Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC_2023_03_28_Public Comment by Email
MEMORANDUM 10850 LLC Project 1562-01 Date: March 21, 2023 To: Kate Neiswender From: Brett Hadley, PE Subject: 10850 VTTM Appeal Response This memo responds to the stormwater related items of the appeal of the Planning Commission of Atascadero approval of the 10850 LLC Track Map. The appeal letter is dated March 6, 2023 from Paula Ramsum. The approved stormwater design for the project is in compliance with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post-Construction Stormwater Requirements (PCR’s) as adopted by the City of Atascadero including Performance Requirement 1 Site Design, Performance Requirement 2 Water Quality Treatment, Performance Requirement 3 Retention, and Performance Requirement 4 Peak Flow Management. Additionally, the project complies with the City’s stormwater standards which requires the 50-year post-developed peak flow to match the 2-year pre- developed peak flow. Prior to project development, the historical low point was located at the southeast portion of the site. At the low point, an existing 18-inch pipe conveyed stormwater from the project site to the city storm drain system. The project post-developed stormwater design reduces the peak flow rates in the 2-year through 100-year storm events. Thus, the existing 18-inch storm drain pipe will experience post-developed peak flows that are less than predevelopment (historical) rates. Below is an itemized response to the stormwater related appeal points: 1A. Wall heights along the south boundary of the property have been lowered to reduce visual impacts to adjoining neighbors and to reduce the size of the wall and footings. Site grading has been modified to facilitate this update and has been reviewed and approved by the Engineer of Record, City of Atascadero, Client and project Contractor. The discharge location for post-developed stormwater is unchanged from the original design. Stormwater management is provided within the underground chamber system, consistent with the original design. The project complies with City stormwater requirements. 1D. The project has an approved grading plan that has been signed by the Engineer of Record and approved by the City of Atascadero. Throughout construction, City of Atascadero Building Inspections have performed site inspections to confirm the project is being constructed in accordance with the approved grading plan. Wallace Group has provided pad certification for the townhomes and cottages in conformance with the approved grading plan. March 21, 2023 Page 2 of 2 1E. The Project Drainage Report complies the PCR’s. Townhomes 17 through 26 and Cottages 16 and 27 are within the Drainage Management Area 8 (DMA8) as identified on the Project Drainage Report dated January 31, 2018. Reductions to the wall height along the south property line requires the project to capture and direct roof runoff from all buildings within DMA8 to the front of the property so that it can enter the underground chamber system per the Project Drainage Report. Runoff from impervious areas within DMA8 will not directly insert into the 18-inch outflow pipe. The remaining landscaped areas within DMA8 are not required to be treated since they are not considered impervious surfaces. This approach complies with the PCR’s and the City’s stormwater standard which requires the 50-year post-developed peak flow to match the 2-year pre-developed peak flow. Wallace Group contacted the project contractor on March 16, 2023, and confirmed the roof drain connections to the underground stormwater chamber system are intended to be constructed for the townhomes and cottages within DMA8. Flow from rooftops will not be directed “uphill” but will be routed through underground pipes to the underground detention facility. 1F. Roof runoff (impervious area) from Townhomes 17 through 26 and Cottages 16 and 27 will not be run uphill but will be routed through underground pipes to the underground stormwater detention system consistent with the Drainage Report. There is adequate fall from the lowest finished floor, which is at elevation 945.00, to the top of the chamber system at elevation 939.75. In post construction conditions, an overland escape is provided within the proposed roadway that conveys flow to El Camino Real in the event of a blockage in the outlet control structure. The remaining landscaped areas within DMA8 are not required to be treated since they are not considered impervious surfaces. The PCR’s peak flow management performance requirement is still met, as well as peak flow attenuation of the 50-year and 100-year storm event, per City standards. An onsite storm drain inlet box is proposed near the 18-inch outfall pipe to capture runoff from landscape areas of DMA8. A storm drain inlet is provided on the south side of the wall within the city easement to allow offsite runoff from adjacent properties to enter the 18-inch pipe as it has historically. We do not anticipate an increase in flooding potential for the adjacent properties to the south. 3. Runoff from impervious area within DMA8 will not run uphill nor bypass the flow metering system but will be routed through underground pipes to the underground stormwater detention facility, consistent with the project Drainage Report. See response to item 1E and 1F. 4. Prior to project development, the historical low point was located at the southeast portion of the site. At the low point, an existing 18-inch pipe conveyed stormwater from the project site to the city storm drain system. The project post-developed stormwater design reduces the peak flow rates in the 2-year through 100-year storm events. Thus, the existing 18-inch storm drain pipe will experience proposed peak flows that are less than predevelopment (historical) rates. 