R 4040RESOLUTION N0.4040
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE APPROVING THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
(NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CASE NO. 04-001) FOR APPROXIMATELY 22
ACRES LOCATED EAST OF THE NOGUERA COURT SUBDIVISION,
NORTH OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION, AND SOUTH OF
ARROYO GRANDE CREEK; APPLICANT - CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF
ARROYO GRANDE,LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande adopted the updated General Plan which
became effective on November 9, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the 2001 General Plan specifies that the "21t
acre area south of Arroyo Grande Creek east of Tract 409 (Noguera Park), and north of
E. Cherry Avenue designated Single-Family Residential -Medium Density (SFR-MD) is
subject to a requirement for a neighborhood plan to coordinate street, drainage, water,
sewer, agricultural butter, creekside trail and conservation/open space considerations
prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on the East Village Neighborhood
Plan (EVNP) on October 10, 2006, July 10, 2007, and October 9, 2007 and determined
it met the requirements of the General Plan provisions; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted on November 14, 2006 for
the Cherry Creek Project, including Neighborhood Plan Case No. 04-001; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and relevant evidence, the City Council
has determined that the EVNP, attached hereto as EXhibitA, can be adopted based on
the following findings:
The proposed Neighborhood Plan is consistent with the goals, objectives,
policies and programs of the General Plan because circulation, drainage, water,
sewer, agricultural buffer and conservation/open space considerations have
been adequately coordinated.
2. The proposed Neighborhood Plan will not adversely affect the public health,
safety and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern because Subarea 1
adequately provides the necessary utilities, circulation and infrastructure to
accommodate future development of Subarea 2.
3. The Neighborhood Plan is necessary and desirable in order to implement the
provisions of the General Plan.
RESOLUTION N0.4040
PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
Grande hereby adopts Neighborhood Plan
Neighborhood Plan, a copy of which is
Department, based on the above findings.
that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Case No. 04-001, approving the East Village
on file with the Community Development
On motion by Council Member Amold, seconded by Mayor Ferrara, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Amold, Mayor Ferrara, and Council Member Costello
NOES: Council Members Guthrie and Fellows
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 9'" day of October 2007.
RESOLUTION NO. ~/d~{O
PAGE 3
TONY M. FER(iA6G4. MA'
ATTEST:
KELLY W~TMOI~, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
S ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~ / /~--
TIM THY J. C EL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT A
Of pRROYOC
9
F xCglM~~iE 72
~ O o
~~/~ m
//~~~j~ o~ iwa ~
~I P
East Village Neighborhood Plan
October 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV.
Introduction
Neighborhood Plan Location and Setting 3
Existing Environmental Setting 3
Background 3
Summdry of Neighborhood Plan Subareas 4
General Plan 5
Neighborhood Plan Proposals --- Subarea 1
Purpose and Objectives 5
Archeological and Biological Conditions 6
Architectural Design Guidelines 6
Land Use and Property Development Standards 6
Access, Circulation and Parking Standards 7
Traffic Impacts 8
Green Space 8
Agricultural Buffer Zone 8
Fences, Walls, and Special Entry Features 9
Water, Sewer, and Utility Facilities 9
Water Supply System 9
Sanitary Sewer Collection, Treatment, and Disposal 9
Off-site and On-Site Drainage 10
Creek Side Path 10
Inclusionary Housing 10
Neighborhood Plan Proposals---Subarea 2
Considerations for Subarea 2 11
Implementation and Administration
Entitlement Requests i I
Proposed Phasing of Development in Neighborhood Plan Area 12
Special Conditional Uses 12
Administration and Implementation of the Neighborhood Pian 12
-1-
S \Conmunity DevelopmenC~PROJECTS`:NPtChercy CreeMDCAtCC 10-09-C7\Neiyhborhood Plan 10-09-07 Final.doc
LIST OP ATTACHMENTS
Attachment # 1
Attachment #2
Attachment #3
Attachment #4
Attachment #5
Attachment #6
Attachment #7
Attachment #8
Subareas
Existing Ownership
East village Conceptual Neighborhood Plan
General Plan
Water Supply System
Sewer System
Storm Drainage System
Drainage Strategies and Options
-2-
S:`,Corn:nunity DevelCpment'~:PROJECTS`:NPlChen Creek'~.GCA`:CC 70~C9-0T~Neiyhbcrhood Plan 10-05-u7 FinaLduc
Introduction
Neighborhood Plan Location and Setting
The Easi Village Neighborhood Plan area is comprised of approximately 22 acres in fourteen (14)
separate parcels. It is located east of the existing Noguera Court subdivision, north of the East
Cherry Avenue extension, and bounded to the north and east by Anoyo Grande Creek.
Currently, there are only plans to develop the western nine (9) acres, called Subarea 1. The
development in Subarea 1 is proposed by a partnership between Creekside Estates of Arroyo
Grande. Subarea 2 consists of the remaining parcels to the east. Refer to Attachment # 1-
Subareas, and Attachment #2-Existing Ownership.
Existing Environmental Setting
The entire southern edge of the Neighborhood Plan area borders the Dixson Farm, which is an
active agricultural field and is subject to a 130 ft. agricultural buffer. Arroyo Grande Creek forms
the border to the north and east, which requires a minimum 25-foot setback from the top of the
creek bank. Most of the developable portion of the Neighborhood Plan area is level to slightly
sloping in the direction of the creek. Subarea 1 has three houses and is dotted with non-native
walnut trees. Subarea 2 is developed with a mixture of homes on large lots. Other vegetation in
the area includes various fruit and avocados trees, as well as some palms. The creek area
contains a variety of native and non-native plant species.
Background
The developers of Subarea 1 began to research and implement the details of the City's
Neighborhood Plan requirement after acquiring the Stillwell property. These requirements were
focused on developing a cohesive strategy for the current and future development of this area
This concept worked well with the goal of engaging the community in the planning process.
Drawing from past experiences, the developers of Subarea 1 believed that the community
surrounding the proposed development could provide valuable input that can help shape the
design aspects of the project. With the help and vision of the neighbors, a community based
concept has been developed.
