HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic CommentFrom: john belsherlaw.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:54 AM
To: Planning Commission Public Comments
Cc: Paula Ramsum
Subject: FW: Agenda item 2; Planning Commission meeting Feb 7, 2023
Attachments: Letter to Planning Commision 2 7 23.docx; Final Drainage Report 2018 updated 2021
excerpts re DMA8.pdf, Grading Plan for 18 inch culverts 7 21 21.pdf; Erosion contol
plan.pdf; Civil Design Solutions opinion letter.pdf, Peabody letter for 2-14-23
meeting.pdf
February 21, 2023
Atascadero Planning Commission
Dear Commissioners:
FEB 2 12023
`�P�Dv22—�c�v5l
The Commission is referred to my letter of Feb 7, 2023 (attached). You will see our questions are not answered. Neither
the City nor the letter from Carnesale's "own engineer" from Sacramento can explain why the runoff collected from
Drainage Management Area 8 (DMA8) is not metered out per the project design but instead flows directly into the
Ramsum collection area in her yard. Notably I am attaching an opinion from a local engineer which reiterates the
concerns expressed two weeks ago, which concerns are as yet neither discussed or answered. See opinion of Robert
Montoya of Civil Design Solutions.
The essence of the problem is two -fold:
First the project engineer from Sacramento apparently does not know what the developer has installed in the ground
and what has been added by Improvement Plan page C-15. As mis-stated in the project's "own engineer" letter:
"Our review of the proposed project drainage system and project grading plan showed that all drainage from
the Ten850 project site is being collected by the new drainage system, detained onsite through the use of
underground chambers, and is regulated for outflow from the site to insure the flow from the developed project
does not exceed the existing drainage flow condition prior to the development of the project." See page 2 of
the Peabody letter.
We wish this were true. Unfortunately this is completely false. The drainage from DMA8 does not run uphill back into
the storage area from which the metered storm water flows. The drainage from DMA8 goes directly at and to Paula
Ramsum's property. Without any metering. We have shown you a photograph of the pipe through which this discharges
into the project's 18" metering discharge culvert. The drain grate for this pipe is even on the Improvement Plans at page
C-15 (attached). This unmetered drainage from DMA8 skews all the fancy calculations for metered outflow, rendering
the projections invalid. The drain which Peabody ignored or missed serving DMA8 is plain as day on the current
Improvement Plans at page C-15. This treatment for DMA8 is all contrary to the Final Drainage Report updated 2021,
upon which all project decisions have been made. (See attached)
Second, the project engineer does not address the new "solution" the City required by sheet C-15 of the Improvement
Plans. That solution connects the two 18" pipes in Ms. Ramsum's backyard (she has not been approached about this
yet, for the record). The problem is that there is nowhere for the water go which collects in the back yards of the
residents on La Costa? The developer at 10850 has been steering water from winter rains to this collection area (when
the fire department is not stopping them). The new Improvement Plan at page C-15 offers a grade level drain to accept
this water (feeding into the top of the 18" culvert). But the water is currently collecting in the backyards at 12-24" below
that level. That drain might also push water OUT onto the neighbors' yards, including Ramsum's yard and home. The
grated box certainly won't accept the water from her back yard which is now collected at the bottom of the 18" culverts.
The project engineer Peabody does not address either of these major, major problems. Neither does the City. Until this
is solved, the City cannot and should not approve anything more (or less) on this property. And it should issue no
certificates of occupancy.
There are a few further comments about the developer's communication to the Commission worth noting:
1. Carnesale says in his undated letter (received by the City on Feb 16) and located in the Commission's agenda
packet the following:
"Neighbor Ramson[SIC] and her attorney claimed there was no record of a grading plan. There is a grading plan."
This misdirection by Carnesale should be explored. What Ramsum and I said is that the "grading plan" from
2017 referred to in the negative declaration checklist does not appear to exist. City staff can't find it. We all
recognize there is a "grading plan" as part of the current "Improvement Plans" which were first approved long
after the 2017 negative declaration and updated as of 2021. In fact the Improvement Plans excerpts were
attached by me in my Feb 7 communication and are attached again. See "Grading Plan for 18 inch culverts"
attached to this email (and to my letter from February 7). The problem is that:
A. The environmental document you are being told to accept was based on a "grading plan" from 2017. But it
does not seem to exist. Instead we have a post 2017 grading plan which has been modified over time. The
current grading plan within the Improvement Plans was NOT part of the 2017 negative declaration. So far,
no one can tell us what the grading plan was in 2017. We now know there are big problems (coupled with
unanswered questions) with the "grading plan" as it exists today, including:
1) Why is there now an inlet to the developer's 18" culvert a few feet from its egress point? This inlet
apparently drains DMA8. The new drain and DMA8 is not accounted for in the "peer review" by the
developer's "own" engineer, Ross Peabody. Your City staff has not addressed this.
2) The Improvements Plans are inconsistent with the Final Drainage Study (updated in 2021) which
provided that drainage from DMA8 would somehow get uphill to the storage underneath the main
parking lot. The Peabody regurgitation of calculations from the original drainage scheme does not take
this into account. Your City staff has not addressed this.
2. The Improvement Plans contain a new connection for the 18" drainage pipes which dump off the 10850 site into
an open collection sump in front of the 18" culvert on the Ramsum property. By the terms of the conditions of
approval this is a condition to the final map. In fact, the developer may weasel out of this requirement, which
has been in place since 2021. Its an offsite condition. The developer has made no effort to approach Ms.
Ramsum on how it intends to trespass on her property and make this connection. The connection should be
peer reviewed and the developer required to make the connection before any occupancy is allowed. After all
the project is based on dumping drainage onto the Ramsum property. The project needs to take care of its own
stuff. This connection solution must be a condition to any certificate of occupancy being granted for any
building.
3. The peer review by the owner's engineer Peabody does not address concentration of flow beyond
historical. What flowed off this site is now concentrated in a single 18" pipe directed at Ms. Ramsum's property.
The math check by Peabody says the storage basin will work. This however assumes all the drainage
installations are in place per plan. We know that drainage for DMA 8 appears to be unaccounted for in
Peabody's calculations and to prove it there is a new inlet to the 18" developer culvert not on any plans, which
will drain DMA8. The Commission needs answers for this issue as the project "planning" affects downstream
neighbors.
4. Carnesale says there were well -know drainage issues in the neighborhood, specifically "quite a few drainage
issues in that part of the City." This indicates the 2017 negative declaration was based on incomplete
information and should be re -visited. More likely, Carnesale is misrepresenting the truth. Ms. Ramsum has been
there since 2011, not 2020 as Carnesale states. Her only drainage issues were caused by Carnesale at 10850 EI
Camino, by the flooding of 2021. If Carnesale is right then a new environmental document is needed to account
z
for his version of the drainage history for the neighborhood. In fact, a new environmental document is required
owing to the flooding of Mr. Ramsum's property in 2021 by the re -concentration of runoff from the 10850 EI
Camino project.
The Planning Commission is in the trusted position of protecting the Atascadero property owners. It can ask important
questions and demand complete answers. We hope you will consider this in your deliberations.