6A. The stormwater management plan is consistent with the approved Drainage Report and complies with the PCR’s and City of Atascadero standards. The project connects to the existing 18-inch storm drain line, which is the historic discharge point for the property. The existing 18-inch storm drain pipe will experience post-developed peak flows that are less than predevelopment (historical) rates as described in item 4. From: Betty Morris <> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 5:21 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org> Subject: Agenda item no. B2-Barrel Creek 3/28 City Council meeting #1 - Please address how the traffic coming off the bridge over Graves Creek will be addressed. It already takes us 10 minutes from home to get to that point and if the traffic is backed up it is our only outlet in an emergency. Please address the condition of the road leading to the freeway and over to El Camino Road prior to moving forward with the project. #2 – High density apartments without adequate parking is not a good plan for Atascadero. There is no need for high density apartment housing on San Ramon Road. We are a rural community. We are not in favor of rezoning to Urban on the West side. #3 – how will the short term rentals be managed? Will there be a moratorium on single family homes having short term rentals because of it? -----Original Message----- From: b k kleinbauer <m> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 5:24 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org> Subject: Del rio commercial project Ive lived on del rio for 20 yrs and these past 10 have had a huge increase of traffic . Im definitely against the west side having any commercial business seeing how the lighted intersection at the bridge is already at max compacity , And very dangerous. Every day I witness either some one running the red light or not yielding and almost causing a wreck. And on top of that have you noticed how horrible the road conditions are ?!? Huge potholes in that very intersection!! Stop trying to make Atascadero like paso robles !! Its disgusting. Roger perkins From: JuLee Rocha <> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 7:52 PM To: Heather Moreno <hmoreno@atascadero.org>; Susan Funk <sfunk@atascadero.org>; Charles Bourbeau <cbourbeau@atascadero.org>; Mark Dariz <mdariz@atascadero.org>; Heather Newsom <hnewsom@atascadero.org> Cc: Jeff van den Eikhof <jvandeneikhof@atascadero.org>; Tori Keen <tkeen@atascadero.org>; Jason Anderson <janderson@atascadero.org>; Victoria Carranza <vcarranza@atascadero.org>; Randy Hughes <rhughes@atascadero.org>; Greg Heath <gheath@atascadero.org>; Dennis Schmidt <dschmidt@atascadero.org>; City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org> Subject: Barrel Creek Project 3-27-2023 Greetings, I have voiced some of my concerns to the City Council in past emails and a Power Point presentation to the City Council on March 14th. I strongly oppose this project for many, many reasons. 1: The light and noise pollution that will infect our quiet neighborhood, and ruin the quaint charm on the west side of Hwy 101. 2: Noise during construction, and the dust. These particles will be airborne throughout our neighborhood, surrounding properties, and nearby Monterey Road Elementary School. There is no way to tell which direction the winds will carry particles. People with lung issues will be most affected. 3: During the recent rains, the "San Ramon Lake" puddle has increased in size, making it difficult, if not impossible for small, lower cars to pass through. This area of San Ramon Rd, now has a very significant pot hole in the center of the road. The developers have no concerns for the existing roads and unbelievably the City is only requiring the project to pave and resurface half of San Ramon and Del Rio. 4: Has a REAL Traffic Study been done on Del Rio? Depending on the time of day, the sun literally blinds you traveling west and east bound on Del Rio, between Monterey Rd. and San Ramon. If you plan to install a flashing caution light near this intersection, it will not be effective during daylight hours. Pedestrians will be most at risk. 5: When turning left from San Ramon Rd. onto Del Rio, one must use a lot of caution, as cars speed up the small hill on Del Rio. The increase in traffic will make this worse and dangerous, for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. 6: Water pollution involving Graves Creek. The run off from this project may be detrimental to the species that live and thrive in Graves Creek. There are salamanders, frogs, crawfish, and other that live, and make their homes in Graves Creek. At one time there was a beaver family living in Graves Creek as well. The small gulch that runs along side of the Southbound 101, actually runs through a few properties on San Ramon Rd. This gulch is used by wildlife when running. What happens to this gulch, that winds through private property that is polluted? Many native oak trees use this water source as well. Will these trees demise due to the pollutants that are being carried from Barrel Creek? Being the construction of this project, or the final project? These residents on the Highway 101 side, which butts up against this project, are the properties that will be hurt the most. These homes have been in our neighborhood for decades! These families have been in our neighborhood for decades! 7: The Del Rio overpass. The City and the State are constantly fighting over whom is to maintain the overpass. Not the City or the State want to maintain the overpass. Currently, there are huge potholes on the overpass. When making a left hand turn from the Southbound 101 onto Del Rio, drivers have to swerve almost alongside the overpass guardrail to avoid the potholes. I can only image MORE traffic using the overpass to enter and exit your Barrel Creek project. 8: I think the City should keep Atascadero Original Rural roots, on the westside to single family homes on ½ acre to 1 acre lots. This land has been zoned for Rural Residential for many decades (1+ acre lots). Over the past few weeks, I have spoken with many neighbors regarding this development. Many of my neighbors behind us on San Ramon Rd, Graves Creek Rd., Garcia, San Gregorio, Monterey Rd. are very upset about this project. Many of those I spoke with had NO idea what was being planned on this property. I heard over and over again, "why are we just now hearing about this?" "Is the City trying to sneak in another unwanted development?" "Well, there goes our rural life." "Will this affect my children's 4-H and FFA projects?" 