being able to copy it in its entirety here. We encourage you to contact him by email for more information.

For more info and copies of the slides go to <rgoldberg@live.com>

Please meet at Long Beach Big Rec golf course at 5 o’clock on May 8 to spread a few ashes on the 16th hole in memory of Bob’s hole in one.

This will be very informal.  No banquets are planned.

LIBBY AND KEN APPLEGATE

Dear Friends,  We really need to be heard at the Plannning Commission on Wednesday, May 2nd at 7PM  This is public trust land and we need to stand up

Please come and be heard.  Seal Beach is not an accident!  It took hard work to make this city what it is. WE need you to show up and let the council know that no matter how much they keep putting off  the DWP problem….WE’RE NOT GOING AWAYf …….PLEASE !!!

1) First, we’re  not sure why a feasibility study is relevant given that the developers bought the land with the zoning for a hotel already in place.  The feasibility of the hotel is their issue, not the public’s.  Why does it matter if they decide later it’s not feasible.

2) Even if “feasibility” is somehow relevant, the studies are completely flawed in both set up and in the actual calculation.

Set up

- A feasibility study would not include the historical cost of the land purchased. A feasibility study would be used to determine if hotel can be built, and then to back into what price one could afford to pay for the land.  Doing it the other way is not “feasibility” ……it is simply calculating profitability, retroactively.  A developer’s profitability is certainly not the public’s concern, unless they were planning to share their profits with the public if they got  a good deal.

-  Even if  their historical land cost is somehow relevant, including a return for their “sunk cost” of the past 10 years of holding the land in the cost-basis is simply unreasonable in a “feasibility” study.  And it’s even more unreasonable when land values generally declined over that period.  Again, how is their return or their “opportunity cost” of any concern to the public?

Calculations

First, the financial models done by Kosmont are simply wrong.  They made a couple math errors that invalidate the entire analysis.

Math errors:

- Interest expense is held constant throughout the entire 10 projection period on all the scenarios.  Obviously that’s incorrect, as interest expense will vary with debt balances.  Balances will increase as they lose money and will decrease as they pay down debt.  In their first scenario, for example, the effect is so dramatic that in year 10 projected interest expense is $1.3 million more that it would be.

- They make the same mistake in calculating Terminal Enterprise Value. They assume the debt balance is the same at the end  of the 10 years,when in fact it would have declined from $$21.5mm to only $5.0mm, in scenario one for example. Similar for all the other scenarios.

- The IRR in scenario 1, using THEIR numbers, but correcting the math mistake, would make the projected IRR go from 16% to 26%.

- Interest expense in couple of the scenarios appear to simply be wrong.  And it reduces the returns dramatically.

Unrealistic Assumptions:

- Kosmont assumes that the interest rate would stay the same for all 10 years.  Naturally, when the hotel gets to a steady state, as projected by year 5, they would be able to refinance at better rates.

- Requiring a 20% IRR over 10 years is not realistic.   Once the hotel gets to a steady state, the required return is much lower, which is why “cap rates” for hotels in the stock market are only 7% right now.  A 5 year window of start-up risk is more appropriate for a 20% return.  In scenario one, if the developer sells the hotel at year 5, they would achieve a 30% IRR.

- The 8% cap rate assumed in the analysis is conservative, given where the market is right now.

Results

Correcting the math errors alone leads to several scenarios that are over 20% IRR. If we slightly adjust a few assumptions to more realistic ones, like cap rate, refinancing rate, using actual cost on the land (which shouldn’t even be included at all in our opinion), then almost every scenario becomes feasible with 16%-30% IRR ranges.

JOIN YOUR NEIGHBORS TONIGHT!

(As mentioned in earlier articles, What’s Up in Seal Beach receives periodic reports from a large group of Seal Beach residents who are in opposition to the Bay City Partners group who are trying put a high density residential development on the old DWP land on the waterfront beginning at First and Ocean. What follows was received at 9 p.m. Tuesday evening.)

SEAL BEACH NEIGHBORS: Thank you again for coming to the DWP Advisory Committee meeting.  We think the Council is beginning to ‘hear’ you. Tomorrow night is the “rescheduled” EQCB Meeting at 6PM in the Council Chambers. Let’s see if they try to reschedule it again!

Remember that the DWP land has been on the “high priority list” of the Coastal Commission for many years. The current owners have owned this property for 10 years and all they’ve done is construct a “block-out-the-view spite fence” and allowed motor cross to destroy the natural vegetation and perhaps natural habitats. Good Guys…they are not!

