california coastal commission june 13 th 2013 pedestrian beach path

California Coastal CommissionJune 13th 2013

Pedestrian Beach Path

Coastal Act ViolationsCoastal Act - Section 30211: •Dual paths will interfere with coastal access and create new hazards.•Elimination of parking spaces in public lot reduces public access.Coastal Act - Section 30251: •These paved paths will look like a roadway and destroy the natural aesthetic of our beach.

Coastal Act ViolationsCoastal Act - Section 30211: •Dual paths will interfere with coastal access and create new hazards.•Elimination of parking spaces in public lot reduces public access.Coastal Act - Section 30251: •These paved paths will look like a roadway and destroy the natural aesthetic of our beach.

These violations are compounded by the fact that the there is no demonstrated

need for the project.

Local Approval of the Project?

The Long Beach City Council

did not approve the beach pedestrian

path as described in this CDP application.

Local Approval of the Project?

The Long Beach City Council did approve

a two sentence budget line item contained in a

130 page FY2012 Capital Improvement

Plan.

NO Local Approval of the Project!

“A new pedestrian beach walking path and new lighting*

enhancements are needed. New lighting will include security

lighting along the beach bike path.”

$5 Million Dollars

(* Lighting is now removed from the CDP request)

Project Description:

Beach Path Boondoggle

Deny this CDP Application

The Long Beach City Council NEVER

voted on or approved a separated beach path.

No Public Input or Comment

Section 30006 Legislative findings and declarations; public participation

"The Legislature further finds and declares that the public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development; that achievement of sound coastal conservation and development is dependent upon public understanding and support; and that the continuing planning and implementation of programs for coastal conservation and development should include the widest opportunity for public participation."



The public was NOT allowed comment or debate on this project in front of Long Beach City Council.

Second Path “Safer for the Public” ?

City of Long Beach CDP application clearly states:

“to relieve overcrowding”



“to relieve overcrowding”“reduce conflicts between user

groups”




groups”“make the path safer for the

public “

Second Path “Safer for the Public”?



groups”“make the path safer for the

public”“…to alleviate congestion”

Evidence of Congestion

Image courtesy of the City of Long Beach Beach Path Presentation

“Existing Conditions”


CCC Staff Report states:Page 7“The City asserts that the proposed project will relieve overcrowding and reduce conflicts between users (cyclists, walkers, runners, skaters) of the existing concrete beach path.”

Page 8-9“The proposed pedestrian path…will provide improved public access and recreational opportunities…by providing a separate path for pedestrians. This separation of the two paths will make the beach safer for bicyclists and pedestrians.”


The evidence provided by the City of Long Beach to support their assertions of overcrowding, congestion, accidents, and conflicts on

the existing path and improved safety with

construction of a second parallel beach path is:


Nothing


NothingNo data.

No studies.No documentation.

No evidence to support any of these statements.

There is no data. There is no analysis.

The City of Long Beach has not done any study of the existing

bike path or its use.

The City of Long Beach cannot support their statement that a

separated path will be SAFER

since they have NO DATA


Image courtesy of the

City of Long Beach

Is a Second Path REALLY needed? Exactly when is the existing path congested?

•Provide data that supports the daily, weekly, monthly, or seasonally congestion.



What kinds of cyclists use the existing path? •Beach cruisers, cardio/racers, families out on a bike ride together?




What types of pedestrians use the existing path? •Joggers, walkers, race training events, pushing a stroller or a wheelchair




What types of pedestrians use the existing path? • Joggers, walkers, race training events, pushing a stroller or a wheelchair

What conflicts and accidents have occurred on the existing path?•Between which users? Cyclists/runners, slow cyclists/fast cyclists

Is a Second Path really needed? Exactly when is the existing path congested?



What types of pedestrians use the existing path? • Joggers, walkers, race training events, pushing a stroller or a wheelchair

What conflicts and accidents have occurred on the existing path?•Between which users? Cyclists/runners, slow cyclists/fast cyclists

How will cyclists and others on wheels together on a separated path be MORE SAFE?

Wheelchair users? Strollers? Roller bladers? Roller skaters? Rental buggies?

Ask the City of Long Beach to produce their data and share with

the California Coastal Commission

AND THE PUBLIC information to support their

assertionsbefore the City of Long Beach is allowed to destroy sand beach on the basis of unsupported,

misleading and bogus statements.

A Second Path is NOT Needed!

Is a Second Path REALLY needed?

Saturday June 8, 2013 at 10:30AM

Existing Conditions

On our Beach Path



There is NO evidence to support misleading statements that a separated beach path is

needed or will be MORE SAFE for any users.

THIS is the Existing Condition!

Stop This Project Now!

california coastal commission june 13 th 2013 pedestrian beach path

Documents