HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem H �I SE;q:
. geezil
o. c
c€a
n
C 'y -A11 • 211 E.G 41I- S'REE1
bEAC' CAOECRN:A 90740 63 '-
{5621 431 2527
April 11, 2000
Assembly Commit
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: AB 2748 (Bates) Funding for Public Beach Restoration - SUPPORT
Dear Assembly Member
We urge you to support AB 2748 (Bates) which would allocate $35 million to the Public
Beach restoration Program, established last year when AB 64 (Ducheny) was signed into
law to fund sand replenishment projects. Sand replenishment and restoration of natural
sediment supplies are effectiv lip to repair beach erosion and prevent bluff collapses
along the state's shoreline. 6
Beaches are an important environmental and economic resource, generating over $14
billion in tourism and $1.1 billion in state tax revenue (San Francisco State University,
1997). Unfortunately, the state does not have a dedicated fund for restoring its beaches.
As a result, for the past decade we have lagged far behind East Coast states in attracting
federal shoreline assistance. New York, Florida and New Jersey have permanent,
dedicated funding sources ranging from $20 million to $30 million per year. This
commitment allows these states to obtain up to 10 times the amount of federal shoreline
fundings acquired by California because the federal programs require a state/local cost
share.
Last year, the state's congressional delegation garnered funding for new studies by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which should result in beach restoration projects for
coastal communities in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura counties. The
state/local cost share for these projects if FY 2001 is approximately 46.5 million.
California's beach restoration program is only $500,000 this year. Without more funding,
the federal studies and projects currently underway will be in jeopardy. The current state
budget proposal contains no money for beach restoration, effectively ending the program
created last years.
AGENDA ITEM H
•
Our congressional delegation has fought successfully for federal shoreline assistance, but
without a significant financial commitment by the State, California's shoreline will
continue to erode at an alarming rate. We urge you to make a substantial investment in
beach restoration so that California can leverage more federal funding and restore one of
its most important natural resources. Please support AB 2848 when it comes before you
for consideration.
Sincerely,
Dr. Paul Yost
Mayor, City of Seal Beach
Cc: California Coastal Coalition
Resources Agency Secretary, Mary Nichols
President pro Tempore John burton
Assemblymember Robert Hertzberg
Assembly budget Chair Denise Moreno Ducheny
Senate Budget Chair Steve Peace
League of California Cities
California Chamber of Commerce
•
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-I999-2000 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2748
Introduced by Assembly Member Bates
February 25,2000
An act to amend Sections 69.6 and 69.8 of the Harbors and
Navigation Code, and to repeal Section 3 of Chapter 798 of the
Statutes of 1999, relating to coastal resources, and making an
appropriation therefor.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2748,as introduced, Bates. Public beach restoration.
Existing law establishes the California Public Beach
Restoration Program, administered by the Department of
Boating and Waterways for specified public beach
enhancement purposes, including the funding of nonfederal
project costs for restoration, nourishment, or enhancement of
public beaches with placement of sand on the beach or in the
nearshore.
This bill would require the cost of feasibility studies and
other studies conducted for the purpose of developing a
strategy for the implementation of a cost-effective
engineered replacement of sand on the beach or in the
nearshore environment to be included in the calculation of
construction and restoration costs for the purposes of funding
under these provisions. The bill also would specify that
priority funding shall be provided by the department to
maximize the use of federal funds that may be provided for
coastal projects.
99
AB 2748 —2—
Existing law requires the department and the State Coastal
Conservancy to jointly prepare and submit to the Legislature,
not later than January 1, 2002, a report detailing the
restoration, nourishment, and enhancement activities
undertaken through the program, evaluating the need for
public beach restoration projects, the effectiveness of the
program in addressing that need, and ways to increase natural
sediment.
This bill would extend the date the report is due to January
1,2003.
The bill would appropriate $35,000,000 from the General
Fund to the Department of Boating and Waterways for
purposes of the California Public Beach Restoration Act, no
more than 5% of which may be expended for administrative
costs.
Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 69.6 of the Harbors and
2 Navigation Code is amended to read:
3 69.6. (a) The California Public Beach Restoration
4 Program is hereby established, to be administered by the
5 department for all of the following purposes:
6 (1) The restoration, enhancement, and nourishment
7 of public beaches, as determined to be necessary by the
8 department, through the cost-effective engineered
9 placement of sand on the beach or in the nearshore
10 environment.
11 (2) The planning, design, and permitting of the beach
12 restoration, nourishment, or enhancement projects
13 specified in paragraph (1), which shall not exceed 15
14 percent of the total project cost.