John Belsher, Esq.
Belsher Law, P.C.
3450 Broad Street, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
From: john belsherlaw.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 1:23 PM
To: pc-comments@atascadero.orp
Cc: Paula Ramsum
Subject: Agenda item 2; Planning Commission meeting Feb 7, 2023
Attached find correspondence to be delivered to the Planning Commissioners and planning staff in advance of tonight's
meeting.
John Belsher, Esq.
Belsher Law, P.C.
3450 Broad Street, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.
3450 Broad Street, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-316-5892
Planning Commission
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA PC-comments@atascadero.org
Re: Feb 7, 2023 Agenda Item 2 — 10850 EI Camino Real Tentative Tract Map
Dear Commissioners:
I represent the owner of property at 920 La Costa in Atascadero, Paula Ramsum.
This property includes a custom rental house rented out by Ms. Ramsum for several
years. The property has an 18" culvert which is designed to accept some run-off from the
property at 10850 EI Camino Real. Prior to construction next door by 10850 LLC, there is
no record of any flooding at my client's property.
Although the 18" pipe on 920 La Costa connects directly to a City storm drain on
La Costa, the City denies owning the 18" pipe. This issue is a subject of dispute and is
under litigation.
On January 27, 2021, stormwater from 10850 EI Camino overwhelmed the 18"
culvert at 920 La Costa, causing extensive flooding of the house at 920 La Costa as well
as a neighboring house. The construction site at 10850 was a mess, with grading going
on that very day. Erosion control measures were unsuccessful and in fact clogged up the
18" culvert on Ms. Ramsum's property. Despite promises to help from both the City and
the Developer, no help was forthcoming (aside from the much appreciated disaster
response of the fire department). There is now a lawsuit filed against the City and the
developer for damages to Ms. Ramsum from this incident. After two years,. my client has
not yet been able to bring her tenants back into the property, suffering mounting losses.
Atascadero Planning Commission
January 7, 2023
Against this backdrop the City is now contemplating a tentative map to allow the
developer to proceed with further development of the property at 10850 EI Camino. We
appreciate that there is already an approved development. However, there are a few
issues which the Planning Commission can and should take a close look at. I will list
them here.
1. The project does not conform to the drainage documents approved by the City.
A. The project was approved previously with reference to a "Grading plan" which was
reported to be under review by Public Works. See 2017 project staff report, at
page 8. There is no known record of this "grading plan". The 2017 approval is
found at https://www.atascadero.org/files/CD/RECENT_ PROJECTS/Hartberg PC
Staff Report.pdf
B. After project approval in 2017, the City accepted a Drainage Report and
Stormwater Control Plan, which was updated March 3, 2021.
https:Hnetorg8050650.sharepoint.com/:b:/s/BeisherLaw/ETnFaXurPQhEinmSY[z
3391BweigsWJDYo2gfKKtYUdc_A?e=hQhzdo Attached is an excerpt from this
report showing the area of concern. This report includes a mapping of the site into
various drainage areas. The area next to Ms. Ramsum's site is designated DMA8.
The water from this area is described as flowing through an unidentified "swale"
back to the private street on the 10850 property. However, there is no such swale
and it is actually uphill. Instead there is a drainage inlet placed in the 18" pipe
belonging to 10850, which appears to be intended to siphon this water from DMA
8 directly into the 18" pipe of 10850. The result is that there is a large area of this
site which is unaccounted for as to stormwater drainage and appears to add to the
volume of water metered out to the 18" culvert on the property at 920 La Costa.
C. The Improvement Plans approved by the City in 2021 include new provisions for
connecting the two 18" pipes. See the attached excerpt, page C-15 from the
updated Improvement Plans. This may be a good solution. However, it has not
2
Atascadero Planning Commission
January 7, 2023
been discussed by anyone at the City or 10850, LLC with Ms. Ramsum or her
representatives. In addition, the City has added numerous new conditions
addressing the need for private easements. So far the developer has ignored all
these needs and conditions, trespassing on Ms. Ramsum's property on numerous
occasions, including today when a crew came onto Ms. Ramsum's property to
"maintain" the culvert on her property. Previously the developer actually
demolished and removed Ms. Ramsum's fence, both along her property line and
for several feet into her property. Ms. Ramsum had to re -build portions of this
fencing following the January 2021 flood event, at her cost. The developer
provided a replacement property line fence in the form of a concrete block
unfinished wall with fencing on top of it, as shown in photos submitted by Ms.
Ramsum.
D. Recent stormwater management by 10850, LLC has dumped water from the front
of its property into the culvert on Ms. Ramsum's property. In her letter submitted
to you today there are photos of 10850's new improvised drainage course running
alongside EI Camino and then behind the houses at 900 and 910 La Costa,
dumping into the 18" drain collection area on Ms. Ramsum's property. This is not
on any plan we know of. On one occasion during a storm event in December 10,
2022, the Fire Department breached this impromptu ditch and diverted water to EI
Camino, where it ended up back on La Costa but not at the entrance to the 18"
pipe on Ms. Ramsum's property. This action saved certain flooding at 920 La
Costa, where the drainage pipe was at full capacity. See photo with Ms. Ramsum's
letter of today's date.
E. Condition 28 of the proposed project approval requires the developer identify and
secure easements for overflow routes. This does not appear to have a plan. Ms.
Ramsum has not been approached. Given that flooding her house was the
previous "overflow" route she would truly love to have this clarified. Deferring to
some unspecified engineering at this point seems inadequate and irresponsible.
3
Atascadero Planning Commission
January 7, 2023
2. The parking for the proposed project appears to be short of City requirements. In
the 2017 approval there was a reduction of parking based on the proposed senior use.
The senior use has been removed. Although density dropped somewhat in the current
plan, there does not appear to be an explanation of the significant parking reduction
afforded in 2017 and apparently carried through to 2023 as applied to the present new
approval.
3. The environmental document should be reviewed. The present staff report refers
to an environmental approval but the environmental document is nowhere to be found,
even after inquiry to the City Community Development department. Instead the agenda
report refers us to a one-page Negative Declaration from 2017, which is supposed to be
the result of an environmental review. That document says it is releasing "a draft initial
study and Mitigated Negative declaration". It then says "This document may be viewed
by visiting the Community Development Department listed under the lead agency
address, or accessed via the City's website." When we requested the document from
the Community Development Department yesterday no one could find it. A search of
the City's web site also came up empty. It is not included with the 2017 staff report for
this project. Many City actions are represented with extensive environmental documents
which are found on-line. Not so for this project. There is no trail of evidence to support
the Negative Declaration. Normally this would include a checklist and supporting studies.
There is a planning "checklist" in the 2017 staff report but it has only a few items relating
to environmental issues. Normally this checklist is extensive and discloses many
different issues of consideration. Referenced in the 2017 approval and its limited
checklist are visual studies by staff, a grading plan with public works and other studies
or evidence to back up the conclusions leading to mitigation and the Negative
Declaration. These evidentiary bases for the Negative Declaration are not part of any
public record online that could be located. The CEQA process should be reviewed in
light of the concerns over stormwater management, visual concerns and parking, as well
as other environmental issues the Commissioners may feel are relevant. At the very
least, the City staff should produce the actual environmental document upon which the
2017 Negative Declaration was based. If the Commission determines the project has
changed in any significant way (altered stormwater management) or new environmental
E!