9: I would like to know how many City Council members and Planning Commission staff actually went to these neighborhoods and spoke with their constituents? My guess, ZERO!! 9: Over-developing this property would over-tax our infrastructure and harm our local environment. 10: Please preserve Atascadero. Get an Independent Economic analysis of financial impacts to the City, including nearby property values. Get a Complete environmental analysis with clear data, on ALL CEQA impacts. 11: Please observe E.G. Lewis' vision of Atascadero and the wonderful rural vibe of this City. 12: As a homeowner on San Ramon Rd., I have lived on this road growing up. I still live in Atascadero, but now have plans to return to my childhood home, as my retirement home. I cannot tell you the numerous Indian arrowheads, and other Native American Indian artifacts we discovered in this area as children. I look forward to combing my yard to discover more! Is the City prepared to stop development if Native American artifacts are discovered, or will they just rebury them somewhere else, like Dove Creek? 13: The signage for this Barrel Creek project is most unfitting for Atascadero. I spent the last few days driving by signs along the freeway, both north and south. Most signs are shorter than the one proposed. It will stick out like a sore thumb. It actually reminds me of a water tower one would find in the mid-west. Is this what the citizens of Atascadero want? Many of the signage that I noticed are vinyl signs. Will this be the case for the shops in Barrel Creek? 14: With dozens of empty storefronts and retail buildings abandoned throughout Atascadero, are you sure these "artisanal" shops will have long-term proprietors? They also will surely become empty storefronts. 15: The idea of having muti-family apartments inside a rural established neighborhood, will make property values go down. That is a proven fact. 16: At the recent online City Council meeting, there were an overwhelming majority of your constituents, there that opposed this project. LISTEN TO US! I strongly urge the City Council and Planning Commission to vote NO on this project! Sincerely, JuLee Rocha From: Diane Donalies <> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 8:47 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org> Subject: Agenda item B2-Barrel Creek I live about a mile from the proposed project Barrel Creek. I am requesting that my concerns be read at the 3/28 city council meeting. I have just heard about the massive project being proposed at Del Rio & San Ramon Rd. Please allow the community an opportunity to review this project prior to approval. Because there is already one major project just on the other side of the 101, I am concerned about the impact on roads, freeway access, and effects created by a large influx of new residents. I would like an opportunity to see the plans including the sq footage of the apts & houses. Who will manage the apts and will they all be designated low income, senior housing or what? Please hold off approving this plan. Please submit details in our local paper and allow residents a chance to evaluate. Thank You. Diane Donalies -- And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. Rom 8:28 Diane Donalies -----Original Message----- From: Katherine Morrison <> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 6:16 AM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org> Subject: Opposition to Barrel Creek Agenda Item B-2, 3/28/23 Dear Council Members, I was raised in a home on San Gregorio Rd and am part owner of that property. The rural tranquility and lifestyle in the sector of west Atascadero off Del Rio Rd is priceless. Family members of mine own property on lower San Gregorio Rd and Garcia Rd. The type of development proposed for nearby San Ramon Rd would disturb the rural lifestyle of our neighbors there as well as increase noise levels in the nearby peaceful neighborhoods on lower San Gregorio, Del Rio and Garcia Roads. I urge the Council to consider the lifestyle impact to residents in the area due to the proposed rezoning and planning of a project of this magnitude. Sincerely, Katherine Morrison On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 9:51 AM Nathan Vincent <> wrote: Dear Council Members, Thank you in advance for listening to our concerns. After following the Planning Comm./City Council meetings we are very concerned about the density of the Barrel Creek proposed development for the following reasons: 1. The drainage of the project was questioned and put off as a non issue at the March 14th meeting. Alarming when San Ramon Road has been flooded since Jan. 2023. More black top and buildings will not help drainage. 2. With the proposed large hotel, 40 apartments, homes and businesses, the traffic will increase by hundreds of cars per day. Too many vehicles for such a tight, rural area. Surprising that the EIR’s did not address this issue. 3. At the last City Council meeting it was mentioned that delivery trucks would not be allowed in the project. Soooo, where will they park to off load? How will motorists coming in or going out of the project be able to see around the trucks? How will the delivery trucks turn around without blocking traffic on a two lane road? 4. Seems the city of Atascadero and Caltrans need to get the road infrastructure in place for the safety of everyone before moving forward on the Barrel Creek Project. 