They currently have threatened the City of Seal Beach with lawsuits if the Council does not change the zoning to fit their needs. We need your help us stop the over development of this land.

Schedule of coming meetings:

* EQCB (Environmental Quality Control Board)  Wednesday April 26th at 6PM in the City Council Chambers

* Planning Commission Final EIR & Project Recommendation Wednesday May 2nd      7:30 PM in the City Council Chambers

* City Council (1st hearing) Final EIR & Final Project hearing   Monday June 11  7PM

* City Council (2nd hearing) Final EIR & Final project hearing   Monday June 25  7PM

Remember:

*The Developers not only are trying to change the existing zoning they are going to get a lot of money from the city….and we are going to pay for it!

• 48 row houses densely packed end to end & a severe reduction of the planned park land  will be covered in concrete( This is the last bluff on Southern California Coast)

*   These houses will be jammed on 25′ narrow lots.

• There will be costly  concessions from the rest of  us to these developers.

We will have to pay the developers $900,000 to lease the driveway to 1st Street parking lot & we will get ZER0 of the Parking fees!

We are still trying to find out how something like this slipped through without the citizens being told.

We don’t want:

* Increased traffic, noise, pollution

* Increased costs for sewers, roads, water, schools

* Increased FIRE and POLICE costs

* Cancellation of Open Space that has been planned for over 10 years!

STAY TUNED…..We’ll try again!

SEAL BEACH NEIGHBORS:  Please attend the DWP meetings at the City Council meeting tonight! The DWP property has been on the high priority list of the Coastal Commission for 40 years!

AT 6 p.m. tonight there is an Environmental Quality Control Board  meeting -Monday April 17th tonight 6:PM

AT 6:30 p.m tomorrow night there is a  DWP Advisory Committee Meeting – Tuesday April 17th  6:30 PM

THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL DOESN’T BELIEVE THAT MOST OF THE CITIZENS ARE AGAINST THIS PROJECT !

In 2003 THe DWP Ocean front acres were bought for $4,000,000.  When the Bay City Partners, bought the land they knew it was Zoned 70% Open Space/30% Visitor Serving Commercial …NOW THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT.

They are trying to invalidate that zoning and reduce the open space and adversely impact the remaining space…not with “Visitor Serving Commercial development ….but with densely packed row housing.

The Developers get:

* $900,000 from the city…which we will pay for.

*   48 row houses densely packed end to end on and a severe reduction of the park land (To the last bluff on        Southern California Coast)

* 25′ narrow lots

* Costly concessions from us the taxpayers (We pay the developer $900,000 to lease the driveway to 1st Street lot?  We get no parking fees for that “gift”

Is it right to grant a zone change to developers just so they can make more money ?

Seal Beach Residents & the city get what?

* Increased traffic, noise, and pollution

* Increased costs for sewers, roads, water, schools

* Increased FIRE and POLICE costs

Densely populated housing tracts REDUCE THE VALUE OF the rest of the home values in Seal Beach.

THEN: In 2003 THe DWP “Ocean front acres: were bought for 4 Million dollars and there was strict zoning in place. Zoned 70% Open Space/30% “Visitor Serving Commercial.” (VSC would have brought lots of tax dollars to the city.)

NOW: The Developers get money back; lots instead of the planned development; more of the 70% that should have been open space; 48 row houses densely packed end to end on and a severe reduction of the park land (last bluff on southern California Coast) ;25′ narrow lots; costly concessions from us,the taxpayers, we pay the developer $900,000 to lease the driveway to 1st Street lot, 0 park fees. ( THAT’S RIGHT NO PARKING FEES TO THE CITY!)

*Is it right to grant a zone change to developers just so they can make more money ?

Seal Beach Residents get ?????

* Increased traffic, noise, pollution

* Increased costs for sewers, roads, water, schools

* Increased FIRE and POLICE costs

Why should  we subsidize this many houses ???  Densely populated housing tracts will contribute to the end of “Mayberry By The Sea” if we don’t stop this miscarriage of justice.  Please show up tonight and let your elected council member know what your feelings are about this miscarriage of justice.  It’s not too late!

(Editor’s Note: Since this project came up What’s Up in Seal Beach has seen the number of opponents within the city grow exponentially. A very, very dramatic rise …yet other publications continue to say that the developers are in the ‘driver’s seat.’  In our candid opinion…we don’t agree …and we encourage those of you in opposition to the proposed development to show up at tonight’s Council Meeting.)