The public outreach process was initiated by having the developers walk door to door in the
neighborhood. They introduced themselves, briefly explained their goals, and distributed a
"Hello Neighbor Letter" and reply card. The requirements for the Neighborhood Plan were easily
incorporated into the development's public outreach effort, allowing both to proceed
concurrently. The developers compiled the suggestions and concerns posed by the community
regarding both the Neighborhood Plan and the proposed development. These became the
topics of three community meetings that were held.
To help facilitate these community meetings, a planner from RRM Design Group was present
and active, as well as City staff from the Community Development Department. The first
neighborhood meeting engaged the property owners within the entire East Village
Neighborhood Plan area. At this meeting, topics were discussed that affected the
Neighborhood Plan, such as east-west collector alignment, agriculture buffer, and density. The
layout and vision for the site was also discussed. For the second community meeting everyone
that returned a reply card was invited, as well as everyone in the immediate neighborhood
sunounding our development. This meeting focused on how the site would interact with the
existing neighborhood to the west. Traffic, drainage, and site layout were all discussed. Following
the second meeting, four alternative concept site plans were generated in response to the
community's suggestions. These drawings were presented at the final community meeting and
the pros and cons of each design were discussed.
-3-
SiCom!nunily DevelopmenN:PRUJECTSWP'~Cherry CreeklUCA;CC 10-C9-O7tNeiohborhood Plan 10-0°-07 Final.doc
The preferred concept plan for Subarea 1 was prepared for review and approval by the
Planning Commission. The final plan for Subarea 1 was revised several times after hearings and
extensive public input. Modifications were made to the plan to address comments received
during the hearing process.
Summary of Neighborhood Plan Subareas
Subarea 1 is approximately 9.0 acres and is being processed as a Planned Unit Development,
bringing the zoning into conformance with the 2001 General Plan. The land use designation of
medium density single-family residential as specified in the 2001 General Plan enables a density
of 4.5 units per gross acre, or 40 units for the nine acres. Based on the latest plans submitted to
the City at the time of review of the Neighborhood Plan, a total of 30 lots are proposed at a
density of 3.3 units/acre. The three existing homes in Subarea 1 will be placed on lots within the
new subdivision.
Subarea 2 is approximately thirteen (13) acres and has no current plans to develop. The
adoption of the Neighborhood Plan and a Development Code Amendment will bring Subarea 2
into conformance with the 2001 General Plan with a zoning of 4.5 units per gross acre.
Conceivably, this would allow a total of 57 units within Subarea 2 without taking any site
constraints into consideration. The future development in this area will be subject to additional
review by the City as development proposals come forward.
At the request of the Planning Commission, Mark Vasquez of Design Graphics prepared a
conceptual design of how Subarea 2 could be subdivided. Once the restrictions of a 130' wide
agricultural buffer, 25' wide creek setback, and sensitive riparian areas are removed from the
total acreage, it is estimated that about 8.5 acres of the site remain as potentially buildable. The
table below summarizes the size and ownership of all existing parcels, the allowable density of
each parcel for SF zoning based on gross acreage, and a density estimate for each parcel
based on site constraints and conceptual lot layout as illustrated in Attachment #3 (note that
there is no guarantee that the lots depicted on the conceptual plan can or will be approved in
the future). Calculated constraints within Subarea 2 include 81,870 square feet of agricultural
buffer and 104,000 square feet of sensitive creek area (4.27 acres total).
Existing
10 Parcels Existing
Residences Existing
Parcel
(s.f. est.) SF
Density
(4.5/gross
acre SF
Concept
Layout'
A: Janowicz 1 unit 14,586 2 units 1 unit
B: Titus 1 unit 12,106 1 unit 1 unit
C: Loone 1 unit 60,333 6.2 units 4 units
D: Estes 1 unit 87,026 9 units 8 units
E: Harrison 1 unit 12,882 lunit 1 unit
F: Janowicz 2 units 30,630 3.2 units 2 units
G: Janowicz 1 unit 43,513 4.5 units 4 units
H: Summerfield 1 unit 28,115 3 units 2 units
I: Caldwell 2 units 78,541 8.1 units 4 units
J: Miner 1 unit 188,083 19.4 units 10 units
Totals 12 units 12.77
acrest 56 units
maximum° 37 units
(2.9
du/acre
-4-
S:~Corn;nuniry Devetopmenh:PROJECTS'~,NPtCherry Creek'~.DCA'~.CC 16-09-07\NeiuLuorhooC Plan 7C-09-07 r-inal.duc
a The attached Subarea 2 concept plan for SF zoning (see
Attachment #3) is provided to show the realistic development
density for Subarea 2 based on lot size and area constraints. Using
the General Plan land use density of 4.5 du/acre and individual
property constraints, the development potential is significantly less
than using gross acreage.
The Development Code does not allow rounding up on densities,
therefore fractional units were not rounded up.
A summary of the two Subareas is as follows:
Subarea Maximum
Allowable Units Proposed Units
Jul 200 Existing Homes Likely
Additional Units
1 40 units 30 units 3 homes 27 units
2 57 units n/a 12 homes 25 units
Summa 97 Units 30 units 15 Homes 52 units
Note: Although the General Plan would allow a maximum of 97 units within both Subareas, the
total unit count is likely to be below the maximum density allowed given the various site
constraints. Approval of this Neighborhood Plan restricts Subarea 1 to 30 units. Future approvals
within Subarea 2 will be restricted to the allowable density within that Subarea. Unused density is
not transferable between phases or between individual development proposals. Refer to
Section IV, Implementation and Administration, for a list of approvals that will be required for
each Subarea
General Plan
The City of Arroyo Grande 2001 General Plan identifies the property as NP or
Neighborhood Plan (refer to Attachment #4-General Plan). The text of the document
includes the following policy relative to what should be included in a Neighborhood
Plan:
Policy LU2-7 The 21+/_ acre area south of Arroyo Grande Creek eost of Tract
409 (Noguera ParkJ, and north of E. Cherry Avenue designated Single-Family
Residential -Medium Density (SFR-MDJ is subject to a requirement for a
neighborhood plan to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural
buffer, creek side frail, and conservation/open space consideration prior to
approval of any subdivision or parcel map.
Sections II and III address the coordination of the above concerns.
