CC 2020-01-28 Items Rec'd at Mtg. '0/1/101 i/z F/70
✓1/1j5CikeLe
Last fiscal year, Ride-On's allocation as the Consolidated Transportation Services
Agency (CTSA) was dropped from $550,000 in 2017-18 to $200,000 for 2018-19.
Because Ride-On continued to provide their Senior Shuttle last year, $150,000 of the
CTSA funding for 2018-19 was not spent and is sitting in a RTA bank account. We
have been holding meetings since last June with board members from the United
Cerebral Palsy and SLOCOG Boards to look at additional funding options for Ride-On
to help cover major increases in the cost of social service transportation. We have not
come up with any solutions to cover these costs.
Ride-On is requesting that this $100,000 funding for Ride-On be placed on the agenda
for the February 5, 2020 SLOCOG Board agenda to allow your board to hear the facts
and to consider the use of part of the surplus to support Ride-On.
When we look at the increased cost for providing social service transportation for this
fiscal year, we project an increase of $269,401 for four cost centers: fuel, driver wages,
health benefits and maintenance facility. Ride-On has recently doubled the size of their
maintenance facilities to install a second service lift for buses. The following table
shows the annual projections based on the first five months of this fiscal year.
Table A
Expense Increase- 5 Months Annual Increase
Fuel' $51,869 $124,000
Driver Wages $36,797 $88,313
Maintenance Rent $10,340 $24,816
Health Benefits $13,244 $31,785
Total $269;401
The $100,000 of additional CTSA funding will help cover 37% of this cost increase. .
Table B
Ride-On vs.CTSA Funding
Fiscal Year Ride-On TDA 5%TDA Difference
2017-2018 $550,000 $593,539 $43,539
2018-2019 $200,000 $608,269 $408,269
2019-2020 $215,000 $717,852 $502,852
Totals $965,000 $1,919,660 $954,660
2018/2019 RIDE-ON TRANSPORTATION CITY BY CITY TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT
44., ,;4,, , (Z,'' T 0 42
A./V//////
c' O_ C42- cr \ ORIDE ON SERVICE 4IT JG
TOTAL
ACCESS 3 0 0 3 2 1 14 13 36
CIP TRIPS AND TOURS 191 970 53 61 872 43 1217 446 3853
CCPN 19 6 2 8 1 0 66 54 156
FIVE CITIES (HOMELESS STL) 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146
HEARST 162 96 24 62 552 26 17 214 1153
MENTAL HEALTH SHUTTLE 10 6 0 2 0 0 24 31 73
MEDI-CAL 2049 3613 724 1659 4487 450 4575 4393 21950
PASO CARES (HOMELESS STL) 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 0 156
PRIVATE PAY 121 184 20 196 164 16 1419 224 2344
RIDE-ON EXPRESS 0 14 0 5 2 0 15 3 39
SENIOR 245 1244 105 411 1019 70 2118 832 6044
TFS (HOMELESS STL) 0 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 106
TCRC 8951 19389 2824 2739 37239 1382 27263 22472 122259
VETS 20 34 9 39 111 6 363 186 768
SOCIAL SERVICE TOTAL 11917 25662 3761 5185 44605 1994 37091 28868 159083
TMA SERVICES
TMA SPECIAL EVENT 57 14 0 21 67 25 105 68 357
TMA AIRPORT 22 18 7 13 23 17 48 97 245
TMA KID SHUTTLE 0 0 0 2 0 0 34 16 52
GRAND TOTAL 11996 25694 3768 5221 44695 2036 37278 29049 159737
/2ovd I/ /w
1 -U . II . b
8/1ad -rlook--
e,"
SURFRIDER
FOUNDATION
di .A SAN LUIS OBISPO
1/22/2020
Re: Central Coast Blue (CCB) Scoping Meeting
The Surfrider Foundation San Luis Obispo (Surfrider SLO ) is dedicated to the
protection of the ocean, waves, and beaches through a powerful activist network.
Surfrider is a supporter of wastewater recycling as a means of finding beneficial uses
and reducing ocean outfall. We appreciate the opportunity to share our observations of
challenges and potential opportunities for the project's design.
The opportunities are for Managed Retreat of vital infrastructure concerning South San
Luis Sanitation District's Wastewater Treatment Plant are considered long term.
However, as written in the chapter's July 24, 2018 support of CCB's Bureau of
Reclamation WaterSMART Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Grant
Endorsement: "The project will be appropriately sited outside of areas subject to
hazards so that it can provide long-term benefits to our communities while mitigating
any potential negative impacts to our coast". The chapter sees short-term siting of
wastewater recycling equipment outside the coastal zone as the first step in the long-
range goal of Managed Retreat for the SSLOCSD's sewage plant.
The chapter has also observed challenges for the Northern Cities Management Area for
managing and monitoring water storage within the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin.
Primarily, the partners of CCB are not able to extract their allocations of groundwater
without risking seawater intrusion. Thus, in a practical sense, existing allocations are
meaningless. Increasing those allocations by recycled water injection to the
groundwater basin just increases impractical expectations. However, we support
injection to the groundwater basin in Phase 1 of the project to assist with short-term
risks of seawater intrusion and to evaluate the efficiency of injection.