15 (3) The preparation of studies to inventory,
16 characterize, and assess the physical and biological
17 resources of the ocean, and nearshore, shoreline, and
18 inland areas that are determined by the department to be
19 necessary to construct the projects specified in paragraph
20 (1) that are environmentally and economically sound.
99
—3— AB 2748
1 The cost of the studies shall not exceed 5 percent of the
2 annual program funding.
3 (4) The funding of 100 percent of the nonfederal
4 project construction cost for restoration, nourishment,. or
5 enhancement of coastal state parks and state beaches
6 with placement of sand on the beach or in the nearshore.
7 The cost of feasibility studies and other studies conducted
8 for the purpose of developing a strategy for the
9 implementation of a cost-effective engineered
10 replacement of sand on the beach or in the nearshore
11 environment shall be included in the calculation of
12 construction costs for the purposes of funding under this
13 paragraph.
14 (5) The funding of 85 percent of the nonfederal
15 project cost for restoration, nourishment, or
16 enhancement of nonstate public beaches with placement
17 of sand on the beach or in the nearshore, with a 15 percent
18 match from the local sponsors, provided as funds or
19 in-kind services. The cost of feasibility studies and other
20 studies conducted for the purpose of developing a
21 strategy for the implementation of a cost-effective
22 engineered replacement of sand on the beach or in the
23 nearshore environment shall be included in the
24 calculation of restoration costs for the purposes of funding
25 under this paragraph.
26 (6) The active pursuit and promotion of federal and
27 local partnerships to cost-share beach restoration,
28 nourishment, or enhancement projects specified in
29 paragraph(1)that have significant state benefits.
30 (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act,
31 priority funding shall be provided by the department to
32 maximize the use of federal funds that may be provided
33 for coastal projects, including projects described under
34 paragraphs (1), (2), and(3).
35 (b) Prior to funding any project under this section, the •
36 department shall develop guidelines that include
37 application requirements and criteria for evaluating a
38 project. The guidelines shall be consistent with the
39 Resources Agency's policies for shoreline erosion
40 protection. Only beaches that are in public ownership
99
AB 2748 —4-
1 and that are open and accessible to the public are eligible
2 for funding under this section.
3 SEC. 2. Section 69.8 of the Harbors and Navigation
4 Code is amended to read:
5 69.8. Notwithstanding Section 7550.5 of the
6 The department; and the State
7 Coastal Conservancy, not later than January 1, 2002 2003,
8 shall jointly prepare and submit to the Legislature a
9 report that does all of the following:
10 (a) Details the restoration, nourishment, and
11 enhancement activities undertaken through this
12 program.
13 (b) Discusses and evaluates the need for continued
14 public beach restoration projects.
15 (c) Reports on the effectiveness of the program in
16 addressing that need.
17 (d) Discusses ways to increase natural sediment
18 supply in order to decrease the need to nourish the state's
19 beaches, including, but not limited to, an analysis of
20 specific locations where structures might be removed or
21 modified.
22 SEC. 3. Section 3 of Chapter 798 of the Statutes of 1999
23 is repealed.
24 SEC. 3. This act shall bwetiic operntive only to the
26 .
27 SEC. 4. The sum of thirty-five million dollars
28 ($35,000,000) is hereby appropriated from the General
29 Fund to the Department of Boating and Waterways for
30 purposes of the California Public Beach Restoration Act
31 (Article 2.8 (commencing with Section 69.5) of Chapter
32 2 of Division 1 of the Harbors and Navigation Code), no
33 more than 5 percent of which may be expended for
34 administrative costs.
0
99
N
a
c
c
E
E
a r c OS a u egos-, i. O
" f E. 2EEEyaa1c y
$ mu3 ° eu ;vc� oa,
rr c w w cn o c
a �+) -` a �; ;i-y.2� • ; yyr`t}� 0 O 7 y V mow. >>E y U _.