II. Neighborhood Plan
Purpose and Objectives
Very high goals have been set for the 22-acre East Village Neighborhood Plan. This area is one of
the last developable properties in the Village area and should reflect all its best attributes.
Feedback received from the community has been an invaluable tool in preparing the
Neighborhood Plan. The collective vision of the community was to have a quality neighborhood
that incorporated the historical Vandeveer residence, the existing Stillwell residence, and
created apedestrian-friendly community that incorporates open space.
-5-
S^:Co:n;nunily DeveleumenP,FROJECTSWF'lCherry Creek~UCA`~.CC t~ ^y-Or~NeiyhborhooG Plan 10-09-07 Final.doc
Archaeological and Biological Conditions
Given the unique creek side setting of this project, Phase 1 and Phase II archaeological studies
and a biological survey were performed for Subarea 1. The archaeological studies included
both pre-historic and historic investigation. The archaeological studies concluded that the site
contained limited pre-historic archaeological resources. Historic resources include the existing
stone house (Vandeveer). The area in front of the house, primarily in the creek conidor; contains
historical trash dumps. Additional sub-surface testing and/or monitoring by an archaeologist will
be necessary prior to the construction of the storm drain outfall into the creek area. An
archaeologist will also be required to review the plans prior to construction to address any
potential changes. Separate Archaeological studies will be needed for the parcels within
Subarea 2 as development proposals are submitted.
The biological survey for Subarea 1 revealed limited concern of sensitive biological resources
with the exception of the riparian corridor along the creek. Provided that construction in or near
the creek corridor is minimized, there should be Limited biological impacts. The one exception is
the outfall of the storm drainage that will discharge into the creek. Mitigation will be required in
accordance with standards and requirements by the Army Corps of Engineers and/or the State
Department of Fish and Game. Extensive environmental monitoring by a qualified biologist will
be required in accordance with the approved environmental document. The complete reports
and mitigation requirements are on file with the City of Arroyo Grande. Separate Biological
studies will be needed for parcels within Subarea 2 located adjacent to the creek as
development proposals are submitted.
Architectural Design Guidelines
A portion of this property lies within the existing historic design overlay district (D-2.4). As a part of
this district, specific architectural guidelines and standards are provided. These are contained in
a separate document that is subject to review by the City's Architectural Review Committee
(ARC). The project includes the standards that would require ail of Subarea 1 to be consistent
with the previously adopted Village Design Guidelines. This will require that the homes built in the
neighborhood are of a cohesive community style. All architectural styles will be allowed, as
specified by the historic district design guidelines, except Spanish Eclectic. To establish a high
level of craftsmanship, minimum standards for building materials, such as roofs, siding, and
driveways, will be specified. Restrictions on architectural style will promote an attractive
streetscape and community interaction. Architectural style of homes proposed within Subarea 2
will be reviewed when development proposals are submitted.
Land Use and Property Development Standards
Development within the Neighborhood Plan Area will be subject to the standards and
requirements of the SF district of the City's Development Code. An excerpt from the
Development Code referring to the SF District is contained below:
16.32.020.E. Single-Family Residential (SFJ Disfrict. The primary purpose of the
SF district is to provide for residential development on common sized
suburban lots. This disfrict is intended as an area for development of single-
familydetached residential, small lot single- family detached residential, and
mobile homes at a maximum allowable density of 4.5 dwelling units per gross
acre.
Access, Circulation and Parking Standards
There will be two public access points for the Neighborhood Plan. One connection will be at the
intersection of East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road. The second connection will be located
at the extension of Myrfie Street. These connections provide convenient access to City streets
and helps split trips on both East Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street.
-6-
S:~~.ComrtwniTy DevelupmenP.PROJECTS~.NP\Chern~ CreeklDCA':.CC 10-09-071Neiyhburhood P12n 10-09-W Final.doc
East Cherry Avenue Extension: East Cherry Avenue will be extended as a public street through
Subarea 1 to provide access for Subarea 1 and future development in Subarea 2. The
improvements will include a 32 foot wide paved roadway, curbs on both sides, with parking and
a sidewalk on the north side within Subarea 1. The extension of East Cherry Avenue from the
intersection of Branch Mill Road should incorporate the existing, dirt, 15' strip immediately north
of the Dixon Ranch property. Extension of East Cherry Avenue east of Subarea 1 (into Subarea 2)
could include a reduced road way width at the discretion of the City. To address public safety
concerns, a minimum road width of 20' shall be provided, or as otherwise required by the Fire
Code.
East Cherry Avenue Entrances: Within Subarea 1, East Cherry Avenue entrances will be
identified with an accented pavement roadway with two Travel lanes, both 12 feet wide. Both
sides of the roadway will consist of a concrete curb, gutter, landscape border, and sidewalk.
Entrances within Subarea 2 will be subject to separate review.
Myrtle Sheet Enhance: Myrtle Street will be extended to form a second entrance to the
neighborhood. The existing cross section of a 40 foot wide paved roadway will be transitioned to
a 36 foot wide paved roadway as it enters into the subdivision. This will allow for parking on both
sides. Before The historic Vandeveer residence, Myrtle Street will turn south, out of its current
alignment.
Internal Streets: The internal streets provide access to the majority of lots in this community. Due
to low traffic volume, community input, and space considerations, a 36-foot wide pavement
roadway with concrete curbs and gutters on both sides is proposed within Subarea l .The
internal streets will include detached sidewalks with trees lining both sides of the road. Narrower,
tree-lined streets will help create a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood. To address public
safety concerns, a minimum road width of 20' shall be provided for roads within Subarea 2, or as
otherwise required by the Fire Code or the City.
Emergency Aceess: To provide additional emergency access between Subarea 1 and Subarea
2, a 20' wide emergency access easement is being provided as part of the plan submittal for
Subarea 1. This emergency access easement will need to continue into Subarea 2 at the time of
development of the Looney property.
Traffic Impacts
Higgins and Associates studied the traffic impact to the surrounding neighborhood as a result of
development. Two studies were performed: Existing conditions plus Subarea 1 build out, and
existing conditions plus Subarea 1 and 2 build out. The study concluded that the impact under
all conditions would be less than significant, and no segment or intersection would experience a
decrease of LOS (level of service) in the first study. Both Myrtle Street and Garden Street (north of
Myrtle Street) will notice increased traffic due to the fact that they are currently very lightly used.