The injection increases Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions compared to "finding a
home" at the surface. In Phase 2, we strongly support active outreach to local
agricultural interests, especially those positions over troubled portions of the aquifer. It
would be optimal for injection to be available during rainy weather. But, whenever
possible, recycled water should be utilized on the surface and CCB should plan for the
long-term possibility of Direct Potable Reuse.
We encourage partners in CCB to create a community-based effort for educating the
public on the great values of water recycling. We also see an opportunity for the leaders
in the community to join together in a sub-committee effort which will take public
comment and perform outreach to agricultural interests. After all, NCMA's 2018 report
estimated agricultural groundwater use was 30% of the basin's production. If recycled
water from the surface was used instead of groundwater, the CCB partners would not
need to inject the recycled water into the ground, and the farmers would not need to
pump it up. Better cooperation would save water and Greenhouse Gas emissions.
Thank you for your consideration,
Brad Snook,
Chair, Surfrider Foundation San Luis Obispo
chairslo.surfrider.orq
(805) 440-9489
/ evi //z8(z
117i4k /1. �•
el ;0, fa Flo let
January 28, 2019
Re: Central Coast Blue Draft Cost-Sharing Memorandum of Agreement (MoA)
Dear Councilmembers:
I am a Director on the Oceano CSD but do not write in an official capacity.
In addition to reviewing the MoA before this meeting, I've been working through the NCMA
2018 Annual Monitoring Report, and note that it has a lot of squishy language.
For example, concerning a key parameter:
"A Deep Well Index of the three primary deep sentry wells of 7.5 feet (NAVD88) has been
recognized as the index, above which it is thought that there is sufficient fresh water
(groundwater) outflow to prevent seawater intrusion" (page 45; emphasis added).
"Estimate" or "estimation" appear in the Report 44 times, "approximate" or "approximation"
appear 21 times, "suggest" appears 9 times, and "unknown" or "not known" appear 7 times,
including:
• "It is unknown the extent to which the Oceano and Santa Maria River faults impede
groundwater flow within the aquifer materials" and "water elevation contour maps of
the NCMA... may suggest that the Santa Maria River Fault plays a potential, but
unknown, rote in groundwater flow across the NCMA"
• "A regional [subsurface] outflow [to the coast] of 3,000 AFY was estimated as a
reasonable approximation although the minimum subsurface outflow necessary to
prevent seawater intrusion is unknown" (page 21; emphasis added)
• "The Pismo Beach Golf Course (Le Sage Riviera Campground) uses an onsite water well
for turf irrigation. The pumped water is not metered, and total water use is not
known" (page 30; emphasis added)
• "the location and inland extent of the seawater-fresh water interface is unknown"
(page ES-3; emphasis added)
To that last point, Pismo Beach plans to do an aerial survey to map the seawater/freshwater
boundary. At the February 1, 2019, Central Coast Water Board meeting, Chair Wolff told
Pismo Beach staff that this method is less accurate when transmission lines and underground
pipelines are present, as they are in our area. He recommended a more reliable and
locally-available soil resistivity method, but Pismo Beach does not appear to be pursuing it.
(See https://cat-saan.org/unipage/?site-cal-spanaowner RWQCB-CCadate-2019-02-01 from
about 29:15.) When the results of the aerial mapping are provided in the future, the
inaccuracies will likely be downplayed.
Our incomplete understanding of the basin is based on computer modelling as welt as
assumptions and approximations. For example, irrigation applied water estimations come
from the Integrated Water Flow Model Demand Calculator (IDC). The IDC is written in
FORTRAN 2003 and has not been brought up to the current standard, Fortran 2018. To the
inherent limitations of computer modelling, we may therefore add potential issues due to use
of outdated tools.
There is no scientific certainty here. Recycled water would be injected into a subsurface
black box. Yet the MoA rests heavily on modelling, assumptions and estimations asserted with
undue confidence.
The MoA seeks to impose restrictions on Oceano's groundwater rights, although Oceano CSD is
not a party to this agreement. Pismo Beach staff has made some snarky comments about
forcing Oceano to sign away water rights.
I say no to a water war. Let's work together for the common good of our communities.
The MoA ignores the elephant in the room: agriculture, which pumps 3.5 times the
groundwater of urban users in the NCMA. One reference cited in the Report says "the "safe
yield" allotment for agricultural irrigation is significantly higher than the actual agricultural
irrigation demand and the calculated amount for subsurface outflow is unreasonably low"
(page 21). What if ag decides to pump more water once the project is in operation? What if
farmers decide to switch from rotational crops to more water-intensive permanent crops like
almonds? The MoA is silent on this.
There's also no provision for legal expenses that might be reasonably anticipated by an
agreement that touches water rights in the adjudicated basin of numerous entities that are
not parties to this MoA.
The project thus far has largely moved forward out of public view, and that needs to change.
But Pismo Beach scheduled a public meeting on CCB during last week's OCSD meeting,
limiting participation by the leaders and residents of Oceano.
The draft MoA needs work to address these issues and more, and CCB planning should be
moved further into the daylight with full public participation in the process.
Best,
Cynthia Replogle
Oceano resident