w ' 1
1
1 U cu C .... \- y� • a =� es-g
0 O tr01
co 17 8
S ~, *--.::-.:..2 03 ....>-0-0:-; �b•U C ms p Ca �W� �'E `� cs C yin
U I Lv >,� oc et ac ay c'9 a) ...co10
c > w o
< •
c,o. �� c.� �.� �s > �eva eo c CU TI
c m c� v
713
>,•_> p .a.-1 ....›...r. a c a L CO
-„,--E, c F c v a a,.y a s.y 3 a 3 a S i>_ a •
< ,- a s = a V-c= a p O c `D y �.. c 00 v
Z uEq u� = e4 �' aa a7 a �c3 °�.° 3eo.� �3.5 c�
< .. >, L c H L c Cr h • a W -+. a GC y " tD
to
0 f O ... .a..CD .. R 60= L a e5 c L c u Et,-.) ,:&)
is
'>saa•- •
cn
c a y0g c y �Y�`" Da L to Eu
u.-, > c`
›,-q �^ U
.r
E u
a V
H a et c
• O
t\ . -z n' c�:E., ° O ._ O _0 fl w "H ` - _ pn O E Ems' 6 'ALv,vg veo,a? u� >"
U et ) ao � co 3s ain . v Z124 Z. =•.- _ � V �cr � Lo� uGco tu
T ,
•
my'
Z _ Li V
_>,.4'w.- O,o C c h p�N DS a O O a-o 3 v, -->,5-.
,5�_ O R
W __ - " r E. ETs
._ p 0 3< 0 E —".a e9 0 Cep ..•u O c eo
0 = =V ioeo Uu " v,'Quopa'_ u3 " w � 3 `
� °� O c,zE=. a aa,� �
. a " eo
o v hV eas mv'-�� 9 c.L �n=.^ > c= ah y e
=<_ ,ah3CooeCZ "3rE°.NsZ.3c.� E.�,oEcv a) ----V
6.
J
c � c N"Ca-ay et c;; La L
0 ° =s mi-,:-..= sa)ci. —
= m H � ouaAv mET v
r'� CD bA=
•g � c� vO1� �'O W ca : o ,. a —
cn u
VY H "C c— _= 4
,szie. 4 c4.. c. >, ,,, .
, ,„ . .
...
al u
^ ' O cin O �. W '3 a).e0 E L T G_ a _
CA
V1 1.4M� ct
_ y e0 e0 V ^ v U
3 d4: 0v
ogee 0'_ �^ ""fp .- rueD c c c r= —fo c e fD =•
_.!, F
O12) ev C to y G 9 d O 6t al y Im, ^ft
C^y = r•-i` = _G -� ^ n C _ C- - N<< c , Ft; fr'D = C
gn
GC= to00 " c = ' fD — ,nLe
m=mss.=`__� �ti E �$ , `_ = r:
'a' W y —.— n C H = • - r fD••utni
m r+, 7i 1111 H ;� i
...
a fD�'
,_.C < fD - G O -AC'S 4, ^ K to o' -, fD t'' �N‘< f<0 .y+ S OC 5
ce.
.A—3 _G—=H et „, •- y -. fD c et O C -.,� eD �••H E. eD - jf'
W =E �� dz lceot) =ccrn �F� cf
- --C C �-- C - C m -. r e:
` e - >-R — O
s r •: - O z -- - - w - - r - -"I_ -
•
�t V = - c 00 ft C f.;aC< 1 - - ii - _ -- .. -
-000 fD n c'is C r. •N 1.2 •- ,+ ul etic. _' = C-ftp c'- a; - E.I:
..- . y• .-.3= = fd • fC -CCS - 00 rn a'n ^T
eo ,
N
el)70
8 =-w'G r.-ft
a0 GC. %•w T F C C =?1...f9 F y c* .a eD A 3•- A = !Z-
_2 a ; V O.1 e: > ca is y ; G U f9 1'4 ''S O fD .T L:..e0". fp m
,,//1� — _ =Ilet -.A 2.$ 2 CO y m'^t< "C 7'ao CD 'Ls m x x-,< f. _ -
Si• C,•-.GOD p1 co,...,_. etow „ .—y e9 C Cett rt-1 .�'�c. ¢ r eD - —. _•e:
•Cv•• O fD eR A-0 "+ ca 1 C ceV,. f7= - � . -, C
n•g- nl S� c x e: _ -, neD ^fD = v,' A ,iro ci ftp r -
H = -O a, Cc •-.fD = -'C fD = dao v,•
„, D ft, r..
et03 .. o� C:`=.e. _°.°, = � 14, V, r Mr`< �=deo _
C f9 O O an ap fp - - y C :� :;,:n ^ of C -t Z 03 r
sCAC -C, ^?= rte.' � — c '5 ." tia' �. fp c ::N' e'ts:
DRAFT LETTER IN SUPPORT
OF AB 2748 (Bates)
(Funding for Beach Restoration)
VIA TELECOPY: 916-319-2113
1/ , 2000
Assembly Member Carole Migden
Chair, Appropriations Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 2748 (Bates) Funding for Public Beach Restoration - SUPPORT
Dear Assembly Member Migden:
We urge you to support AB 2748 (Bates), which would allocate $35 million to the Public
Beach Restoration Program, established last year when AB 64 (Ducheny) was signed into
law to fund sand replenishment projects. Sand replenishment and restoration of natural
sediment supplies are effective ways to repair beach erosion and prevent bluff collapses
along the state's shoreline.