This impact is considered less than significant, and both streets maintain a TIRE (traffic infusion on
residential environment) neighborhood quality of life level A. Therefore, project impacts to these
streets will not be significant. The complete traffic study can be found on file with the City.
Green Space
Green space was central to the design process, with much of the community input supporting
green space and open space within the Neighborhood Plan. Within Subarea 1, green space
was achieved by providing: (1) a large landscape buffer along Cherry Avenue, (2) a vegetated
channel through the center, and (3) open space next to the creek. Green space within Subarea
2 will include the creek channel, the 25' creek setback and the 130' wide Agricultural Buffer.
-7-
Agricultural Buller Zone
The use of an agricultural buffer is a central feature of both Subareas. The site borders the Dixson
Ranch to the south, which is an operational farm and in a permanent agriculture preserve.
Separation of these two diverse land uses ensures a high quality of life for the residents of this
community, as well as the continued productivity of the neighboring farmland. Some of fhe
issues this buffer addresses are farm operation noise and lights, airborne drift (both chemical and
dust), crop pilferage, and domestic animal intrusion. The buffer will extend from the edge of the
Dixson Ranch property line for 130 feet to the edge of the first residential property line. The buffer
width will apply to both Subareas for new residential units only. Contained within the buffer will
be features that aid in the isolation of the two land uses. In Subarea 1, the buffer is further
enhanced by the provision of a masonry wall. There will also be a fence on the south side of the
East Cherry Avenue extension to discourage crop pilferage, animal intrusion, and block any farm
operation light sources. Within Subarea 1, a landscaped area ranging from a minimum of 60 feet
wide to a maximum of 80 feet wide will be provided. The City's Development Code requires a
minimum of a 20-foot wide landscaped strip.
The total buffer width is 30 feet larger than the minimum 100 feet required by the City's
agricultural buffer policy. The buffer will be planted with several rows of trees and tall shrubs. This
area will aid in mitigating any airborne drift. After the landscape buffer, a 6-foot high masonry
wall atop a 2-foot tall berm will act as an acoustic shield. Behind the wall there will be 5 feet
before the edge of the first habitable structure.
Fences, Walls, and Special Entry Features
These features will be incorporated into this site in different forms to enhance privacy, separate
residential and agriculture land uses, and to establish fhe entrance to a distinctive community.
Within Subarea 1, the agricultural buffer along East Cherry Avenue will contain a wall described
above. Elsewhere in the development, walls and fences will mainly act as privacy and site
enhancement. A 6-foot high steel picket fence will be provided for lots that back up to the
vegetated drainage channel. A 6-foot wood fence will be used for the internal fencing where
privacy is needed. A 6-foot high wood rail fence with hog wire will be provided to restrict access
to the agricultural field across the street. It will also provide protection for the drainage inlet
where water drops underneath East Cheny Avenue.
Within Subarea 1, the main entrances to this development will be located on the East Cherry
Avenue extension. Street trees will be planted to line the entry roads, while enhanced paving
and decorative landscaping will be provided to establish a sense of entry.
Fencing, walls, and entry features within Subarea 2 will be reviewed separately upon time of
submittal of development proposals.
Water, Sewer, and Utility Facilities
Master Plans for Water, Sewer and Storm Drain facilities are attached. These plans are based on
the likely development scenarios within the two subareas. The approval of the Neighborhood
Plan does not "lock in" or approve the layouts within each Subarea. Individual proposals will be
reviewed separately by the City.
Water Supply System
The City of Arroyo Grande supplies water service within its City limits (including the Plan Area).
Municipal water is provided by the Lopez Reservoir and, in part, by the Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin. Historically, the City has had good water quality.
-8-
S9Community Deve!epmenP,PROJECTSINP''~Cherrv Creek`.DCAtCC 10-09-0%\Neiyhborhood Plan 1G09-W Final.dac
The Plan Area will utilize three points of connection To the existing City of Arroyo Grande Water
Supply System including connecting to an existing 16" water line on Branch Mili Road and a 6"
water line on Myrtle Street. Water system design criteria shall conform to the City's standards. The
existing and proposed Water Supply System can be found in Attachment #5.
Sanitary Sewer Collection, Treatment, and Disposal
The City of Arroyo Grande provides sanitary sewer collection services connecting to a trunk line
leading To a 7.6-acre sewer treatment plant near the Oceano Airport. This facility is operated by
The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District.
Sewer service in the Plan Area will be provided via a new connection to the East Manhole at
Pacific Railroad Way. This is a new connection as adjacent development was determined to
have insufficient capacity. Design criteria for the sewer collection system shall conform to City of
Arroyo Grande standards. The proposed Sewer System can be found in Attachment #b.
Off-Site and On-Site Drainage
The site is located in the downstream end of the Newsom Springs drainage area. In low-flow
situations, drainage flows around the edges of the farm fields (south of the Neighborhood Plan
area) and through a system of earthen ditches to Arroyo Grande Creek. In higher flow situations,
or a 100-year storm, the drainage will sheet flow across the farm fields and continue across the
site to the creek. In the past, large storms have caused flooding to surrounding neighborhoods.
To address flooding and other drainage issues in the area, development of Subarea 1 has been
requested to facilitate the installation of a 48-inch wide pipe adjacent to the Dixson Ranch farm
(along Branch Mill Road). The wafer will then flow under the extension of East Cherry Avenue into
the vegetated channel. The channel will assist in cleaning out the sediments and other
contaminants. After the water leaves the vegetated channel, it will outfall into Arroyo Grande
Creek. The proposed Storm Drain System can be found in Attachment #7, and Drainage
Strategies and Options are included in Attachment #8.
Creek Side Path
According to the General Plan, the feasibility of a creek side pedestrian path must be explored.
This topic was discussed at a neighborhood meeting, and iT was intensely rejected by the
surrounding residents. A creek side path from downtown to the site would have to traverse
approximately 15 existing residential properties bordering the creek. It became clear talking to
neighbors that they would not tolerate a path through, or adjacent to, their private yards.