Atascadero Planning Commission
January 7, 2023
impacts are recognized (stormwater management), a new environmental document
should be required.
It is hoped the Commission will recognize that serious issues have arisen as a
result of the construction of the current project. It is procedurally and ethically correct to
re -assess the impacts of the project in light of these issues at this time. We hope the
Planning Commission will get some solid answers to the concerns raised by this
neighboring property owner.
Cc: Paula Ramsum
John Belsher
5
and
STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
o
Z �: ir� Imo, ■' • i I ilr, .....
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #3099
Prepared for:
Hartberg Properties, LLC
Prepared by:
Wallace Group
January 31, 2018
Revised March 3, 2021
discharge into an 18 -Inch storm drain and discharge downstream within its historic
pathway and ultimately into the Salinas River.
DMA 'I and DMA 2 consist of the northernly rooftop area of the apartment building and
the northerly parking lot areas and will discharge flows into an underground detention
chamber, C1. Stormwater runoff from the southern rooftop and southern parking lot
(DMA 3 and DMA 4) will discharge into C2. For large storms, flow from Cl and C2 will
be conveyed to detention Chamber C3. DMA 5 and DMA 8 consist of the roadway
(Keffury Lane) and the front portion of the proposed townhomes. Runoff from these two
DMAs will be directed to Keffury Lane and conveyed to a curb Inlet connected to
Chamber C3. DMA 7 and DMA 8 consist of the rear portions of the townhomes. This
runoff will be conveyed through a rear yard drainage swalelopin to Keffury Lane.
Runoff from DMAs 5 through 8 will discharge into detention chamber 3 wind will--
ultimately be discharged offsite.
a.wuM�.xs[�asxrsmwa
®•�•• s:ar'anwroc
s
a y
i
i
f vj
Figure 4 — Drainage Management Area Delineation
flows back to pre -development rates. The City of Atascadero Stormwater Control Plan
Permit Documentation is included in Appendix B.
The individual drainage basin peak flow rates are provided in Table 3 below:
TABLE 3
DMA PEAK FLOW RATES
Existing
Storm Event
Peak Flow
3.72
95TH
0.06
2 -YR
1.63
I O -YR
3.88
50 -YR
7.19
I 00
8.42
DMA1
0.245
0.12
0.23
0.41
0.66
0.75
DMA2
0.458
0.29
0.55
0.90
1.37
1.54
DMA3
0.246
0.12
0.24-
0.66
0.75_
DMA4
0.453
0.32
0.58 l
-0..41
0,93
1,40
1.57
DMA5
0.622
0.31
0.62
1.07
1.69
1.93
DMA6
1.119
0.66
1.25
2.09
3.23
3.65
DMA7
0.273
0.10
0.22
0.41
0.68
0.78
DMA8
0.305
0.12
0.26
0.47
0.78
0.89
The routing schematic of storm flows through the bioretention basins and
retention/detention chambers is shown in Figure 5 and outlined in Table 4 below.
Figure 5 - Flow Routing Diagram
oz -S t Slog o w
NV'ld ONICIVIdO
1�tl211 :S3I-W3d02ld E)83SINVH °
�°a lf4lit �5( 'a s
In�avv
�umi
wSg !£3
S@U
d
6b*
gW
iw
y�z
?
W
gag gg
WmW&m
WW&
W�;�S
,$�
y�
Z(i}
ui
°W'�
U
�
LU
U-
�-
a'
'
1f'
ttEi �;
3�1 1 1
8 !f�(�! ��
z
133HS 31111
S1N3W3AOUM1311S-NO
660£ 1OV211:S31Bd3dObd `08391W
x
Z 1.
L g m
10
❑
w
mg a
z
gas
O
3a�
31va unun
V�
y
z
y
j
LUIn
w
mg a
z
�£! LU
O
1 y
U)
z
Z
Of
j
W O
LL
H
�rrrtrl
A
wn
��
W rn U
poo
�.LLJ
9
low
y j
°� U LLI
w
0(
^
U)
m Q
G
Q
LJJ=
O
YMH
r
■
U
r-
r
f
U)
z
Z
Of
j
W O
LL
H
$g5
Z
W rn U
poo
�.LLJ
9
M
LQL
y j
°� U LLI
w
0(
^
U)
m Q
G
Q
LJJ=
O
YMH
�
U
U
$ pug
"lit33g8
H
$g5
ozR3m °
�3
YMH
�
w�z;�'a
f
ION1NOONOISON3 = _
S1N3W3AONdW1311S-NO
660£ lOHN1:S311N3dONd ON381NVH
An
q
��3AIR
p** 7 Y
� pa
N
a
i I
SiN3W3AOHdW131IS-NO
C([C
kkiA.[[li f�@E
d lw iN
M
�
E
3
x
,
16}jjI})1
YF6�eQ
�
�eSagoc�g
e�
1
c °
880E 1OVU1:S311213dONd ON39V3S
N
a
i I
_a
C([C
N
a
-II11� 1r P'JIr :II
■r
_a
C([C
kkiA.[[li f�@E
d lw iN
M
�
-II11� 1r P'JIr :II
■r
_a
d lw iN
M
�
E
3
ori ��►
vr'
! +Iron. 1
,
16}jjI})1
YF6�eQ
�
�eSagoc�g
e�
1
BURRO
BmUM
�fff�71G_
Q
CIVIL DESIGN
TO: Mr John Belsher
FROM: Civil Design Solutions
RE: La Costa Draiange - Ramsun Property
To Mr. Belsher:
18051621-3050
rob@ciyildesign-solutions.cem
Based on our field inspection on January of 2023, and a review of the grading plans and associated drainage report it
is our professional opinion that the current flooding situation at the above noted location is clearly caused by the adjacent
development at 10850 El Camino Real and their inadequate outlet. There is an existing gap between the outlet pipe from the
project and an existing 18" pipe that runs through the Ramsun Property. In large storm events the outlet pipe becomes full
overflows and floods the existing house. This flooding will continue to occur until an adequate solution is determined.
The City and the developers engineer have provided an updated plan that identifies a solution. However this solution
is flawed and if implemented has the possibility to create additional flooding and additional damages to the adjacent homes.
The following list outlines the issues with the developers engineers proposed solution.
1. The box that is being proposed on the Ramsun property does not allow for existing flow from the concrete gutter located
on the Ramsun property and the neighboring properties to drain into it. This will basically block the existing flow from
all the properties that drain to this location causing a worse flooding problem.
2. There is no adequate overland escape route should the pipes get clogged. Per standard civil engineering practices and
City codes all drainage facilities must contain an adequate easement and all underground pipes must have a proper
overflow should the underground pipes become non functioning or clogged.