Beaches are an important environmental and economic resource, generating over $14 billion
in tourism and $1.1 billion in state tax revenue(San Francisco State University, 1997).
Unfortunately, the state does not have a dedicated fund for restoring its beaches. As a result,
for the past decade we have lagged far behind East Coast states in attracting federal
shoreline assistance. New York, Florida and New Jersey have permanent, dedicated funding
sources ranging from $20 million to $30 million per year. This commitment allows these
states to obtain up to 10 times the amount of federal shoreline funding acquired by
California because the federal programs require a state/local cost share.
Last year the state's congressional delegation garnered funding for new studies by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers which should result in beach restoration projects for coastal
communities in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura counties. The state/local cost
share for these projects in FY 2001 is approximately $6.5 million. California's beach
restoration program is only $500,000 this year. Without more funding, the federal studies
and projects currently underway will be in jeopardy. The current state budget proposal
contains no money for beach restoration, effectively ending the program created last year.
Our congressional delegation has fought successfully for federal shoreline assistance, but
without a significant financial commitment by the state, California's shoreline will continue
to erode at an alarming rate. We urge you to make a substantial investment in beach
(
restoration so that California can leverage more federal funding and restore one of its most
important natural resources. Please support AB 2748 when it comes before you for
consideration.
Sincerely,
cc: Assembly Appropriations Committee:
Speaker Robert M. Hertzberg 916-319-214
Vice Chair Marilyn C. Brewer 916-319-2170
Assembly Member Ackerman 916-319-2172
Assembly Member Ashburn 916-319-2132
Assembly Member Campbell 916-319-2171
Assembly Member Cedillo 916-319-2146
Assembly Member Davis 916-319-2176
Assembly Member Kuehl 916-319-2141
Assembly Member Maldonado 916-319-2133
Assembly Member Romero 916-319-2149
Assembly Member Runner 916-319-2136
Assembly Member Shelley 916-319-2112
Assembly Member Steinberg 916-319-2109
Assembly Member Thomson 916-319-2108
Assembly Member Wesson 916-319-2147
Assembly Member Wiggins 916-319-2107
Assembly Member Wright 916-319-2148
Assembly Member Zettel 916-319-2175
Assembly Member Patricia Bates 916-319-2173
Resources Agency Secretary Mary Nichols 916-653-8102
President pro Tempore John Burton 916-445-4722
Assembly Budget Chair Denise Moreno Ducheny 916-319-2179
Senate Budget Chair Steve Peace 916-327-3522
California Division of Tourism 916-322-3402
League of California Cities 916-658-8240
California Chamber of Commerce 916-444-6685
California Coastal Coalition 760-944-3564
•
•
DRAFT LETTER IN SUPPORT
OF AB 1835 (Baugh)
, 2000
Assembly Member
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 1835(Baugh) Storm Water Discharges- SUPPORT
Dear Assembly Member •
The California Coastal Coalition (CalCoast) urges you to SUPPORT AB 1835(Baugh). AB 1835
would provide funding to allow local public agencies to prevent potential beach closures by
diverting storm water runoff during the summer months.
The promulgation of higher water quality standards, pursuant to AB 411 (Wayne), has resulted in a
greater number of public beach postings or closures due to unhealthy water conditions. In the City
of Huntington Beach last year, sections of both the City and State beaches were posted or closed
throughout the summer. Contamination of our coastal resources has serious consequences to our
environment and economy. Unhealthy water conditions diminish the quality of life for our
residents. They also impact the economic well-being of small businesses which depend on coastal
tourism.
There are strong indications that the contamination which led to many beach closures last summer
was caused by storm channel runoff. AB 1835 would provide a funding mechanism so that local
public agencies could divert storm runoff during summer months. This is the most critical period
because tourism is at its peak and low flow runoff has the greatest potential for contamination.
Because coastal tourism is such an integral part of the California economy, it is important for local
agencies to be prepared to respond to closures due to ocean water contamination. You can help
them by giving them the tools to respond swiftly. AB 1835 provides such a tool.
Please give AB 1835 (Baugh)your careful consideration when it is before you and vote to
SUPPORT it.
Yours truly,
c: Assembly Committee
Assembly Member Scott Baugh
California Coastal Coalition
League of California Cities