Furthermore, the examination of aerial photographs revealed that in many instances there was
not even room to weave a path through these properties. Although there are fewer property
owners to the east of the site, the same issues are present, making a path to the east not
feasible. The MyrTle Street right of way currently extends to the east end of the Neighborhood
Plan area, although it drops into the creek bank toward the east end of Subarea 1. The banks of
Arroyo Grande Creek are very steep, and constructing a path in this environmentally sensitive
area would be very difficult. Due to the existing ownership patterns, the location of the creek
bank, and the opposition from affected property owners, iT has been determined that a creek
side path would be infeasible.
Inclusionary Housing
Inclusionary housing is a very important part of any new development. It creates diverse
neighborhoods and promotes a healthy demographic. Inclusionary housing within Subarea 2
will be subject To affordable housing requirements in affect aT the time of submittal of individual
development proposals.
-9-
S:+Community DeveloprnenP:PROJECTS'~.NP`,Cherry GreeMDCA`~CC 10-09-C7\Neighbonc~oC Plan 10-0°-0% Final.duc
Neighborhood Plan Proposals -- Subarea 2
Considerations for Subarea 2
The developers of Subarea 1 have no current ownership or financial interest in any property
contained within Subarea 2. However, there are important considerations regarding the impact
development in Subarea 1 will have on future development of Subarea 2. Access and road
alignment in the Neighborhood Plan area were both topics of community meetings. It was
decided that the only viable access was to continue East Cherry Avenue in its existing
alignment. This would be improved to the end of Subarea 1 when it is developed. This would
enable its future path to be determined to suit future development. Utilities, sized to service the
future development of Subarea 2, will be brought to the end of Subarea 1 during its
development, The zoning proposed by the 2001 General Plan is SFR-MD and would be enabled
by this Neighborhood Plan. This would allow for subdivision up to a density of 4.5 units per gross
acre conforming to the City's Development Code. It is important to enable this zoning at this
time to prevent any future development conflicts.
Emergency service or fire access can be provided via a private driveway and public easement
on the west side of Subarea 1.
IV. Implementation and Administration
Entitlement Requests
A variety of approvals are needed in order to implement the Neighborhood Plan. A summary of
these entitlements is described below.
Development Code Amendmenh. A Development Code Amendment rezones the property from
its current Residential Rural (RR) non-conforming zoning to Single-Family Residential (SF). The SF
zoning allows for development of single-family homes within the Neighborhood Plan at a
maximum density of 4.5 units per acre.
Neighborhood Plan: The adoption of this Neighborhood Plan further defines and restricts what
can be developed within each Subarea. The standards and requirements within this
Neighborhood Plan will supplement the standards contained within the SF zoning district.
Land Division: In order to subdivide property, a tentative subdivision map or parcel map must be
submitted for review. The City of Arroyo Grande shall confirm that it complies with the standards
and requirements of the Neighborhood Plan. A vesting tentative subdivision map has previously
been submitted for Subarea 1. Future subdivision proposals will likely be submitted for Subarea 2.
The Subarea 2 proposals will be subject to separate review by the City of Arroyo Grande at the
time of submittal.
Environmental Review: Environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) will be required for each development proposal. Future development
proposals in both Subareas will be subject to separate environmental review when individual
proposals are submitted.
Proposed Phasing of Development In the Neighborhood Plan Area
Development will commence in Subarea 1 as soon as the Neighborhood Plan is adopted.
Individual homes are anticipated to be built primarily by a single home builder/developer.
Development of Subarea 1 is estimated to be largely completed within 2.5 years. Once the
Neighborhood Plan is adopted, development in Subarea 2 could begin at the landowner's
discretion, pending permit approval by the City.
10-
SaCommunity DevelownenCPROJECTS`~.NP\Cherry Creek~DCA';CC 70-09-07Weiyhborhood Plan 10-D9-07 Fin2l.doc
Speelal Conditional Uses
The Neighborhood Plan enables the zoning specified by the 2001 General Plan. Certain
conditional uses such as daycare, churches, and private schools may be granted subject to a
Conditional Use Permit. It is the City's responsibility to approve, conditionally approve, or deny
such requests in accordance with the zoning of RSF-MD.
Administration and Implementation of fhe Neighborhood Plan
Subarea 1 will require a Homeowners Association (HOA) to administer maintenance of open
spaceand common areas, as well as the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The developer of Subarea 1 will submit proposed by-laws and articles of incorporation for the
HOA and CC&Rs for the State of California Department of Real Estate and the City of Arroyo
Grande Community Development Department and City Attorney review and approval.
-11-
S:'+Comm•~nity DeveicpmenCepRO!ECTS~.NP\Cherry Creek~DCA':CC 10.09-07\NeiyhborhwU Plan 10-09-W Final.doc
Y
~•
~ ~~
:. ;.~ i
.~ y ~ i ..
x ~'
.* ~.
y .~
•,~, f
wp
a.' ~ `
_~ ~~
t 4
.R
• ~. ` ,L
~ ~t~
~' _ °- '~
.' '~'
~_ .:. ~
c
';
•
r~
\
I
I\~ . C,.•.~
r.
~~ L~4~
3 '"~~
a .~
;;, ~
-~
i~
.ji'). ~ fir.
' . ~`_
~,
~' A
S.µ _. .`
s, : ,~
<,; . -.X
D
r
y_
~'~
t~w C..y ~
~:
i~
4 ti . .
~~
~` r*.
t •,
+;
..>--`5,'414'
x r
ESP'ss
i :~~1
T
C
d
V
W
Q
i~
w ~.
d ~' ',
a ~'~ ~
.. ~ .
?p '.
w~ ~
':ir
Attachment #2
;~1
~~ ~.
;: ;
~ S: w
~•F,~ G
111 c
„1~
pn
k
y .
~R!
N/n
VY
CO
b
/~
~V
Attachment #3
' a ~ 'Y
t~fti~[~f~ .G =.. ,
F '.
~PCCPCCCt~ ~E ~:~ 1
~a~~~~~3a ~~ i~~ !
N
d
w
...~.
~.
~.
~~
~~-, e
~~ ~,
~..
Q
s3 O
a~ TO
~ S
~~
~~ O
;~~
m
l~Y~ _
E
~;~ H
W
z~; Z
~,~„
~~ J
`§
~~~: H
,~ " ~
~~3, s
W
~` V
sp'
Y
e^~ ?