3. The runoff from DMA 8 (rear yards of lots at 10850 EI Camino Real) as indicated in the project drainage report clearly
does not go to their underground system on their site. The underground drainage collection system is uphill from the
lowest point of drainage collection and conveyance. All of the runoff from the rear yards of DMA 8 and the back half of
the roofs will flow directly to the Ramsun Property and not be collected in the underground collection system.
4. The proposed box located on 10850 El Camino Real does not include a way for the water from the adjacent swale to get
into the box. The box indicated has an at grade inlet on the top and no provision for the water collected into the swale to
get into the box. This will create a situation where the water from the swale diverts the box and flows onto the Ramsun
property.
Therefore it is our professional opinion that based on the existing condition and the proposed solution flooding will
continue to occur on the Ramsun property causing damages to property. These damages are a direct a result of the
construction of the project located at 10850 EI Camino Real improper inadequete design, not accounting for the runoff
from all areas, not accounting for the possibility of clogging and not having a proper overflow.
Robert J. Montoya
Civil Design Solutions
DATE 01/22/2023
CIVIL DESIGN SOLUTIONS r- 234 Atlantic City Ave Grover Beach, CA RCE #68101 PLS #7190
February 13, 2023
Ten850 LLC
701 Shadow Lane, #310
Las Vegas, NV. 89106
Mr, John Carnesale
Regarding Ten850, LLC — Applicant
Hearing on Tentative Map — February 21, 2023: Review of Drainage Design currently
approved and being installed with the project improvements.
Dear Mr. Carnesale:
I have provided a review of the current drainage design for the project referenced and
have conclusions based upon that review which are provided in this letter. Peabody
Engineering is not the design engineer for the project nor have we been involved in the
project drainage design or construction.
We have reviewed the Final Drainage Report and Stormwater Control Plan for Hartberg
Properties prepared by Wallace Group on January 31, 2018, and revised on July 31,
2018. We have also reviewed the approved Site improvement Plans for Hartberg
Properties dated January 15, 2021 which design the site grading for the project and
drainage system for the project. Both documents have been stamped and signed by
Wallace Group as being complete and ready for construction. Both documents have
been reviewed and approved by the City of Atascadero and are the basis for the
construction of the project and the improvements ongoing.
The drainage report provided a clear description of the existing drainage conditions.
The existing site prior to construction drained to an existing 18" storm drain line with a
flared end section to accept the drainage from the Ten850 site and into the public drain
system in La Costa Court. This drain pipe system lies between 910 and 920 La Costa
Court and is a public drain line owned and maintained by the City of Atascadero. This
existing 18" storm drain pipe runs from the property boundary of Ten850, between the
houses located at 920 La Costa Court and 910 La Costa Court, and to La Costa Court
where the public drain line conveys the drainage further into the City of Atascadero
rlr'inana eaie�nw 1 Fye i,v��i last V V $i Q items r,Xi�aJ tP � .11 � 1 Ll '7 iWilli %A I G
since the time it was constructed with the suk
VGv LQ %.,VW0 vt7 t1i i1 1 '-% 1"% .•..s
EXISTING DRAINAGE PRIOR TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: The drainage condition
and flow produced from the Ten850 project site prior to any construction has been
evaluated in the drainage report. This analysis was completed using HydroCAD
CIVIL ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PROJECT MANAGEMENT * STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Stormwater Modeling, which is an accepted modeling program for evaluating storm
flows for 2 year through 100 year storm events. NOAA precipitation frequency
estimates were used for the area to come up with the design storm events for modeling.
NOAA precipitation history for storm events is one of the most widely used and accurate
methods of modeling precipitation storm events and is considered an acceptable
standard when producing stormwater modeling for various storm events. Through this
analysis, Wallace Group found that existing flows from the Ten850 site into the 18"
storm drain pipe prior to construction of this project were as designated below:
PROPOSED DRAINAGE FROM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: The project drainage was
then evaluated and the drainage flows from each Drainage Management Area (DMA)
were quantified in the drainage report. Each DMA has a certain amount of impervious
surface (pavement, roof, street, driveways, etc.). This new impervious surface
increases and concentrates the drainage within the project for each DMA. Such
increase drainage flow was calculated for each DMA and a total drainage flow for each
DMA was found. This increased flow represents the flow from the new project once the
project is completely constructed.
Our review of the proposed project drainage system and project grading plan showed
that all drainage from the Ten850 project site is being collected by the new drainage
system, detained onsite through the use of underground chambers, and is regulated for
outflow from the site to insure the flow from the developed project does not exceed the
existing drainage flow condition prior to the development of the project. To accomplish
that, the underground chamber systems designed with the Site Improvement Plans
have flow control manholes constructed to hold back storm water during the various
storm events and reduce the flow to the existing drain system in all storms evaluated.
Wallace Group found that the resultant outflow from the project site once development
is completed would be reduced for the annual (95th Percentile) storm even, 10 year
storm event, 50 year storm event, and 100 year storm event as determined below:
CIVIL ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PROJECT MANAGEMENT * STRUCTURAL DESIGN
The flow into the 18" storm drain pipe from the project prior to the development is
designated as "Existing", and the flows shown as "Detention C3" are the proposed flows
from the project once the project development is completed. In ail storm event cases
evaluated in the drainage report, the flow from the project into the 18" storm drain pipe
running between 910 and 923 La Costa Court is reduced once the project construction
is completed.
Peabody Engineering has reviewed and checked the calculations provided in the
drainage report and finds them to be accurate. This includes calculation of the existing
storm event flows, calculation of the proposed storm event lows, and modeling of the
detention onsite to reduce the outflows from the project once completed
Sincerely,
Ross Peabody
CIVIL ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PROJECT MANAGEMENT * STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Planning Commission
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Ave.
RE: 103850 LLC Tentative Track Map
Feb. 7, 2023
Dear Commissioners
- RF— I D
FEB 7 2023
5Did- 0
C
My name is Paula Ramsum, and 1 own a custom home at - ! La Costa" Court','which is adjacent to the
Project at 10850 E1 Camino Real, I have invested in several homes in Atascaderoover the years, starting
in 2010.1 have found Atascadero to be a nice area to invest in and my tenants have liked living here.
This all changed the night of January 27, 2021, when my nightmare begaali,got a call from' my tenants
late at night informing me the house they are living i6 -is flooded with mud`4nd water and the Eire
Department had to unclog the small drain that runs across my property. Plater find'out the construction
site had been instructed to divert ail water runoff fror»-this large 3.79 acres of newly graded unstable
construction site to the small 18 inch drain at the back corner of my lot during construction. At this
point, construction has taken years to build, still is not complete and now they want to build more. I was
never informed of this plan to divert more water than this small drain cart handle.I was never informed
that my home would be in danger. There was a well -advertised and predicted rain, event scheduled for
January 27, 2021. mays before this rain event the construction crews 1.removed my fence at the back of
my property that backs up to the 10850 site, without any notice or permission. This fence would have
protected my house holding back the mud and water and giving the Fire department more time to
protect our properties. There were other properties flooded that night as well. I've been informed the
contractor was out there in the rain grading the lot during the day, which only made the soil even more
unstable. Then in the middle of the heavy rain event, they went home and soon afterwardsmy Dome
flooded.
