(June 10, 2013) -- Councilman Gary DeLong today (June 10) sent a mass emailing, which can be viewed in full by clicking here, noting that Thursday's (June 13) Coastal Commission agenda includes a proposal to build a new pedestrian / jogger only path parallel to the current bicycle-pedestrian path.
"The purpose of the new path is to reduce congestion and collisions by separating bikers and roller bladers from joggers and pedestrians," Councilman DeLong writes. "The proposed path would be 11 feet wide, 3.1 miles long and would stretch from Alamitos Avenue to 54th Place. The two separate paths would be separated by a 10-foot-wide stretch of sand. I'd like to hear from you. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the City [should] create a new path on the beach?"
Councilman DeLong's email doesn't mention that the project was embedded as a line item within the city management proposed, Mayor recommended City Hall budget. The project is roughly half in DeLong's 3rd district and half in Councilwoman Lowenthal's 2nd Council district.
Among the opponents is Melinda Cotton, a Third Council district resident, who emailed Councilman DeLong the response below to his question on whether or not to put a second paved path along the sand. Ms. Cotton's letter is addressed to the Coastal Commission and is a public record included in that agency's publicly agendized file on the item.
June 5, 2013
Mr. Charles Posner
Coastal Program Analyst
California Coastal Commission
200 Oceangate -- Tenth Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Dear Mr. Posner:
Re: Application Number: 5-12-320 (City of Long Beach Pedestrian Path)
Oppose Construction of an additional 3.1 mile long, 4.2 Acre Pedestrian Path on our natural sand beach
I ask that the Coastal Commission preserve and protect the open, natural, sandy beach seaward of the existing bicycle/pedestrian path along our Long Beach shoreline. If an additional paved surface is proven truly necessary, I ask that any additional paved surface be placed inland from the existing path. I ask that the Commission reject the Application before you and send it back to the City for reworking and proper public input through its Planning Commission and City Council hearing processes.
As a thirty-year resident of Long Beach (living less than three blocks from the ocean), I find that its oceanfront location and sand beach are a major attraction for the City, its residents and especially its coastal visitors. This beach is an excellent location for those who live inland to come to learn about and enjoy the ocean, play in the sand, picnic, put up a chair to read or sit and watch the waves, play Frisbee or volleyball, fly kites or kite surf, etc.
The rest of Long Beach is already covered with buildings and residences, or already paved over. At our City General Plan meetings, we are told that 21% of Long Beach is composed of public rights of way - consisting of paved streets, freeways, sidewalks, and bike trails, and rail lines and Edison rights of way. We do not need even more pavement.
Our sandy beach is finite; with global warming and rising sea levels, we may expect to soon lose portions of our beach to higher tides.
I ask the California Coastal Commission to refer to the Coastal Act - and specifically note the first paragraph of Legislative findings (contained in the PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE DIVISION 20 CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT (2013) [Coastal Act]
The first two items listed are especially pertinent:
Section 30001 Legislative findings and declarations; ecological balance
The Legislature hereby finds and declares:
a) That the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem.
b) That the permanent protection of the state's natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation.
Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect which the activity may have on the environment.
However there are two obvious feasible alternatives in this case: 1) A "no build" alternative; or 2) Locating the new path inland from the existing path.
The City of Long Beach has submitted no data to demonstrate that an additional paved path is needed on our beach. The existing path is only lightly used most of the year (the photo shown on page 6 of the Coastal Staff Report shows only three pedestrians on the wide swath of existing path).
The City does not manage or police the existing path for safety of pedestrians, skaters or bike riders. Pedestrians and runners wander into the path of bicycles. Loose dogs are common on the path near Rosie's Dog Beach. By installing another path on the beach, we can only expect additional conflicts and unsafe conditions. With the existing 17 foot wide bike path inland from the pedestrian path, those on foot must cross in front of bikes to get either to the new path or to the beach.
Additional safety concerns are present at the Belmont Pier. There are "Stop" signs for bike riders on the path currently at the Belmont Pier pedestrian crossing, but we never see bike riders stop, they just ride right through. There is no enforcement. Currently there is a sharp right turn in the ramp going east from the Pier, which slows down bike riders. But the proposed reconstruction of the ramps at this location straightens the ramp - which will encourage bike riders to not only go through the stop signs on the Pier, but to speed ahead and down the ramp. Again, we do not see any type of policing of the existing path, and with severe City budget cutbacks it's hard to see the City providing funds for such policing.
City Staff members at Beach Path presentations have stated that dogs will be allowed on the proposed new pedestrian path. Even if leashed, this could cause problems with dogs frightening other path users, dogs playing or fighting each other, getting tangled in leashes, hindering pedestrians, getting in the way of bicycles and skaters, etc.
The City also plans to eliminate 32 parking spaces at the Belmont Pier. This Pier parking lot is heavily used in the summer and weekends by patrons of nearby restaurants and businesses, by adjacent condominium and apartment dwellers and their visitors, by fishermen and Pier goers, and by coastal visitors and those going to the Belmont Pool. The indoor Pool itself is now closed, but the City will be installing a large temporary pool in the parking lot East of the Belmont Pool, and that parking lot will likely also be used for construction staging and demolition of the old Belmont Pool building and construction of the new indoor and outdoor pool. This temporary pool and the planned construction project will go on for years, and likely take up hundreds of beach parking spaces. The loss of 32 parking spaces at the Belmont Pier and loss of hundreds of other beach parking spaces due to the Pool Project will impact families and others from North Long Beach, Compton, Watts and other inner city neighborhoods who like to bring their families to the beach for a picnic. Families can't ride bikes a dozen miles or more with babies, little children, grandmothers etc. and their beach and picnic gear. These families most likely will drive and need a place to park near the ocean, in order to enjoy the beach.
We are told in the application that the additional Beach Path is needed to provide access to the beach. But on Page 8 of the Staff Report, it is noted that: "The public currently has unrestricted access along the entire shoreline where the pedestrian path is proposed. Numerous stairway and sidewalks provide vertical access between the City's street-ends and the sandy beach. Several public parking lots are located on the beach itself." So beach access is not a documented issue.
The City plans to spend some $5 million dollars on the new beach path. But it has never released information on how these millions are to be spent. The City has refused to consider locating the proposed new path inland of the existing path because of the alleged "increased cost of the project". But we the public have not been allowed to look at any cost estimates, and we were denied the opportunity to actively participate in the design and path placement process. I attended four of the Beach Path "presentations" and viewed another. Staff was repeatedly asked to move the Path inland from the existing path. But we were stonewalled in those efforts. Since these were not Planning Commission or City Council public hearings, there is no documentation of these "presentation" meetings. Attendees were simply told that a new Beach Path placed inland from the existing path was "too expensive". And now with changes required by the Coastal Commission staff, it appears that there will be additional costs to the proposed path seaward. We again ask the Commission to turn down the current City proposal and go through an open, transparent process to demonstrate the need for an additional path and to study costs and benefits of the path location. A true public process is promised by Section 30006 of the Coastal Act (as copied below):
"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 Commission should require the City of Long Beach to withdraw its current application, and put any new Coastal Application through its complete Planning Commission and City Council process. To date, the only Long Beach City Council "approval" of this $5 million dollar proposed Coastal Beach Path Project was a one line "funding" item on page 28 in a City Council Budget "Tidelands Funding" Document for the Fiscal Year 2012. The "funding" approval of September 2011 included no project details...
As previously reported by LBREPORT.com, Coastal Commission staff is recommending approval of the second paved path with conditions. Readers can access the full Coastal Commission staff report as part of LBREPORT.com's coverage via this link.