This just after the berm came down?

Fortunately the tides are not predicted to be very high.

Beach front residents will be watching closely.

100% of the proceeds benefit the Seng Girls’ Vocational Training School and Home (SGVTS) Project in Northern China. It supports and offers a new life for a girls’ school in China.

This bilingual book was initiated by a group of Captivating International volunteers in Shenzhen who, at the time, embraced China as their home.

The cookbook committee, made up of 6 ladies, includes Lynn Velez (nee Mutke), a Wilson High School and San Diego State University grad currently living in Shenzhen.

“This book is a testimony of their willingness to give back to a country that has given them and their families so much,” commented Valerie Kingsland and Lisa Sommerville of Apostrophe Books in Belmont Shore.”

“Our committee saw a need to create an English/Chinese cookbook, featuring recipes from all over the world, submitted by people in our immediate community” said Lynn Velez.  “It does take a village to raise a child and the ‘Shenzhen Village’ has exemplified this through the publication of the cookbook, which is now helping to support over 120 girls at SGVTS.”

For more than two years hundreds of people volunteered their time and expertise by translating and test-cooking recipes, photographing the cooked dishes (and the girls) …  and, diligently proofing the cookbook.  The book would not be the work of art it is today without the volunteer design team who turned it into a “coffee table book.” Print Ninja, a Columbia, MO – based printing company, is to thank, as well, for donating their services and covering the majority of the printing costs.

The Seng Girls’ Vocational Training School and Home is a place of safety and promise for girls from extremely disadvantaged circumstances.  Located in the southern part of China’s Qinghai Province, the SGVTS was established in 2005 by a family who had a passion to see girls from ‘at-risk’ circumstances given the chance to achieve their dreams. The SGVTS is a registered vocational training school and operates with the full cooperation of local and provincial governments of Qinghai.  It is central to the vision and dreams of a Chinese registered non-profit organization called LOVEQTRA.  Captivating International, www.captivating.org who partners with LOVEQTRA to see these impoverished girls reach out for a better tomorrow, fully funds the operating costs of this program and its strategic development.

Apostrophe Books www.apostrophebooks.net is located in the heart of Belmont Shore at 4712 E. 2^nd Street, Long Beach Ca 90803. Phone: 562-438-7950.

Lynn Velez Email: lvelez@whalenasia.com

(Editor’s apology: We were not able to upload the photo of the book. It’s beyond beautiful.  Go by Apostrophe to see it.)

All that may be true and I believe it when they say ultimately there will be 150 million sold and several more Zillion dollars will be added to Apple’s overall company value.  However, when I went into the new Seal Beach store, “Mac-fusion”, at 304 Main Street (next to the Abbey) on Saturday they still had new iPads to sell and were expecting more to be delivered Saturday and Monday.

It seemed to me that more of the people were getting their existing Macs upgraded and/or serviced than were walking out with the new iPads.

I will admit that the one I saw being displayed had striking graphic performance.  Apple calls it the Retina display: like the one on the iPhone 4S, it’s a very, very sharp screen. It’s four times as sharp as the iPad 2 — in fact, it’s the sharpest ever on a mobile device. This screen has 3.1 million pixels, which is 1 million pixels more than on a high-definition TV set.

In principle, all those pixels and the color saturation means now photos, videos, maps and text should look unbelievably good — and the apps that have been rewritten for the new screen do. Apple’s own apps, like Photos, Maps and iBooks, are very sharp and clear.  So are Apple’s inexpensive, newly enhanced iPad apps — iMovie, GarageBand, the Numbers spreadsheet and the Pages word processor. Its hard to believe the difference it makes.

What else is new:

-A tiny microphone now appears on the on-screen keyboard. Tapping it lets you speak to type, exactly as on the iPhone 4S. The recognition is fast and accurate

-       A 5-megapixel back camera that takes far better photos than the iPad 2 did. You‘ll get1080p hi-def videos now, and a stabilization feature lends a hand when yours is shaky or moving.

In this reporter’s opinion nothing else compares with it.  Not really surprising….its an Apple product, after all.

In addition to the superior graphics it has a quad-core processor and those things alone I’m sure will trigger many millions of sales over the next few weeks.