5. With such tall structures proposed in a zoned rural area the threat to our privacy is real. We consider the Barrel Creek project too large on all levels and inappropriate for this rural area. We hope the Atascadero City Council will vote “No” on the proposed Barrel Creek Project. Thank you From:Marianne Brown <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 10:35 AM To:City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item Number B2- Barrel Creek As a homeowner in Atascadero we would like to express our concerns about the Barrel Creek Project. We are against moving ahead with this project until there is a plan and timeline to handle the excess traffic on the 101 overpass. We use the Del Rio off-ramp to access our home. Please consider our concerns as you consider moving ahead with this development. Thank you, Robert and Mary Brown Atascadero, CA. 93422 From:Richard K Shannon <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:12 AM To:Phil Dunsmore; Kelly Gleason; City Clerk; Jan Bewley Subject:Barrell Creek Development City Planning: RE: Proposed Barrel Creek Development I would like to speak in favor of the proposed Barrel Creek Development. In addition to being a nearby residence ( ) I represent the Madonna Family on part of the leasing of the Del Rio Marketplace Center, across the Hwy from the Barrel Creek Development. This proposed project appears to be well thought out for this site. It would be a welcome development to that intersection and should help to create a synergy for tourist and commercial users at this off ramp. In addition the housing element should help to alleviate our severe housing shortage we have been experiencing in our area. I hope the council agrees and votes to move forward with this much needed improvement of this vital entrance to our City. Richard K. Shannon Century 21 Hometown Realty Broker Associate 6755 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 License# 00619856 Office: Mobile: Fax: Email: Let me show you what your home is worth. It's easy and will just take a moment. Click here to visit my website Visit: ON THE BEACH BED & BREAKFAST 181 N. Ocean Ave. Cayucos, CA 93430 Toll Free: (877) 995-0800 From:Robert <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:12 AM To:City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item Number B2 - Barrel Creek Re: Agenda Item B2 – Barrel Creek The Barrel Creek approval should absolutely be tied to a Cal Trans plan to handle the additional traffic and increase the capacity of the bridge at 101. The Atascadero Planning Department has indicated that Cal Trans would have to replace the bridge to accept the additional traffic. Moving forward with the Barrel Creek development zoning and project approvals without a budgeted commitment and time line from the State on this issue would be irresponsible. This prospective development on the west side of 101 deserves as much consideration of traffic mitigation as the proposed developments on the east side of 101 received. Robert Botta Atascadero, CA. 93422 From:Marie Glavin <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:35 AM To:City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item B2 Barrel Creek Dear City Council Members: I’m writing to voice my concerns about the proposed development at Barrel Creek. It doesn’t appear we have adequate infrastructure existing or planned to accommodate the increase in traffic, events, noise, etc. We do not have many exit available to us coming down from the Westside. The bridge is inadequate to accommodate the volume of anticipated traffic. To rely on Caltrans to fix the bridge in maybe 10 years is not comforting. Another concern is the ability for emergency vehicles to come up and down from the Westside, unimpeded to medical facilities, for a largely senior population. I certainly appreciate the need for the City to bring in additional revenue to meet the growing needs of current residents. I urge Council Members to ensure adequate infrastructure is planned and implemented prior to the beginning of development. I believe the rural nature of our community is a significant draw to our area. I heard the idea is to create another Tin City. That is a scary proposition given the traffic issues associated with that project. Please proceed cautiously so that regrets do not exceed the benefits of this development. Sincerely, Marie Glavin Sent from my iPhone From:Madeline Rothman <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:38 AM To:City Clerk Subject:City Council Meeting 3/28/23 Agenda Item B. 2., Barrel Creek My name is Madeline Rothman, and I have lived on San Ramon Road in Atascadero with my husband for over 50 years. We chose to live in this most northern part of Atascadero because of its rural character, low density, privacy, and the beautiful natural environment, which includes the sensitive environment of Graves Creek that runs behind our San Ramon Road property and all of the properties on the west side of the original section of San Ramon Road. When we moved to San Ramon Road in 1972, there were steelhead trout in Graves Creek and beavers that thrived at the creek. Little by little we have seen the steady erosion of that precious natural environment due to increased development. Sadly, those days of seeing trout and beavers in the creek, along with other native species of plants and animals, are gone forever. The health of the creek and the animals and plants that live there are in constant jeopardy! I am deeply concerned about the negative environmental impacts a project of this size would inflict on the area and surrounding areas! The serious and deleterious environmental impacts would include noise pollution, light pollution, air and water pollution caused by increased traffic on San Ramon Road and Del Rio Road, with toxic-laden run-off impairing the water quality of Graves Creek. Many of our neighbors on San Ramon Road are strongly opposed to a General Plan Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, creation of a Planned development Overlay Zone, etc., that would change the zoning of an area that is currently zoned for a maximum of 6 single-family dwellings to zoning that would allow a project plan for 48,000 sq. ft., or more, of commercial/light industrial space, a 120-room hotel, 40 multi-family apartment units, 5,000 sq. ft. of restaurant or brewery space, 16 short- term stay cottages, and a 20-lot single family subdivision. If this