This was a preventable event, with proper drainage plans that actually v,. `,.-My house was severally
damaged, which include all the flooring, walls, cabinets and more. My tenar+ta were displaced, 1 had to
put them up in a hotel, and they eventually found ne-w housing. At first the i.7,eE,ner of the site accepters
blame and assured me they would pay for all the damage and lost rents. After many delays they turned
the claim over to their insurance company. Several months later the insurance company was ready to
settle with me. Then Amanda, the main contact for the property owner and construction company,
instructed the insurance adjuster not to issue the settlement. Amanda told the insurance adjuster that it
was the City of Atascadero's fault the flood happened because the City instructed fabric to be placed
over the drain pipe which caused the pipe to clog. Now i am stuck with no insurance settlement to
repair my home, not knowing who caused this flood to happen. I filled a claim against the City of
Atascadero, which was denied. I have had to borrow money to make the repairs and have lost rents for
over 2 years now.
You have some plans that may or may not work when the project is completed, which is a big issue.
However there appears to be no real plan for during construction, which has been taking years, and now
.. .T o. ..
they want to build more. Since the original flood event, January 27, 2021, 1 have lived in fear that it
would happen again, and sure enough it did on 12-10-22. However this time I was out there monitoring
the drain in the pouring rain, as well as my neighbors. I have included a picture of the drain pipe at
maximum, just before the l=ire Department arrived and saved our houses from damage.
I have been living this nightmare for two years and something needs to be done to solve these major
flaws in the project. These flaws need to be addressed and solved before allowing this contractor to
continue.
My neighbors and I have had to deal with the continuous noise, dust for we'.1..-over 2. years. Now we have
intrusive block walls, and massive buildings that tower over our yards .>
The original construction site property used to be below the grade ofimy, pri-perty, now it's 8 feet above
my property, and I have to look at this massive block wall that was not sealed properly and is now a
stained eyesore (see photos). On top of the block wail are massive two :tory attached buildings with
high pitched roofs. The photos attached show the massive stained block wall, the open space above the
wall will be blocked out with the massive second story that is to be built there. I also have a picture of
my yard before construction, 5 foot fence looking out to open sky. Now we look at intrusive block wall
and massive buildings.
Another picture shows the drain that was installed by 10850 LLC looking through it from my side, with
an inlet at the top of the developer's 18" outlet pipe discharging to my property. It shows an inlet on the
top, but nowhere in the drainage plans show this. Where is this water coming from? it is not on the plan
and not in the drainage calculations. Other pictures show a drainage canal that was built at the time the
block wall was installed, which drains water from 10850 EI Camino behind 900 and 910 La Costa Court
into the 18 inch pipe at the corner of my back yard. The construction site has dug a large trench along El
Camino Real, which feeds water behind my neighbor's back yards to my property. This diverts water
from the front of the flooded construction site to my property. After the flood on 12-10-22, water has
overflowed onto El Camino turned the corner at La Costa and funneled into another City drain at the
front of my home at 920 La Costa Court. When I brought this up to Lori Azeen, she told me this was
blocked off and not being used, but as of today it is still there.
Please either deny approval or table it until all the problems with this project can be solved to protect
the neighboring properties. In the meantime we hope the City will control this out of control run-off
situation as we still have months of potential storm action.
Paula Ramsum
s J .s ' § t " ff{fj -�t`y s _ ,f�E` .I.'a� r rv' ,'. rs1 i° t�•� r fir_ ,.ti s...' r
"7,- 1 ,.s /,
r as A
• �i � Y ` 3' r i , s7 Iry �> �� � n r+ •f : ���. r �f`.
. '".^.r £sjf tri ,n s•�> tf y...` r "+ #'8, r } r�� if{ rr "�.f �� �,�/ � � � Yr fi•Yr �r
¢, , -r ,J cif 4. rr' r r ' + r "f r•, r Tr e , i
r t£ !{ rr. fit a r i i ✓, o J .v r f- f°° .ly
Ys .• t .r3 i s�.r + s'jf 4f tY J.t I f..
�' . ' e •„� w f � .;, rts. ..!/ .• r. a At
;. rr. k-..°�`r y /i °i ��t" � �t sY. sr '?�+�Ey, e� ,� r "%e t r t •.. ,r �r l r{ • r
If> �ri '�! A k ir�'r y ar" .. �` � }, far" t :r �•- Pf%! •.7rJ � Y :i � P , �f t;
` + y.. f'� '£/ ♦ y. k 4i J ; ^ 's, , A,P I q.s, Fi . rw 'r�r , s fe r ,,f`.
of - ,rf _ . £,r r is '.ar�t1' 4t r .+'-� ; .Y f
.SYS
- "
, ". I.s ,. ;`.<• '�.. M.J._ w ,•«,$ r .• ' - � M M
_ , •. -�wa,• ...' �• �`+. _P r_ w y . RY �,�+ P' 6 w . , w y ..
_.. -4"
2'STORY HO
..-
W
7:39 sell w
December 10, 2022 p,
9:12 PM
TRENCH ALONG EL C MINO REAL
640
3450 Broad Street, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-316-5892
Planning Commission
FEB 7 2023
City of Atascadero (fiec`j- e r-JeaJ Iwo
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA PC-comments@atascadero.org
Re: Feb 7, 2023 Agenda Item 2 — 10850 EI Camino Real Tentative Tract Map
Dear Commissioners:
I represent the owner of property at 920 La Costa in Atascadero, Paula Ramsum.
This property includes a custom rental house rented out by Ms. Ramsum for several
years. The property has an 18" culvert which is designed to accept some run-off from the
property at 10850 EI Camino Real. Prior to construction next door by 10850 LLC, there is
no record of any flooding at my client's property.
Although the 18" pipe on 920 La Costa connects directly to a City storm drain on
La Costa, the City denies owning the 18" pipe. This issue is a subject of dispute and is
under litigation.
On January 27, 2021, stormwater from 10850 EI Camino overwhelmed the 18"
culvert at 920 La Costa, causing extensive flooding of the house at 920 La Costa as well
as a neighboring house. The construction site at 10850 was a mess, with grading going
on that very day. Erosion control measures were unsuccessful and in fact clogged up the
18" culvert on Ms. Ramsum's property. Despite promises to help from both the City and
the Developer, no help was forthcoming (aside from the much appreciated disaster
response of the fire department). There is now a lawsuit filed against the City and the
developer for damages to Ms. Ramsum from this incident. After two years, my client has
not yet been able to bring her tenants back into the property, suffering mounting losses.
Atascadero Planning Commission
January 7, 2023
Against this backdrop the City is now contemplating a tentative map to allow the
developer to proceed with further development of the property at 10850 EI Camino. We
appreciate that there is already an approved development. However, there are a few
issues which the Planning Commission can and should take a close look at. I will list
them here.