~* O
V
~ W
Q
y~ J
J
H
Q
~~ w
Attachment #4
~a
~GR~CULTUR
RE
r>^,
V J
L
~+
k
f~~
;011
~~I•
L__
Attachment #5
®i
N
N
W
W
Attachment #6
,_
c~
L
~Q~
A
~ ~ 8
~~ j°~ e
1~ ~ ` ~ ® $
®~
w
N
t
L
.fl
t
.~
Z
N
W
ti
c
m
R
w
Q
N
C
.~
L
0
s~
~li~~
~~j~4Cl
Attachment #8
Drainage Strategies and Options
The following drainage strategies and options were prepared by Mark Barnett of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Six (6) alternative strategies are outlined for each
private road, with four potential options for each alternative strategy. Some strategies will
require cooperation between multiple property owners to facilitate grading of the private roads.
The Subarea 2 area is in Drainage Zone "B" of the City's Drainage Master Plan. The alternative
strategies that allow draining to the creek are consistent with the City's Drainage Master Plan.
However, it has been determined that drainage options involving directing runoff to Arroyo
Grande Creek or the use of surface basins are not desirable and should not be allowed with
future development. These iwo (2) drainage options are therefore considered the lowest priority
on the list of drainage solutions and options for the area. Strategies requiring on-site retention
shall be sized in accordance with the retention criteria identified in the City's Drainage Master
Plan.
United States Department of Agriculture 545 Main StrEBt SUlte B-1
'11I~\`'I R C1 aarurti Morro Bay, CA 93442
O 1 L 1 \~~/ Rciour(es
Ccnservaliun (805) 772-4391
SF'°"" FAX (805) 4772-4398
December 7, 2007
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420
Attention: Steve Adams, City Manager
Dear Mr. Adams,
As you know, the City of Arroyo Grande has asked that I develop a table of potential storm
water drainage strategies to be implemented in Sub Area 2 in the event Sub Area 2 is allowed to
further subdivide and develop. Please keep in mind, that at your request, this is not an in depth
analysis but a quick overview of concepts and ideas.
Hydrology
An in-depth hydrological analysis was not performed. The storm water runoff was calculated for
both the 10 yeaz-10 minute and the 100 year-10 minute storm events on developed, small (8,000
sf) and lazge (13,000 sf) lots. The runoff coefficients and storm intensities are based on data
from the San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works Hydrology section of the
Standazd Constmction Drawings.
Soil
According to the San Luis Obispo County NRCS Coastal Soil Survey (1984), the soil type within
Sub Areas 1 & 2 is predominately a Mocho Silty Loam. The soil profile and properties are
shown in Table 3. As one can see, at a depth of 45"-60" the soil profile is stratified sand to
gravelly sand with a permeability of between 6"/hr and 20"/hr. Although a percolation test
should be performed on each lot, this data suggests sub azea 2 is a potentially favorable site for
retention basins or vaults as well as ground water recharge.
Strategy
Based on the potential for each lot to construct ground water rechazge vaults, I did not look at
pre-developed runoff versus post-developed runoff, but decided to focus several of the strategies
on retaining all post-developed runoff fora 10 minute-100 year storm event (the worst case
scenario). The thought process suggests that if each lot has the potential to retain a 10 minute-
100 yeaz storm event, then individual retention vaults or basins would be acceptable to the City
for even the most stringent drainage policy.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service works in partnership v,Mh the American people
to conserve and sustain natural resources on private lantls. An EQual OpPOnuniy Employer
There are three main design strategies:
A neighborhood approach where property owners address storm water runoff as a
collective effort such as in strategy 1 in Table 1 for both Lierly and Miner roads. Here
the drainage infrastructure consists of the entire neighborhood agreeing to grade the
roads toward Cherry Avenue. The problem with this approach is that not all landowners
will be ready to develop their properties, and thus pay for infrastructure, at the same
time.
• All landowners are responsible for the routing of the runoff from their individual lots to
an acceptable body of water or drainage structure. An example is each lot constructing
ground water recharge vaults as in strategy 3 for both roads.
• The third strategy is a combination of the two above where some landowners may
choose to combine resources and share the costs of drainage infrastructure for adjacent
lots while other landowners construct projects on their own.
The drainage strategies shown in Table 1 are presented in no particularly order. As shown, each
strategy or drainage approach should be implemented concurrently with Low hnpact
Development (LID) projects. Examples of LID's are presented in Table 2.
In Conclusion
I have tried to present a set of drainage strategies that offer flexibility and flood protection to the
landowner and City. Please keep in mind, to finalize the feasibility of the strategies presented
will require at a minimum a topographic survey and percolation testing. With that said, in my
opinion, the best approach is likely to be one where the City agrees to a grading plan for each
entire road and allows each landowner to have the flexibility to construct a combination of LID
projects that will meet the storm water runoff requirements of the City.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
Mark Barnett, P.E.
MRCS Civil Engineer
545 Main Street, Suite B-I
Morro Bay, Ca 93442
~RAINA6E OPTION 1
DRAINAGE OPTION 2
x ~ ~ I~
0
'I~
3 ~ ~ a ~ o
..