project were to go ahead, it would cause a major change to a neighborhood, and most probably the loss of a long-time neighborhood community, loss of the rural character of the area, greater erosion of the precious natural environment of Graves Creek and the surrounding area, and loss of the valued quality of life that brought families to this street and area! In addition, people who live in the Del Rio Road area are very concerned about the impact this project would have on the Del Rio/Hwy.101 Interchange due to the increased traffic this development would bring. How does the city plan to mitigate the traffic congestion this project would cause on the Del Rio bridge? Also, this development does not further the goal of a walkable, bicycle-friendly community. The Del Rio bridge does not have a bicycle lane. The existing two lanes are very narrow and difficult to accommodate bicyclists traveling on the bridge with large trucks, motor homes, etc. As a long-time resident living in the neighborhood, I walk on the Del Rio bridge overpass several times a week. It has been my experience that children riding bikes on the bridge always ride their bikes on the pedestrian walkway to provide them with some safety, but to the potential detriment of pedestrians on the walkway. The added traffic associated with this project would only increase the level of danger for bicyclists and pedestrians who would be severely restricted from using the bridge safely. We strongly believe that Interchange improvements to address these issues must be in place before this project would be approved to begin! It greatly saddens us to see a proposal, such as this one, that would erode another part of the beautiful rural character that was once plentiful in Atascadero! Once you take away a beautiful, special piece of rural Atascadero found on San Ramon Road, bordered by Graves Creek on the west side, and change it to high-density living units, commercial/light industrial, multiple buildings, a hotel, 20-lot single family homes,16 short-term cottages, and probably more, the environment is forever changed! So Much is Lost Forever! There is Priceless Value and Importance to — ~ preserving and protecting the environment from noise and light pollution, air and water pollution that would negatively impact the very special and sensitive natural environment of Graves Creek; ~ preserving the beautiful rural environment that drew families to this area; and ~ preserving the quality of life that is enjoyed by a neighborhood of San Ramon Road families! Madeline Rothman Atascadero, CA 1 From:john belsherlaw.com <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:43 AM To:City Clerk Cc:Paula Ramsum; Rob Montoya; Ann Gordon Subject:City Council hearing on appeal B1 10850 El Camino Real Attachments:DMA-8 drainage.mov; Final Drainage Report 2018 updated 2021 excerpts re DMA8.pdf; Grading Plan for 18 inch culverts 7 21 21.pdf; Ramsum Appeal letter from Belsher 3 28 23.pdf Attached find my letter in support of the referenced appeal. Please provide this to the City Council with the movie attachment which I believe neighbor Ann Gordon wishes to show. In addition I would like the separately provided attachments provided with my letter and available to show tonight at the meeting through the AV. John Belsher, Esq. Belsher Law, P.C. 3450 Broad Street, Suite 101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 945SDSD F: 946.80FF: 946.30FF: 945.80FF: 945.80FF: 945.30FF: 945.30FF: 945.00D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>48.88' @ 0.33%18" HDPE SD28.02' @ 0.33%18" HDPE SD42.11' @ 0.33%18" HDPE SD Exist. TOW=937.5'Exist. BOW=935.9' Exist. TOW=939.8'Exist. BOW=936.5' Exist. TOW=940.2'Exist. BOW=939.1'FF: 945.00FF: 945.3048.88' @ 0.33%18" HDPE SDFF: 946.30FF: 945.30FF: 945.80FF: 945.80F: 946.80>>28D@0%8P011@033%2802@S33@D22P2@SD3@@S4H3@@S2H>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>12FL: 943.52FL: 943.42FL: 943.26FL: 943.56FS: 944.60FL: 945.34FS: 9FS: 942.39942.65 TC942.15 FLFS: 944.49FS: 943.91FS: 943.85FS: 943.81FS: 943.78FS: 943.63FS: 943.67FS: 943.73FS: 944.21FS: 944.75FS: 944.75FS: 944.82FS: 944.82FS: 945.00FS: 945.50FS: 945.41FS: 945.41FS: 945.34FS: 945.34FS: 944.48FS: 945.32FS: 945.25FS: 945.25FS: 945.32FS: 943.83FS: 944.67FS: 945.01FS: 944.81FS: 943.77FS: 943.88FS: 944.86FS: 944.75FS: 945.74FS: 945.62FS: 945.68FS: 946.25FS: 946.25FS: 946.32FS: 946.32FS: 945.81FS: 945.81FS: 945.91FS: 945.91FS: 946.29FS: 944.80FS: 944.80FS: 944.51FS: 944.96FS: 944.82FS: 944.68FS: 944.44FS: 944.51FS: 944.78FS: 944.87FS: 945.00FS: 945.10FS: 944.51FS: 944.72FS: 944.073.32%6.46%6.77%6.21%1.97%1.55%1.50%1.50%2.53%1.88%1.85%0.77%2.662.16%0.69%0.70%942.37 TC941.87 FL942.26 TC941.76 FLFS: 942.73FS: 942.49FS: 942.10942.62 TC942.12 FLFS: 946.60FG: 946.29FS: 946.10FS: 945.60FS: 945.60FS: 945.103.24%0.99%1.00%0.93%1.05%1.70%943.21 TG935.80 INV943.52 ROAD935.77 INVHP,FG: 943.50FS: 942.54MATCH EXISTINGFS: 942.36MATCH EXISTINGFS: 941.74MATCH EXISTINGFG: 944.11FG: 945.2916.76%FS: 942. 9 7 FS: 942.887.34%FS: 942.05MATCH EXISTING6.59%1.73%2.73%FG: 944.08FG: 944.17FS: 943. 0 3 FS: 942.94FG: 944.25943.21 TG935.80 INVFS: 943.74FS: 943.86FS: 943.71FS: 943.39FS: 943.45942.77 TC942.27 FLFL: 942.1.72%1.50%FS: 942.41.50%945944944FG: 944.37FG: 942.88FS: 946.50FS: 945.50FG: 943.51FG: 942.74FG: 942.96FG: 943.21FG: 942.73FG: 943.11FG: 944.89FG: 945.72FS: 945.72FG: 945.20HP,FS: 944.531.00%1.61%7.13%HP,FG: 944.41FG: 944.32944.23TW: 944.75TW: 944.75FS: 943.87>>>>>>>>>>>>>27.33' @ 0.33%18" HDPE SD7.11' @ 0.50%18" HDPE SD24x24 SD INLET #16RIM=942.75FL(IN)=934.47FL(OUT)=934.47SD MANHOLE #5RIM=943.57FL(IN)=934.72FL(OUT)=934.7211.5 BENDFL=934.8811.5 BENDFL=934.9777.83' @ 0.32%18" HDPE SDELEVATIONSTATIONL=3.93@ 0.56%18" HDPE SDFILE NAME: 1263-01-GRAD.DWGLOTS 15-20C-1515DATE SIGNEDSIGNATUREwww.wallacegroup.usPLANNINGCONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENTLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREMECHANICAL ENGINEERINGPUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATIONSURVEYING / GIS SOLUTIONSWATER RESOURCES0123DESIGNERS:DRAWING NO.DATE:DRAWN BY:JOB #:OF1234ABCD123455Copyright © Wallace Group, a CaliforniaCorporation. All rights reserved. Copies of thisdrawing shall have this notice.These plans and specifications, and the ideas anddesigns incorporated herein, are instruments ofservice prepared for the construction of work shownhereon and shall not be used in whole or in part forany other project without written authority of WallaceGroup, a California Corporation.