1. The project does not conform to the drainage documents approved by the City.
A. The project was approved previously with reference to a "Grading plan" which was
reported to be under review by Public Works. See 2017 project staff report, at
page 8. There is no known record of this "grading plan". The 2017 approval is
found at https://www.atascadero.org/files/CD/RECENT PROJECTS/HartbeLg PC
Staff Report.pdf
B. After project approval in 2017, the City accepted a Drainage Report and
Stormwater Control Plan, which was updated March 3, 2021.
htt s://netor 8050650.share oint.com/:b:/s/BelsherLaw/ETnFaXurPQhEinmSYlz
3391BweigsWJDYo2gfKKtYUdc A?e=hQhzdo Attached is an excerpt from this
report showing the area of concern. This report includes a mapping of the site into
various drainage areas. The area next to Ms. Ramsum's site is designated DMAB.
The water from this area is described as flowing through an unidentified "swale"
back to the private street on the 10850 property. However, there is no such swale
and it is actually uphill. Instead there is a drainage inlet placed in the 18" pipe
belonging to 10850, which appears to be intended to siphon this water from DMA
8 directly into the 18" pipe of 10850. The result is that there is a large area of this
site which is unaccounted for as to stormwater drainage and appears to add to the
volume of water metered out to the 18" culvert on the property at 920 La Costa.
C. The Improvement Plans approved by the City in 2021 include new provisions for
connecting the two 18" pipes. See the attached excerpt, page C-15 from the
updated Improvement Plans. This may be a good solution. However, it has not
2
Atascadero Planning Commission
January 7, 2023
been discussed by anyone at the City or 10850, LLC with Ms. Ramsum or her
representatives. In addition, the City has added numerous new conditions
addressing the need for private easements. So far the developer has ignored all
these needs and conditions, trespassing on Ms. Ramsum's property on numerous
occasions, including today when a crew came onto Ms. Ramsum's property to
"maintain" the culvert on her property. Previously the developer actually
demolished and removed Ms. Ramsum's fence, both along her property line and
for several feet into her property. Ms. Ramsum had to re -build portions of this
fencing following the January 2021 flood event, at her cost. The developer
provided a replacement property line fence in the form of a concrete block
unfinished wall with fencing on top of it, as shown in photos submitted by Ms.
Ramsum.
D. Recent stormwater management by 10850, LLC has dumped water from the front
of its property into the culvert on Ms. Ramsum's property. In her letter submitted
to you today there are photos of 10850's new improvised drainage course running
alongside EI Camino and then behind the houses at 900 and 910 La Costa,
dumping into the 18" drain collection area on Ms. Ramsum's property. This is not
on any plan we know of. On one occasion during a storm event in December 10,
2022, the Fire Department breached this impromptu ditch and diverted water to EI
Camino, where it ended up back on La Costa but not at the entrance to the 18"
pipe on Ms. Ramsum's property. This action saved certain flooding at 920 La
Costa, where the drainage pipe was at full capacity. See photo with Ms. Ramsum's
letter of today's date.
E. Condition 28 of the proposed project approval requires the developer identify and
secure easements for overflow routes. This does not appear to have a plan. Ms.
Ramsum has not been approached. Given that flooding her house was the
previous "overflow" route she would truly love to have this clarified. Deferring to
some unspecified engineering at this point seems inadequate and irresponsible.
3
Atascadero Planning Commission
January 7, 2023
2. The parking for the proposed project appears to be short of City requirements. In
the 2017 approval there was a reduction of parking based on the proposed senior use.
The senior use has been removed. Although density dropped somewhat in the current
plan, there does not appear to be an explanation of the significant parking reduction
afforded in 2017 and apparently carried through to 2023 as applied to the present new
approval.
3. The environmental document should be reviewed. The present staff report refers
to an environmental approval but the environmental document is nowhere to be found,
even after inquiry to the City Community Development department. Instead the agenda
report refers us to a one-page Negative Declaration from 2017, which is supposed to be
the result of an environmental review. That document says it is releasing "a draft initial
study and Mitigated Negative declaration". It then says "This document may be viewed
by visiting the Community Development Department listed under the lead agency
address, or accessed via the City's website." When we requested the document from
the Community Development Department yesterday no one could find it. A search of
the City's web site also came up empty. It is not included with the 2017 staff report for
this project. Many City actions are represented with extensive environmental documents
which are found on-line. Not so for this project. There is no trail of evidence to support
the Negative Declaration. Normally this would include a checklist and supporting studies.
There is a planning "checklist" in the 2017 staff report but it has only a few items relating
to environmental issues. Normally this checklist is extensive and discloses many
different issues of consideration. Referenced in the 2017 approval and its limited
checklist are visual studies by staff, a grading plan with public works and other studies
or evidence to back up the conclusions leading to mitigation and the Negative
Declaration. These evidentiary bases for the Negative Declaration are not part of any
public record online that could be located. The CEQA process should be reviewed in
light of the concerns over stormwater management, visual concerns and parking, as well
as other environmental issues the Commissioners may feel are relevant. At the very
least, the City staff should produce the actual environmental document upon which the
2017 Negative Declaration was based. If the Commission determines the project has
changed in any significant way (altered stormwater management) or new environmental
4
Atascadero Planning Commission
January 7, 2023
impacts are recognized (stormwater management), a new environmental document
should be required.
It is hoped the Commission will recognize that serious issues have arisen as a
result of the construction of the current project. It is procedurally and ethically correct to
re -assess the impacts of the project in light of these issues at this time. We hope the
Planning Commission will get some solid answers to the concerns raised by this
neighboring property owner.
Cc: Paula Ramsum
John Belsher
5
Im-EM" *kI;j -IOC~
2
Prepared for:
Hartberg Properties, LLC
Prepared by:
Wallace Group
WALLACE GROUP
.January 31, 2018
Revised March 3, 2021
discharge into an 18 -inch storm drain and discharge downstream within its historic
pathway and ultimately into the Salinas River.
DMA 1 and DMA 2 consist of the northernly rooftop area of the apartment building and
the northerly parking lot areas and will discharge flows into an underground detention
chamber, C1. Stormwater runoff from the southern rooftop and southern parking lot
(DMA 3 and DMA 4) will discharge into C2. For large storms, flow from C1 and C2 will
be conveyed to detention Chamber C3. DMA 5 and DMA 6 consist of the roadway
(Keffury Lane) and the front portion of the proposed townhomes. Runoff from these two
DMAs will be directed to Keffury Lane and conveyed to a curb inlet connected to
Chamber C3. DMA 7 and DMA 8 consist of the rear portions of the townho es. This
runoff will be conveyed through a rear yard drainage swale lopin to Keffury Lane.
Runoff from DMAs 5 through 8 will discharge into detention C'hamber 3 and will ,.
ultimately be discharged offsite.
5
fO' S�
uol
flows back to pre -development rates. The City of Atascadero Stormwater Control Pian
Permit Documentation is included in Appendix P.
