The project is being sought by Long Beach city management without previous agendized discussion or approval in a project specific vote by the current City Council.

In a June 10 memo to the Commission and interested parties (included in the second of two addenda to the agendized item), Coastal Commission Deputy Director John Ainsworth and Staff Analyst Charles Posner submit text revised in pertinent part as follows:

...C. For the segment of the new pedestrian path between 9th 10th Place and Cherry Avenue, the existing concrete path shall be demolished and a new combined bicycle/pedestrian path shall constructed at least forty feet inland of the current alignment of the concrete path. The new combined bicycle/pedestrian path shall be constructed in a side-by-side configuration and have a maximum width of 28 feet with no sand separation between the bicycle lanes and the pedestrian path. the new pedestrian path shall not be located any closer to the shoreline than the existing concrete path. The revised plans may include the relocation of the existing concrete beach path further inland so that the beach bicycle path and the new pedestrian path do not cross. [Revised text is underlined.]

Asked for quick reaction by LBREPORT.com, Gordana Kajer -- an outspoken opponent of the proposal and the process used to advance it -- said that in her view the new verbiage basically formalizes or clarifies what was described in the first condition and doesn't make significant substantive changes. "There's nothing in my mind in the new language that makes the proposal any less offensive," Ms. Kajer said.

Ms. Kajer acknowledged that part of the two paths from 9th St. to Cherry Ave. will be closer together without sand separating them but said "none of this addresses the question of the path or location from the Cherry Ave. parking lot [eastward] to the Pier. That's the part that runs along Bluff Park. What's currently proposed will mean that when we or visitors stroll along Bluff Park, instead of seeing sandy beach they'd see two paved structures on the seaward side of the existing path."

Ms. Kajer said Councilmembers have thus far "shirked their duty by approving a line item buried in a budget documents and now expect the Coastal Commission to design a project for them," adding "the Council has forfeited its local control of what happens on our beach." She added, "This political beauty pageant could be ended by city management tomorrow by withdrawing the current application and allowing the public the opportunity it deserves to be heard in a proper Council decision making process."

Ms. Kajer said: "The Council voted on a budget item. It didn't vote on this project and that in itself should be enough for anybody to say that what happened was wrong. The process is all wrong and so the project is all wrong."

The latest addendum includes multiple letters and correspondence, pro and con.

Some emails supporting the second paved path appear to stem from a mass emailing by RunRacing, organizer/presenter of the Long Beach Marathon, urging support for the proposal. For details, see LBREPORT.com coverage here.

Among those submitting materials in opposition was Ann Cantrell, who cited the following among her arguments urging rejection of the proposed second paved path:

[Cantrell text] This picture, taken on Monday 6/3/13 at 5 p.m.) shows a child attempting to cross the path. Imagine his having to do this on a weekend and not only this 17 foot path, but another 11 foot path, with 10 feet of sand in between. Add a family of toddlers and these paths will be an even bigger danger...

To view the latest addendum in full -- which includes the text revision proffered by Coastal Commission staff and multiple public comments pro and con, click here

This addendum follows a previous addendum visible here with 171 pages of materials including comments pro and con.

The process used by city management to advance the project included a city staffer who presented management's plan in basically Power Point form at neighborhood and "stakeholder" group meetings. An individual [who opposes the project] who was present at one of the meetings told LBREPORT.com that at the conclusion of the meeting, the city staffer distributed forms (which are now visible in the some of the Coastal Commission addenda) enabling meeting attendees to express support for the project [arguably making city staff's presentation less than a neutral presentation seeking public input.]

To date, there has been no agendized discussion or project specific voted approval for the second paved bike bath by the current City Council. Instead, city management embedded the project within its proposed massive annual budget as part of its "Capital Improvement Program", with no graphics, illustrations, photos or project details.

Using the Council's budget vote, city staff then sought Coastal Commission approval in November 2012...and told Coastal Commission staff it hoped for approval in January 2013.

Meanwhile, Long Beach coastal protection advocates, including the LB branch of the Surfrider Foundation, spotted the item and submitted written materials in opposition. Two veteran coastal protection advocates, Gordana Kajer and Melinda Cotton, independently used the period for public comment on non-agendized items to object to City Hall's proposal on the merits as well as the manner in which the City was pursuing it.

The proposed paved path spans two Council districts: the 2nd (Councilmember Suja Lowenthal) and the 3rd (Councilmember Gary DeLong). Yesterday (June 10), Councilman DeLong sent a mass emailing inviting responses from recipients on the item. Councilwoman Lowenthal has previously told the PressTelegram that she supports the project.

Several project opponents have urged that the item be withdrawn to enable public input, discussion pro and con and a recorded vote, up or down, by a City Council majority on the project impacting Long Beach's remaining namesake beach.

Developing...with further to follow on LBREPORT.com

Previous LBREPORT.com coverage

Councilman DeLong Sends Mass Email Asking If Recipients Support/Oppose Second Paved Path (Separating Pedestrians/Bicyclists) Along 3.1 Miles of Sand Between Downtown Marina & 54th Place; Melinda Cotton Replies With Her Opposition Correspondence To Coastal Comm'n (Read It Here)