1. California Coastal Commission June 13 th 2013 Pedestrian Beach Path

2. Coastal Act Violations Coastal 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.

3. Coastal Act Violations Coastal 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.

4. Local Approval of the Project? The Long Beach City Council did not approve the beach pedestrian path as described in this CDP application.

5. 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.

6. 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:

7. Beach Path Boondoggle Deny this CDP Application The Long Beach City Council NEVER voted on or approved a separated beach path.

8. 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."

9. Beach Path Boondoggle Deny this CDP Application The public was NOT allowed comment or debate on this project in front of Long Beach City Council.

10. Second Path “Safer for the Public” ? City of Long Beach CDP application clearly states: “to relieve overcrowding”

11. Second Path “Safer for the Public” ? City of Long Beach CDP application clearly states: “to relieve overcrowding” “reduce conflicts between user groups”

12. Second Path “Safer for the Public” ? City of Long Beach CDP application clearly states: “to relieve overcrowding” “reduce conflicts between user groups” “make the path safer for the public “

13. Second Path “Safer for the Public”? City of Long Beach CDP application clearly states: “to relieve overcrowding” “reduce conflicts between user groups” “make the path safer for the public” “…to alleviate congestion”

14. Evidence of Congestion Image courtesy of the City of Long Beach Beach Path Presentation “Existing Conditions”

15. Second Path “Safer for the Public”? 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.”

16. Second Path “Safer for the Public”? 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:

17. Second Path “Safer for the Public”? Nothing

18. Second Path “Safer for the Public”? Nothing No data. No studies. No documentation. No evidence to support any of these statements.

19. 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 Second Path “Safer for the Public”?

20. Image courtesy of the City of Long Beach

21. Is a Second Path REALLY needed? Exactly when is the existing path congested? Provide data that supports the daily, weekly, monthly, or seasonally congestion.

22. 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?

23. 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

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

25. 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 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?

26. Ask the City of Long Beach to produce their data and share with the California Coastal Commission AND THE PUBLIC information to support their assertions before 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!

27. Is a Second Path REALLY needed? Saturday June 8, 2013 at 10:30AM Existing Conditions On our Beach Path

28. Beach Path Boondoggle Deny this CDP Application There is NO evidence to support misleading statements that a separated beach path is needed or will be MORE SAFE for any users.

29. THIS is the Existing Condition!

30. Stop This Project Now!