The individual drainage basin peak flow rates are provided in Table 3 below:
TABLE 3
DMA PEAK FLOW RATES
Basin
Existing
Storm Event
Pak Flow
•-
3.72
95TH
0.06
2 -YR
1.63
1 0 -YR
3.88
i
7.19
f0
8.42
DMA1
0.245
0.12
0.23
0.41
0.66
0.75
DMA2
0.458
0.29
0.55
0.90
1.37
1.54
DMA3
0.246
0.12
0.24 j
0.41
0.66
0.75
DMA4
0.453
0.32
0.58 1
0.93
1.40
1.57
DMA5
0.622
0.31
0.62
1.07
1.69
1.93
DMA6
1.119
0.66
1.25
2.09
3.23
3.65
DMA7
0.273
0.10
0.22
0.41
0.68
0.78
DMA8
0.305
0.12
0.26
0.47
0.78
0.89
The routing schematic of storm flows through the bioretention basins and
retention/detention chambers is shown in Figure 5 and outlined in Table 4 below.
Figure b- Flow Routing Diagram
pYY\A q H I
��' vJ
OZ -9L S1O1
NV -1d JNIOVi19
ci w
°
660£ 1OV8i :S311213dO21d ON391NVH
o
<Q oW
,.,
€
g�S
�
8 �
6'�
bG
u
% �w
�—
O
mi::
Q'wSL+
"4
°$
P;w
�6
5
ao
a
IS
s
�e
83a
W
w
a
ov
8 a
w
y
Yuii
U 2uj
i6
o
aY3paZ
°s
< :
fx
W®
x -
,^
133HS 31111 d w
S1N3W3AONdIN1311S-NO
Q
31V0 unlln 660£ 1OV211:S311213dOad 9N381NVH to °
�
VI
N
Q
W
LU
0
R p
3
sig W
3g
o
E
a
s
RRaa� r�'�q�a3
MH
a
� �
-----'050 �
0000. w xr
-a0Hmaay
€ w 5
F a
g�
;sz. zo �A
o�
2
i 5 5 5 a 3 5 5 5 5
Q
1IVA
Q
CL
■
E
Q
96
WCL
0)U
000
w
�Y
UJ
ffial--w
O
i
co
_ w ■
a
Q Q
a
s
RRaa� r�'�q�a3
MH
a
� �
-----'050 �
0000. w xr
-a0Hmaay
€ w 5
F a
g�
;sz. zo �A
o�
2
i 5 5 5 a 3 5 5 5 5
Q
Q
CL
w
w LL
Q
96
WCL
0)U
000
w
�Y
UJ
ffial--w
O
co
Q Q
U
= O
U
U
a
s
RRaa� r�'�q�a3
MH
a
� �
-----'050 �
0000. w xr
-a0Hmaay
€ w 5
F a
g�
;sz. zo �A
o�
2
i 5 5 5 a 3 5 5 5 5
IONINOO NOISON3 i
S1N3W3AONdW13AS-NO a
660£ 1OV'd1 :S3LL'd3dO'dd 9N39iUVH s a o
a
o R z g
eb a
Y
a
till
gg®®e
dg�E�
z
`6ppa
�
V
�
0
0
0
0
a
M
y 0
If
w 0
��;-{ ♦wow m..e an�m
E
S.LN3W3AONdW131IS-NO
HIS
z
=M'w
SlIV130
G
\ t
pp
=p
660£ 1OHN1;S311b3dONd E)dBSV3S
[
o
M
y 0
If
w 0
��;-{ ♦wow m..e an�m
,rirsr�ucc -
E
'i
HIS
= s 6C(
=M'w
G
\ t
pp
=p
v.
2
Q
mm
N
F
0
a
h
,rirsr�ucc -
E
'i
= s 6C(
d y f
I
Q
a
h
sal r
-non _
gd
i
u
p
iag
�
a
=
Y�Si E
i Q
,rirsr�ucc -
l
rp
I
Q
a
h
sal r
-non _
Ten850, LLC
701 Shadow Lane, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Kelly Gleason, Planning Department
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero CA 93422
Re: Ten850, LLC —Applicant
Hearing on Tentative Ma — February 21. 2023
Dear Kelly:
EIS
FEB 16 2023
I wanted to put on record some things that came up during the Planning Commission
hearing on February 7, 2023. We are going back in front of the Commission on February 21,
2023, so I hoped this information could be provided to the Commission prior to our next hearing.
The item for approval by the Commission on February 21, 2023, is approval of a new
tentative map, which takes 48 "for rent" units, and instead proposes 43 "for sale" units. The
amount of parking has been increased from 60 spaces to 83 spaces, as the previously -approved
map was for senior housing which generally requires less parking. The parking for the modified
project meets all City requirements, and will be on-site. The Ten850 project will not contribute
to parking issues on El Camino..
Drainage and Engineering: Ross Peabody is our engineer, and he explains in the
attached letter that the drainage plan was updated in 2022, and meets all current City and state
requirements. There were statements made that the engineering was out of date, and that it has
not been revised to address current code requirements. That is not true. Engineer Peabody
explains that in his letter.
The neighbor who spoke at the hearing, Paula Ramsum, alleged that there was no history
of drainage issues prior to construction beginning at 10850 El Camino. However, the owner
only purchased her property in 2020, and the flooding occurred in January of 2021. In fact,
historically there were quite a few drainage issues in that part of the City. In the City -approved
drainage plans for the Ten850 project — and this is also addressed in Engineer Peabody's letter —
the site elevation was raised by eight feet, in order to insure any run-off drains away from the
neighbor's subdivision and towards the retention basin on the Ten850 property. During
construction, Ten850 installed a block wall on the property line, and the old fence (which was on
the Ten850 property, not on the neighbor's property) was removed. There is a new drainage pipe
that starts at the property line, adjacent to the new wall, and collects surface water, moving it to
the south, away from the neighbor's property and into the retention basin.
Drainage from the neighbor's subdivision is directed to the east through a collection
drain on the neighbor's side of the, wall, and that drain directs water through the neighbor's
subdivision, through an underground pipe, across El Camino to a drainage pond. The Ten850
project installed a swale to help the neighbor's subdivision with their drainage,
Both City and state inspectors are on the Ten850 project site on a regular basis,
inspecting the existing drainage and flood control construction, and enforcing the conditions in
those plans. The City can confirm those inspections have taken place.
The 2021 Flooding Incident: The flooding incident that the neighbor and her attorney
spoke of during the February 7th Commission hearing was a freak occurrence, due to the
drainage improvements being under construction. Two homes were affected — 910 La Costa and
920 La Costa; 910 La Costa was more heavily damaged. The complaining neighbor owns 920
La Costa.
The neighbor categorically told this Commission that the developer of the Ten850 project
provided no help, which is absolutely not true. We must assume she was exaggerating the
circumstances due to her lawsuit, currently pending against both the City and the developer. In
fact, immediately after the flooding damage occurred, the neighbor's tenants were moved into a
hotel, and Sery-Pro was sent in to box up belongings and use their equipment to dry out the
house. Ten850, LLC, contacted its insurance company. Simultaneously, Ten850 LLC has spent
more than $36,000.00 to help the complaining neighbor.