®2017HARTBERG PROPERTIES: TRACT 3099GRADING PLAN481263-01RSMCKSHEETS7/21/2021MATCHLINESEE SHEET C-14MATCHLINESEE SHEET C-13REFERENCE KEYNOTESDESCRIPTION1PAVEMENT SECTION: 3" HMA (TYPE A) / 6" CLASS 2AGG BASE COMPACTED TO 95% RELATIVECOMPACTION. SCARIFY SUBGRADE 12" MIN. &RECOMPACT TO 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION. HOTMIX ASPHALT, TYPE A, 1/2" MIX PER SECTION 39 OFCALTRANS STD. SPEC'S.2TRASH ENCLOSURE PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS30" CONCRETE CURB HEIGHT. (FLUSH CURB)44" MOUNTABLE CURB. SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-2854" ROLLED CURB. SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-286SAWCUT AND MATCH POINT. PROVIDE SMOOTHTRANSITION.718"x18" CONCRETE BOX W/ GRATE BY MID-STATECONCRETE PRODUCTS OR EQUAL (SHALL BE H-20IN ALL TRAFFIC AREAS) SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-28812"x12" CONCRETE BOX W/ GRATE BY MID-STATECONCRETE PRODUCTS OR EQUAL, SEE DETAIL ONSHEET C-289BIORETENTION AREA SEE SECTION A SHEET C-10R10STORM DRAIN MANHOLE PER CITY OFATASCADERO SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-2711CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF ATASCADEROSEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-2512RETAINING WALL SEE SHEETS C-22R - C-24R13CONCRETE CROSS GUTTER PER CITY OFATASCADERO SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-2514OUTDOOR PATIO. SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-11R FORELEVATIONS AND GRADING15SUBSURFACE STORM WATER CHAMBERS. SEEDETAIL ON SHEETS C-20R & C-2116OUTDOOR BBQ AREA PER ARCH. PLANS17CASE A PEDESTRIAN RAMP. SEE DETAIL ON SHEETC-2518ROOF LINE. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FORDETAILS1912"x12" OPEN BOTTOM CONCRETE BUBBLER BOX W/GRATE BY MID-STATE CONCRETE PRODUCTS OREQUAL (SHALL BE H-20 IN ALL TRAFFIC AREAS)20STD 6" VERTICAL CURB (AND 18" GUTTER WHERESHOWN ON PLAN). SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-252124"x24" STORM INLET PER CITY OF ATASCADERO.SEE DETAIL Z ON SHEET C-2822MID STATE CONCRETE MODIFIED SDMH FLOWCONTROL STURUCTURE. SEE DETAILS ON SHEETC-29234'x6' STORM FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE. SEEDETAIL ON SHEET C-2924CURB TRANSITION25CONNECT TO EXISTING 18" RCP. SEE SECTION 2,SHEET C-152618"x18" OPEN BOTTOM CONCRETE BUBBLER BOX W/GRATE BY MID-STATE CONCRETE PRODUCTS OREQUAL (SHALL BE H-20 IN ALL TRAFFIC AREAS)27NOT USED28BIORETENTION AREA SEE SECTION C SHEET C-12291' WIDE CONCRETE SWALE30CONCRETE PAVERS WITH CONTAINMENT CURBSPER DETAIL AR ON SHEET C-29XXXNOTE:ALL REFERENCE KEYNOTES MAY NOT APPEAR ON THISSHEETLEGEND:GRADE BREAK11215610282812611FOUNDATION8"5.00'VARIES1.00'5%2% MINWALLScale: N.T.S.TYPICAL BACKYARD LAYOUT11001020(IN FEET)5GRAPHIC SCALE1 IN = 10 FT25CC-12(Typ.)No. 8012424X24 SD INLETGRATE=±938.00FL=934.45REMOVE EXIST HEADWALL, ADD PIPEADAPTER TO CONNECT EXIST PIPETO NEW INLETARev. DateDescription of RevisionsBy12/23/2020 STORM DRAIN CONNECTION BH3/4/2021 STORM DRAIN FLOWLINE/SLOPE UPDATES BHABBBBB7/21/2021STA: 2+32.1824x24 SD INLET #16GRATE=942.75FL(IN)=934.47FL(OUT)=934.47RETAINING WALLFGSTA: 2+37.4524x24 SD INLETGRATE=±938.00FL=934.45Scale: N.T.S.SD OUTLET CONNECTION2EXIST PIPEPIPE ADAPTOREGEXIST 18" SD2BB 1 From:Colleen Johnson <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:48 AM To:City Clerk Subject:Agenda item number B-2 Barrel Creek My concerns there is no plan for the 101 overpass at Del Rio to handle any of this additional traffic. The Planning Department said Caltrains would have to replace the bridge, and it could be 10 years with all of this new traffic and no plan or timeline for an expanded overpass. We will be getting new traffic from all the new developments on BOTH sides of the 101 freeway on Del Rio. Thank you for your help on this very concerning problem. Colleen Johnson Atascadero, CA 93422 Sent from my iPad 1 From:Jan Bewley <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:51 AM To:City Clerk Cc:Phil Dunsmore; Kelly Gleason Subject:B.2 Agenda Item - Barrel Creek Attachments:image003.png Dear Council Members, As a native of Atascadero, I request that you approve the Barrel Creek project and all required resolutions/ordinances required for permitting and completion. The project has and would continue to provide local jobs. The project would provide needed housing. The project would provide for additional funding to the City potentially of $1,000,000 annually. The project has 7 parks or open spaces plus trails for walking and recreation. The project is well-designed to buffer the surrounding neighbors. Thank You, Jan Bewley, Broker Associate Century 21 Hometown Realty 6755 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 BRE# 00907677 From:Janet Rucci <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:55 AM To:City Clerk Subject:City Council, 3/28/23, Agenda Item B2, Barrel Creek Development City Council Meeting, 3/28/23 Agenda item B2, Barrel Creek Development Proposal Council, My name is Janet Rucci and I own property on Garcia Road with approved plans to build a single family home at that location. Although I had submitted some of my comments by email for the previous City Council meeting, 3/14/23, I was unable to speak at that meeting due to a power outage in northwest Atascadero, so I'm adding my additional comments at the end of this email. I was born and raised in a rural setting on the west side of Atascadero. Though I have lived elsewhere, I had always planned to return to Atascadero to retire. As a Garcia Road property owner, whose property is roughly 1000 feet from the proposed development, I am now rethinking my plan, despite the fact that the City has already approved my plans to build a single family home on my property. I fear that the light and noise pollution from a proposed 60-foot tall hotel and neighboring apartment complex and housing will destroy the rural tranquility I seek in my retirement home, not to mention the additional traffic that will spill onto quiet residential roads in the vicinity. As I understand it, the City has already declined to improve the narrow Del Rio bridge (west of 101) in order to accommodate additional traffic to and from this development to Del Rio and Monterey Roads. The traffic study appears to have made conclusions based on inadequate information, such as the duration of the study, along with time of day that traffic would be most impacted. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project cites likely “significant environmental impact” to this area, despite mitigation measures in some categories. In addition, the plan to tie into the City's existing sewage system seems inadequate. In a recent meeting, the City’s own Water Treatment authority described the existing system as already near capacity. Water and landscape run off from this proposed development has also not been adequately addressed in the proposed plans or MND. As the gateway from the tourist-driven wine country, and the entrance to Atascadero and the west side, we deserve a better-crafted plan that is more in tune with the charm of nearby vineyards and culinary aesthetic, and, which considers the property values of west side residents and their rural lifestyles. With this in mind, I am opposed to this development as currently structured. This includes the proposed hotel height, the addition of a “trailer” park with fire pits, the additional dense housing apartments, and the music amphitheater. If this area is developed, I would prefer to see the entire project scaled down to address the traffic, noise, infrastructure (sewage and run off), including scaled down signage to better match the sensibilities of this gateway to the desirable wine country. Here are the points I would like to emphasize: 1. Your staff has received emails from many nearby property owners over the past three months. You’ve also heard compelling public comments from dozens of people opposing this project. Because those objections have been spread out over several meetings, viewers of this meeting tonight may not realize just how large and strong the opposition is to this project. But as Council Members, with due diligence, you should certainly be aware of this opposition. 2. The City’s desire to create an “Opportunity Zone” at this location will forever alter this rural landscape through unprecedented rezoning. Many nearby residents feel that the City has failed to generate enough tax revenue in other, more logical areas, and is now, therefore, focusing on this pristine, rural setting. 3. This project would over-tax our infrastructure. Note that the next item on your agenda is a significant “proposed sewer rate increase” that’s apparently related to this project. 4. An independent economic analysis and complete EIR must be required. 5. No "last minute" annexation of other properties adjacent to Graves Creek should be allowed (as has occurred with other projects). 6. The City should commit to monitoring the and water quality of Graves Creek and other environmental impacts, including the prevention of homeless encampments along Graves Creek. 7. The City has the power to specify Conditional Uses (CUPs) that are allowed or forbidden in this project. Please ensure that these uses are prohibited, and clearly stipulate the enforceability of these CUPs. - No billboards - No casino or card room uses - No amplified music or other sounds - No mobile homes - No fire pits - No social or service organization uses (e.g., homeless or mental health shelter) - No sky-high “water tower” that does NOT represent Atascadero In summary, I urge you to pursue Alternatives 2 or 3 outlined in your staff report: 2. The City Council may determine more information is needed on some aspect of the amendments and may refer the item back to the applicant and staff to provide the additional information. The Council should clearly state the type of information required and move to continue the item to a future date. 3. The City Council may deny the project. The Council should specify the reasons and identify a finding or findings for denial of the project. Sincerely, Janet Rucci From:Paula Ramsum <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 12:01 PM To:City Clerk Subject:3-28-23 City Counsel Meeting agenda item 10850 El Camino Real project appeal from planning commission Attachments:Letter to the City Council 3-28-23.docx Attached find my letter in support of the referenced appeal. Please provide this to the City Council for the 3-28-23 meeting. City Council Meeting City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA Re: March 28, 2023 Agenda Item: Appeal of 10850 El Camino Real track map My name is Paula Ramsum, property owner at adjacent to the 10850 El Camino Real project. In response to John Carnesale’s letter where he state “The flooding incident on January 27, 2021 was a freak occurrence”, this is not true and more flooding has occurred from this project since that date affecting numerous neighbors. This is an ongoing problem with this development. We had an independent engineer do a field inspection and analyze the proposed drainage plan. His conclusion is that flooding will continue to occur until an adequate solution is determined. The current plan does not work. See report from Civil Design, which is in the packet presented for the 2-21- 23 Planning commission meeting. I was assured all of our evidence presented will be presented to this City Council meeting. Why does the City of Atascadero allow this developer to wreak havoc on neighboring properties, causing extreme damage and allow him to continue causing even more damage to neighbors? This issue can be resolved, but City staff wants this City Counsel to bury their heads in the sand and just let it