Why are the new iPads available in Seal Beach?  Maybe some of the Apple fans haven’t found out about the neww Seal Beach store yet? (12 years experience but less than 30 days in Old Town)  Undoubtedly they will when they start calling and emailing to find out who has new iPads to sell and the only spot is in our town!

Let’s hope when they come to Seal they take the walk to the Pier and find out there’s more to “Mayberry by the Sea” than just Apple sales and service.

Although I will admit it’s a pretty snazzy store.

Bob passed from this life in a manner that many of us might envy.

He had a small cut on his leg that wasn’t healing and Frank Addleman encouraged him to go see a doctor.  He did and the doctor said it was quite serious and asked him to go to a hospital for a more in depth review.  The hospital told Bob that yes the leg was serious, however, something even more serious was found. He had a very aggressive form of leukemia and while he could take some very strong chemo treatments…they did not have a good record against the type of leukemia he had and there was much sickness along with the treatments….but if he didn’t take them death was imminent.  Perhaps 7 days.

Bob opted for the 7 days.  During that short time he wrote his own epitath and made arrangements for his family and those few friends that he expected to come to his memorial at the Long Beach Yacht Club.  After all, he was 78 and your circle of pals diminishes with age. At least, so he thought.  Humble to the last.

I hope he was able to look down and see the approximate 500  people who showed up at the Long Beach Yacht Club.

Over 75 people wrote their thoughts in the “Legacy” section of the Press Telegram. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/lbpresstelegram/obituary.aspx?n=joseph-robert-gruneisen-bob&pid=155873115

At one point during the remarks, one of the speakers sked if everyone in the audience who’d had Bob as a teacher or had competed in swimming events against him or his team would raise their hand.  Over 90% of the hands went up.

The Long Beach Lifeguards had two rescue boats outside ….Bob’s nephew is a guard….and they shot giant plumes of water up in the air for 5 minutes.  It was a striking display.

By and large the majority of those in attendance were men and women who had Bob as a teacher and much younger than his older gang from Belmont Shore days.  And such a turnout tells us the importance of a good teacher to our children and grandchildren…if we didn’t already know.

Just a few of the comments from the many in the Legacy section:

Neil Conkings said “Mr. Gruneisen was my favorite teacher at Wilson. (class of ‘69) My friends were on the swim and water Polo teams, so myself and my girlfriends were around him a lot. He even talked me into handing out trophies at one of the swim events. Several years back I saw him again at the Wilson Alumni golf tournament at rec park and was so happy to have some time to chat with him. He was a great man and will be sorely missed.

Theresa Bixby said, ”I met Bob when I was training with the US Women’s Waterpolo team. He let me train with the Wilson boy’s swim team to keep in shape. He always had such a great smile and a natural joy for life. It was contagious. He had that twinkle in his eye… I never knew exactly what ‘twinkel in the eye’ meant until I met Bob.”

Steve Nott said “ I attended Bob’s celebration of life with more that 400 others @ LB Yacht Club. I will always carry with me that when the question was asked: “Who here was coached by Bob or coached with or against him?” and it seemed like almost every hand went up!  Also, his nephew summed up Bob’s finest qualities: a great listener; very caring; extremely kind. He will be missed, and he most definitely had a wonderful life.

Phil Poland said “I met Bob a few years ago when we were sometimes in the same foursome playing golf at Rec Park. I found him to be a really great guy and very friendly. I learned that he had been a teacher at Wilson High School and had taught History to one of my younger friends. We never got around to discussing our common interests such as being Porsche owners or times spent in Hawaii. I envied his handsome looks, slim build and eternal tan. A real gentleman that I regret not having the opportunity to know better.”

Barry Wood said “Bob was a gentleman. He coached me for 3 years in water polo with Pete Archer. What a great team-those two were. And I could call him a friend after polo. I would sit with him at Wilson-Newport games and he would come to our reunions. What a great guy. He will be missed…..

Jodi Pelegrino-Sewell, the daughter of his close friend Ed Sewell said ,“You were a great influence in my life, Mr. G. When I was in high school and at my lowest, you raised my head up with your direct honesty and your gracious generosity. When I felt like less than nothing, you treated me to a full day at a Long Beach day spa. I’ve never forgotten that. Thank you, God, for Mr. Gruniesen. I loved him.”

And lastly, Lew Gordon summed it  up.  He said, “ I don’t remember any of my teachers other than Mr. Gruneisen. He was a wonderful teacher and a very nice man.

Grundoon….we’ll never forget you.