L
CV
L' ~
O O
~ !~
O
N
\
d ~
' N N N ~
O O
d
a
'oo
0 0
~j m m m m
x~
~ J
U
~
w ~
U ~
ItA ~
~ ~
d
p
~ ~ ~
~ I
~ 'E
~
Io ~ ~
I
o ~°~,
A
m 19
'm V
~
T
m
~
it
~ ~
J ~
~ T
(n (~
T I
LL ~
d
• ~ U
~
~ 1°
J O
NI
~
' I m
c
~ o in
~
1 I i
J
~
I Z
I j I
LI I
N
O
d ~:.i
A
i O' I OD N
~ ~
~
I ~~
m
J
~d
G T
~
z a
•o
~ r
U
O
R
~ ~ I I
T
~
N
«
N
U
1+i
d
a
I~
U
~ `o c ~
~
0
y
p ~~ i
'
8
a
m c 5
o m
~
a
t:e v8 ~m a s
a~$ 01 V Q ~ 8 °
a
F65gQ =m Sg c
:
° w
~
~ma~ q
mm
Q~
~
q
L? C~ L L z C
~ O
~C y q ~j N
L , C V
i L w
~~ q
L a
O~ C
i
t Q $
w ~ C O q
8
~g
~ 3w w
m
~ t g 2 a ~
~ ~ ~ _
~ _
~ ~
m
0 a
N ~
~
(7 ~
~
d y
0 L
N
~ m
L
IO y
p L p
~ L
J w v w E w w w J
oases Aq& ~ Pmm ~ ~y VF e a"g am SA ~
~ m W gF
w
u a m O
L E ~ N G
L E~ ~
~ N ~
L E w ~ N
L E ~
~~ N
L 4~
E m ~
J 41
E j ~
w J a
L
E ~
W D
" o
C
~ ;~ a a ~
~ ~
- ; ~ L 8~ a ; ~ a
O
J
u8
C
w 8
C ~
_ J w`~
~
J L
w
8
~~11
J ~
L
J
C
w8
p~
t ~ 3` ~~s ~ a~_ ~ ~~ s yyw t EE F ~
L p
O,P ~ ~ oL
~
g E
q m 5
E p
s
g
q
$
~ {
~
~ y
c lo
m U
o a c
E6 m UE m E
w UE m ci E Oa
a a a
m °-'
U ~ m mm
U
i
n
„ U ;
m z v
C 9 sp 'b
C O em
L u
L
~ o I I w
~ bi I i. I LO
`- 3
'
j wl I~
a i j l
a I
° m
a'
U
~
U
i - ' L
~
a
i
s
~
8~ 8
~`o U
s e
(7
i c < ~ b w~ a aab
~ I 3
~ ! ~ 0 3 I tg , `w~ a
si I I
S
~ q a . 2 I
~y
C w lb ~q a
w° ~ '
a m ~ ~ 9 ~
w y m
o V' U''m
U EC~
w w q L
~ - 2LL
~ c w
s 2
a
C C gq _
E $~~d`+s ~ L ~ a ~ w
~ qq @@
L ) }bC w _
O
L
W
m ~ ~ wE
~~ „~`L 8i ? -
m ~ oN ~ = o ~w
G
~ ~
~ - m m w
s S~
~
8 $ W a
O ~Z
w w V y' L
q
3 2w L
b O
- ~ 3 q
O Q L
w..w s
$
J~ w
E-C m
~ E
vq S qn
$ L ~
~ o
C S :
W < a
N
L S
~ W b
~ O
E
E
o
? -c ~
°
S
D 8 3
-
S
~'~
c
8
o
-
qq
b d
?
~ U
a
a
c i
o ~ cc
E N m
~ ~ 8
~ i ~ ~ m
B c
8
~
m m m
1° w
: m m
~ s E
°
q
~
s ~
W ~ -
9 OwN b `a~~`
' n m°c 8 8 3
` ~ H o°s
E
3 f
~FF~qq f
S R«¢y~E
a w~ ~ §
m ~~
W O 1 C g
N nppm
~ m w
N Vw
y a m°
0 w y
d
J w~ E 9 9
~
L 'J
o q-
~ O w
oYZz s ~
Q°$ E
W ~ 9
A
u G ~ $s e y~
' € ~
Y o e t
s C O n J J C ,U' U' I
y ~ n n d n i N r I'
O
~ Z
J _L
h
z
0
n
O
O
Z
Q
N
W
W
Q
R'
N
W
Q
2
Q
rv
Q
m
_m
N
b
A
H
m~
~~
~ 2
om
~~
a
0 3
I
$g
~
m m
~~ a
co
_ - f
~ ~ ~ ~ o
08 ,; o B < b8 ~ 0 8 ,; a8
Im
W qq
U~ q
b y
y U
~ WW
j 0
~ F
N
TS O
F
A~
n
f
&
r
U
Ir E 0
~+
N
5
E A
- 0
P
N E o
D+
N Y
E W o
S
N E o
m~
y g g p
O ~,- o ~ g V3 b t o m ~ yo u ~ ~ 8
~'
~ y
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° p5 ,
O tg ~ c4 E m U
E O m
o
m°
m I
~a
Oil i ~ ~ ~ i i i i ~ ~ i
I I
c
m I
~ I I i I
i i l i m
m l
e
~ $
~
~
its ~^ I I ~ ~ 5
[ q r
y
U I I
~ m
o~
t
I as
3 I U 'd<
x N y ~
S 5
~ m
L_ `
~0 w o
5 = E'
O^m ~
2
$
y ~ ~m a 3
Io ~ ~~
~ ~
~ ~°
~
~
~ _
0 m
2 ~
2
e rv
i 'm
I~C Q ¢
dU
E ~ ~
~9 b
CIL L
b
s 2
I ;~
~
`d
~°8 W
F
~~B
~'
s o
m
Q~
w Ls gfr ~~ e
, ._W
~ ~
!e d
o W
n
'y . ° ~
~
^ ~ o
L°
° ~
m~ o
y W
o ~ i
f
c B yy
~J ~~ -> ~L° m
AU d
o ~m
aE W
~
S$
$ F
N ~
o~
q t
'&~
z1O
°c ~ -O ~
E Em
2
a s ° ^
$
~
~ m ~
`m ha
d m
~ ~ $ m ~~
$Po ¢
$F 4
4 r
y
~r~
H g
~~
~
m~ x ~
~W
.~
-~
s~
~~ $
s j J3 ~ ~ p N
~ C V O
$ Q p
N O
~
mm j 0 ~ L
S€ 7
4 b
B ~ W
$ w4 w ma
C ` `. oN C L
~ U J J C C
T
Y
A
N
h
f
10
S
N
O
6'
A
trees, .' `. .: •.-. . . .-. .,.
shrubs •
`~;
-. ~_~. ~I~RETENTI^N AREA,: -
. . <..ground.:~ .
•,-, cover
`-~•• 2' wide grass filter strip ~ -
..-±. . ~. .. -.T ~. _-
-'
0 0 ~ o ~~~~: o o~ :. oi~ : o- :. o ~:.: o
SHEET FL^W
A
existing
edge of
pavement PLAN VIEW
(not to scale)
trees trees overflow to suitable
surface discharge
2' wide grass area
filter strip
~ ~.
sheet
! flow __ground shrubs ~
ver 3~1 r~axinuro slo e
'f ~_.