The neighbor's tenants were relocated, and $8,416.86 in hotel expenses were paid. The
neighbor was reimbursed $6,900.00 in lost rental income. Sery-Pro was paid $3,141.86, and
$8,696.50 was paid in legal fees to gain the insurance company's cooperation. Neighbor
Ramsum claimed $80,000.00 in damages to the 920 La Costa house, when the developer had
estimates at 25% that, and she refused to mediate or enter into formal discussions before filing
suit. The neighbor's last communication with the developer was in January of 2022. By August
of 2021, neighbor Ramsum had filed suit against the developer and the City. If she had
cooperated with us, she could have been back in her house in March of 2021, like her neighbor at
910 La Costa.
Ten850 LLC repaired the damage to 910 La Costa and had that owner back in his house, all
repairs completed, within a few months. The owners of 910 La Costa received alternate housing
through the end of March 2021, and while they were out, the 910 La Costa home was restored,
drywall replaced and re -painted, the floors replaced, and the countertops replaced. The owner of
910 La Costa noted that his deck — and most owners' decks in that subdivision — were built
raised due to the regular drainage problems. Future drainage issues in that neighboring
subdivision should be solved, in part, by the drainage plans that will be implemented for the
Ten850 project.
By the way, neighbor Ramsum's attorney claimed there was three feet of water in the 920
La Costa house, but there was no more than three inches, according to Sery-Pro.
It's important to note that the recent atmospheric river rains in the area have not produced
any additional flooding to the surrounding properties, including 910 La Costa and 920 La Costa.
On a similar note, 910 La Costa is lower than 920 La Costa as it relates to the drainage.
Grading: Neighbor Ramson and her attorney claimed there was no record of a grading plan.
There is a grading plan. The approved Site Improvement Plans include sheets C-10 through C-
16 which are the final grading plans for all the lots, streets, and open space areas for the
project. By approving the Site Improvement Plans, the City has approved the grading for the site
which is the grading permit approval that was referenced by one of the Commissioners during
the meeting.
CEOA Compliance: The neighbor's attorney, John Belsher, claimed that the
environmental review from 2017 was done without any engineering in hand, but there is no
possible way to challenge the CEQA work done at that time. The project in front of the
Commission at the February 215' hearing is only to reduce the number of units from 48 to 43, and
allow for sale of those units. This change has no potential environmental impacts that are more
or different than the project approved in 2017. Attorney Belsher said he spent an afternoon at the
City and was unable to locate the 2017 Negative Declaration; that is no reason to open up
environmental review on such a simple modification.
Conclusion: The developer has been in the City of Atascadero for 25 years, as owners of
the 140 apartment units across El Camino. After 25 years, there have been no significant
complaints from the tenants or the neighbors for that complex. After 25 years, the developer has
no desire to cause issues with the neighbors, and it would appear that only one neighbor is
disgruntled and unhappy with the situation.
We hope this information is helpful. We will be available to answer any questions at the
February 28�h hearing. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Camesale
February 13, 2023
Ten850 LLC
701 Shadow Lane, #310
Las Vegas, NV. 89106
Mr. John Carnesale
Regarding Ten850, LLC —Applicant
Hearing on Tentative Map — February 21, 2023: Review of Drainage Design currently
approved and being installed with the project improvements.
Dear Mr. Carnesale:
I have provided a review of the current drainage design for the project referenced and
have conclusions based upon that review which are provided in this letter. Peabody
Engineering is not the design engineer for the project nor have we been involved in the
project drainage design or construction.
We have reviewed the Final Drainage Report and Stormwater Control Plan for Hartberg
Properties prepared by Wallace Group on January 31, 2018, and revised on July 31,
2018. We have also reviewed the approved Site Improvement Plans for Hartberg
Properties dated January 15, 2021 which design the site grading for the project and
drainage system for the project. Both documents have been stamped and signed by
Wallace Group as being complete and ready for construction. Both documents have
been reviewed and approved by the City of Atascadero and are the basis for the
construction of the project and the improvements ongoing.
The drainage report provided a clear description of the existing drainage conditions.
The existing site prior to construction drained to an existing 18" storm drain line with a
flared end section to accept the drainage from the Ten850 site and into the public drain
system in La Costa Court. This drain pipe system lies between 910 and 920 La Costa
Court and is a public drain line owned and maintained by the City of Atascadero. This
existing 18" storm drain pipe runs from the property boundary of Ten850, between the
houses located at 920 La Costa Court and 910 La Costa Court, and to La Costa Court
where the public drain line conveys the drainage further into the City of Atascadero
drainage system. This existing 18" storm drain line has drained this property at Ten850
since the time it was constructed with the subdivision to the south encompassing 910 &
920 La Costa Court.
EXISTING DRAINAGE PRIOR TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: The drainage condition
and flow produced from the Ten850 project site prior to any construction has been
evaluated in the drainage report. This analysis was completed using HydroCAD
CIVIL ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PROJECT MANAGEMENT * STRUCTURAL DESIGN
ftabod
engm
Stormwater Modeling, which is an accepted modeling program for evaluating storm
flows for 2 year through 100 year storm events. NOAA precipitation frequency
estimates were used for the area to come up with the design storm events for modeling.
NOAA precipitation history for storm events is one of the most widely used and accurate
methods of modeling precipitation storm events and is considered an acceptable
standard when producing stormwater modeling for various storm events. Through this
analysis, Wallace Group found that existing flows from the Ten850 site into the 18"
storm drain pipe prior to construction of this project were as designated below:
PROPOSED DRAINAGE FROM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: The project drainage was
then evaluated and the drainage flows from each Drainage Management Area (DMA)
were quantified in the drainage report. Each DMA has a certain amount of impervious
surface (pavement, roof, street, driveways, etc.). This new impervious surface
increases and concentrates the drainage within the project for each DMA. Such
increase drainage flow was calculated for each DMA and a total drainage flow for each
DMA was found. This increased flow represents the flow from the new project once the
project is completely constructed.
Our review of the proposed project drainage system and project grading plan showed
that all drainage from the Ten850 project site is being collected by the new drainage
system, detained onsite through the use of underground chambers, and is regulated for
outflow from the site to insure the flow from the developed project does not exceed the
existing drainage flow condition prior to the development of the project. To accomplish
that, the underground chamber systems designed with the Site Improvement Plans
have flow control manholes constructed to hold back storm water during the various
storm events and reduce the flow to the existing drain system in all storms evaluated.
Wallace Group found that the resultant outflow from the project site once development
is completed would be reduced for the annual (95th Percentile) storm even, 10 year
storm event, 50 year storm event, and 100 year storm event as determined below:
CIVIL ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PROJECT MANAGEMENT * STRUCTURAL DESIGN
. I u
The flow into the 18" storm drain pipe from the project prior to the development is
designated as "Existing", and the flows shown as "Detention CY are the proposed flows
from the project once the project development is completed. In all storm event cases
evaluated in the drainage report, the flow from the project into the 18" storm drain pipe
running between 910 and 920 La Costa Court is reduced once the project construction
is completed.
Peabody Engineering has reviewed and checked the calculations provided in the
drainage report and finds them to be accurate. This includes calculation of the existing
storm event flows, calculation of the proposed storm event flows, and modeling of the
detention onsite to reduce the outflows from the project once completed.
Sincerely,
�n ��
Ross Peabody
CIVIL ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PROJECT MANAGEMENT * STRUCTURAL DESIGN