continue. Even the staff report refers to the drainages issues “…substantial drainage issues have impacted the adjacent existing neighborhood” John Caresale wants you to believe he has repaired the damages his project caused at 910 La Costa Court in a few short month, it took over a year, and there are still items he has not repaired. See text messages from the owner of 910 La Costa Court, confirming this in my packet to planning commission. During most of this re-construction the homeowners lived in the home, where he left them hanging for months with no work, refused to answer phone calls, and emails from them. Extremely shoddy workmanship as well. He never addressed the mold issues and after the neighbors moved back into the house the husband died. He tries to tell you no other complaints have been received, which is not true. The City of Atascadero is well aware of all of the complaints, see staff report, “…substantial drainage issues have impacted the adjacent existing neighborhood”. Mr. Caresale did not pay one of the first contractors that worked on his property. This contractor has a lean on the 10850 El Camino property for non-payment. The damage Mr. Caresale’s project caused to my home occurred over 2 years ago. His company strung me along with promises to repair the damages he caused, then turned it over to insurance company which strung me along for almost a full year, only to pull back the settlement offer when John Carnesale instructed them not to pay the claim. I had no other alternative then to file suit against them to pay for the damage they caused. Now 26 months later and Carnesale has still not paid for the damages he caused. Please deny this approval until the proper procedures can take place to provide protection the adjoining neighbors. Sincerely, Paula Ramsum 1 From:John Zanghi <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 12:05 PM To:City Clerk Subject:item#B2-barrel creek Sir: Traffic and the preparation of traffic control is a paramount prerequisite to building a village within our city. This village requires additional fire and police protection which has been apparently ignored by the city council. Rethink this project! JOHN ZANGHI From:Sandra Herring - Cronin <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 1:11 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Re: Agenda Item Number B2 - Barrel Creek *** Was not given notice until now **** It is 3/28/23, and I was unable to reply on time, but wanted to still voice concern. I see the proposed project as being beneficial to our city and our economy, but the demand it will have on our public works and infrastructure that are already strained, should be addressed in a timely manner for both future and current citizens of Atascadero. It is our elected officials' duty to make sure that the needs of those they govern, are priority. The demand that will be on the Del Rio bridge, that is ALREADY behind on repairs, will outweigh the benefit of the project, which in turn will have citizens not see the project beneficial, but in stead, a hindrance. My request is, that there be strict and clear guideline on the "when" and "how" Caltrans will update their area of jurisdiction. That should last no longer than 4 years. Thank you kindly! I hope that my thoughts are taken into consideration. Sandra Cronin Affected by your Agenda Item Number 82. From: Sandra Herring - Cronin Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 1:02 PM To: cityclerk@atascadero.org <cityclerk@atascadero.org> Subject: Agenda Item Number B2 - Barrel Creek *** Was not given notice until now **** Please accept my late note. I'll send another after I send this, hoping you will count this in my stance on the matter. Thank you, Sandra Cronin (an affected address by what you will be doing) Atascadero, CA 93422 From:Jim Moresco <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 4:44 PM To:City Clerk Cc:Max ZVillage; josh@atascaderochamber.org Subject:City Council Public Comments Item 2B Dear City Council, First, sorry for the late wri en comments. As such, I will make my comments quick. I am wri ng to you in support of the Barrel Creek project on tonight’s agenda. It is my understanding that there will be strong union opposi on to this project because the developer has not “commi ed to using local labor”. As a local developer whose company has been building homes on the Central Coast for almost 50 years, I can assure you it makes financial sense for any local development to use local labor. The costs to transport people to this area to work only adds to the cost of construc on. The union complaints are nothing more than a shakedown to get the developer to agree to a project labor agreement (PLA). The unions have greatly increased the number of lawsuits and protests in our area in order to try and get concessions from the local community to pad their own pockets. Should the city council have ques ons about the legi macy of the union complaints and the validity of PLA’s, I encourage the city council to reach out to the Home Builders Associa on of the Central Coast (HBACC) who can provide further informa on on this a empted extor on. Thank you, Jim Moresco Chief Operating Officer Midland Pacific Building Corporation www.midlandpacific.com From:Jennifer Hsu <> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2023 4:46 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Agenda item number B2 - Barrel Creek Dear City planning, I can’t make it tonight to the meeting, but I strongly oppose the project until the overpass on Del Rio upgrade is approved to handle the excess traffic on the 101 overpass. I’m not even pleased w/ the other project on the other side and now another project. Think about all that traffic on that overpass!!! Come on, it’s common sense the traffic coming on both sides would be tremendous. There are 2 elementary schools on Monterey as well that we need to factor in during school hours. I’m sorry this email is late as I didn’t see the noon deadline until now. Best regards, Jennifer Hsu Atascadero, Ca Sent from my iPhone