~ ~
_~ ~~ ~
/ ~ ~ ~ min. 12' of -~ ~_~
~ ~ ~i ~ . amended ~ ~ ~` ~~
~ ~ ~~ compost ~- ~~
12' naxiroun I -DI^RETENTI^N AREA
water depth
SECTION VIEW A-A
Cnot to scale)
r ~ Sub Basin 2 ~,,,, „zy~,.e!!
s -
~ ~ BioRetention Basin a~,a
~'.. _ f tN fm ,ar nnmvrn (n+s+.n'im Pdi'bk! r_.a...... ~~ -
i
I
I
S
IS
^ IU W ~ U .~ IU fJ i U
lu
3 ^
ru
~ O O
Q ~ ~
1j
~
W
~ Q
W
~ ~ °o °
, /T7 u
- - o
0 o .Z7 U
i a
~ i .. h
~
m ,c
~ n
~ P
w 0
a ..
3 1 .I. O ^
3
UI O
D 3 O
O ij
•--• V O
a O
O Q V
' ,~
,~. ~
Ul iii
3 g
m
€
n 0
3
VI
~ m
~
rp + ~ N i'' n rp w
~ H h ,• • rp M h ~ e'F • rD I
i ~
~ ~
v
Q
o
--
~
n O O
fF Q
-_-
~
3 a
= <
3 v
=
h
Q
h
h
Q ..
O ~
N
N
I ~ O Q
~ W ~ W
O Q Q
I ~
S j ~
S i
0
O
W
~
N C ~
3
I ~ _
°' O m ~ I
~ 3 < II
~ O N ~ O ~
~ 3 II N
3
~ ~. m ~
n ~ n "
i
w n
~ ru
° ~
~ o
~ n n
I_- ~ ~
1
° ~
~ 5
~ (~ {{~~ p qq
Sw+ BQS~n G pyyhy Y.>k Pwref; _
q Ola~n N¢i Panetl
_
L ~ ~ Hydrographs o,.,,.,
bp~Hd
Nlvsla'..^az [am~ Fruwae (wnsrx'irn llctzt
Hydrology Calculations
Given:
Total Area of Sub Basin 2 (acres) = 12.7
Area of AG Buffer (acres) = 1.6
Area of Creek Buffer (acres) = 2.4
Developable Area (acres) = 8.7
Using Rationale Formula and Based on County Runoff Coefficients for Developed Areas, Table 1 (drawing FI-3), Soil Type = C
Slope<= 2%
Based on Couhty Drawing H-1, Average rainfall = 18"
Design based Acwrding to Table 3 of County Drawing H-4,
The 10 yr-10 min storm = 2.8 inches/hr
The 100 yr-10 min storm = 4 inches/hr
Assume:
Large Parcel:
Area =
Runoff Coefficient =
Small Parcel:
Calculate total volume required to retain entire storm event:
for Detention
Length of 36' Pipe (ft) = 28
for Detention
Area =
Runoff Coefficient =
Large Parcel Size
Storm Event
10 yr-10 min 100 yr-10 min
Runoff Flow Rate (cfs) = 0.33 0.48
Volume (cf) = 200 288
Length of 24" Pipe (ft) = 64 92
13000 sf
0.4
8000 sf
0.45
Small Parcel Size
Sloan Event
10 yr-10 min 100 yr-10 min
Runoff Flow Rate (cfs) = 0.23 0.33
Volume (cf) = 138 198
Length of 24" Pipe (ft) = 44 63
for Detention
41 Length of 36" Pipe (ft) _
for Detention
20 28
t E
o
u 0
u o
-c
a a
o ~ ~
`o ;
° c o
;
_ ~$ hu
1 ~- 3 E
~
C
"p O
`
~v
~ '
-
E
.~+
a
r
C ;
o ~
~ °o
- a
0
~ L
u
E
B
v
a y
++ a
Ln
0
4. ~
~ o
~ d L
N da
V
N
w
Q
k
0
0
v
+'
L
d
W
E
L
N
d
3
C
E
0
L
0
4-
~~
o ~ .E
cn =
d
F Vl
O~
Z N
E
C Y/
1
\ ~E
H ~ 1 ~ ~~
Z ~ e c
~ I tV
.~ i-
I
I o '.
O
~ ~~
d r
~
i~
N
~ t
3
p~ c
c E
£ 5.
n n
3 ~ O
o ~ U l0
C 2
W ~
)(
3 i .~
E envoi
° t c
c
rn E
_o
`3 '~
~} 3
3 ''3 -~
xew yoS ~ ~ '~
edo~s ~euipn~i uo~ ~ -s
ue
m
m "~ '~ `'~
~ ~~
v c
m c
1
E
E r m
O) m ~ .-. > ~
~ l0 ~`
C ~ ~ I
U 10 N
N '
~ ~ m o v a o m
E
-rc m E m m m
"'
o
c c yc
y
0' a
~
o
0
o ~
3
N
9 N 0 0
I \ C d
I
Z
~_
F
U
''W^^
v~I
X
W fem..
~ Z
N
Z
O
Q
~"'
0
O
p~ C
`o ami
N
m
U L
N U
m c
$~
N "
~i d
c c
W
Z
g m E
V
a t N
3
O~
0
2 0
o C_
x D
rn °-' .o
~ 3 N
m
do O~
6
~ ~ O ~
m ~ u o
4 .i N tD
E
v
L
W
N_
d
E
m
i Y
~`
Mr y
rt
3
{
}
i
i
~,:t _
r ~ -
+t i aj~~ ~
.a ~
~ ~o "
~
~
a
~w
~ a
a
~t ~
n
~ o
w ~ ~
Y~
e
~ '
~ 8
°y ~
s
- ~ ~
~ ~~a,
~ .
~ ~ ~ a
~=g ~ w~~., s3~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ s
s
ay ~ E e
µ
~~r
V~f`t
i ~
~ ~
m
` o
_r
c~ o
~ a
~ ~ ~ U
i r
c E o >
~
l ~
e J N
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached
Resolution No. 4040 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 9s'
day of October 2007.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 11"' day of
December 2007.
KELLY VilETdl1ORE, CITY CLERK