Loading...
PC Minutes 1979-04-17Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 17;. 1979 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Harris presiding. Present are Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Moots, Simmons and Vandeveer. Commissioner Gorsline is absent. Planning Director Castro and Plan- ner Sullivan are also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of April 3, 1979 were approved by the Chairman as submitted. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - CONTINUATION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 79 -308, 1230 GRAND AVEL, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. (HOWARD). Planner Sullivan pointed out that at the last meeting this map was before the Commission it showed each of the small portions of the flag, being desig- nated as an individual parcel, and it was pointed out by Commissioner Simmons and Chairman Harris that technically it was a subdivision because of six parcels being created. What is now being shown on the map is a straight forward lot line adjustment with no new parcels being created. Mr. Sullivan read the con- ditions suggested by the Lot Split Committee, and, after a brief discussion, Lot Split Case No. 79 -308 was approved subject to the conditions listed in Minor Subdivision Committee Action, dated April 11, 1979, on motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried. REVIEW COMM &TTEE°f CTIONS - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 79 -310, PRINTZ ROAD (WHITE). Planner Sullivan identified the parcel on the map describing it as a long narrow strip of land fronting on Printz Road, and the proposal is to split it exactly in half. Mr. Sullivan read the four recommended conditions of Minor Subdivision Committee Action, dated April 11, 1979, and requested that Item No. 5 be added stating that the Commission finds the split consistent with the Zoning and General Plan. In answer to Peggy Langworthy's question regarding the Kirk- patrick split in this same area, Planning Director Castro advised that the matter was approved by the City Council sometime ago. Bill Langworthy, Printz Road, stated with regard to the Kirkpatrick split, he was told he couldn't develop the land until,City services are available. He appealed that .. decision to the City council and they granted the lot split and the parcel that was split, off was in excess of 21 acres and, at the time that the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's position it was with the understanding that the so- called "panhandle" region out there would have a new zoning developed for it that would be consistent with the County zoning in that neighborhood, which is 22 acres. He stated it was further his understanding that a 22 acre parcel could develop prior to the avail- ability of City services. He stated it is his opinion that an acre or an acre and a half is inconsistent with the general pattern that the people out there seem to prefer, and that he is very concerned about parcel sizes becoming too small for services to be provided in the way of ground water, septic tanks, etc., and it seems to be more consistent to hold to the 21/2 acre zoning which, even though it hasn't been adopted yet, the City Council requested consideration of that prob- a bly a month ago. Planning Director Castro advised that so long as the current district is still in effect and so long as the Council has not yet passed an emergency ordi- nance, the property owner is entitled, under the ordinance, to apply for a lot split. He noted that at the May 1st meeting a draft on that particular zoning district will be submitted to the Commission. Mr. Jeff White, representing the applicant, advised the purpose of the split is„ in the future when services are available, his fattier who owns'the property, wishes to grant him that lower portion so that can build h'is- -own home on it. Commissioner Simmons stated she doesn't feel the proposed split meets the ordinance requirements for the road frontage. Chairman Harris pointed out that the size of the parcel meets the ordinance requirements, but the width does not, and that the parcel was created prior to the ordinance being enacted. After fur- ther discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, that Lot Split Case No. 79 -310 be approved subject to the conditions listed in Minor Subdivision Committee Action, dated April 11, 1979. Motion lost and the lot split case was denied due to a split vote of the Commission. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 79 -311, 1390 SIERRA DRIVE, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (ENGLE) . Planning Director Castro advised that the lot split request had been withdrawn by the applicant. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -17 -79 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 79 -282, COIN OPERATED AMUSEMENT CENTER, 1009 GRAND AVENUE IN AN "H -S" HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT (GIBBS). Planner Sullivan described the proposed location at 1009 Grand Avenue im- mediately adjacent to the Fair Oaks Theater on one side with the little diner on the other side. The area of the existing building proposed to be used as an arcade is the rear 20 ft. and a florist shop exists in the front. The prop- erty on which these buildings exist is approximately 24 ft. wide and 136 ft. deep, and the buildings take up the entire width of the property. Planning Director Castro advised that since the staff report was submitted to the Com- mission, staff reviewed the property and has some concerns primarily on the ingress and egress of the property. It appears that the parking that is noted is a separate parcel; the angle of parking appears to be about 12 ft. in length, and staff questions whether there is enough backup area and still allow the driveway situation to occur as noted. The other concern is that the bike rack and other parking is on the other parcel of property and staff questions the legality of those two uses occuring in that manner. He pointed out another concern is the amusement type of activity and the type of teenagers that will be generated by that type of use, and also the vehicular traffic that will be attracted to it. He further stated that he had called Mr. Gibbs, who had in- dicated that prescriptive rights are in order. Mr. Castro stated that, in his opinion, Mr. Gibbs had not occupied the property long enough to claim -those rights and he would not the Commission to grant a use that utilizes other people's property. He suggested that before the Commission grants the use, that a letter of agreement be obtained by Mr. Gibbs from the property owner to the effect that he has that right to use the property. He pointed out another con- cern, that if this property were to be developed or sold by Mr. Polin, what would it do to the uses in the rear and the parking situation. In summary, Mr. Castro stated that basically staff is questioning the ingress and egress to the rear of the property, and whether there is the right that he can claim use simply because it has been used in the past, and the legality of putting bike racks and parking on someone else's property. Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that Use Permit Case No. 79- 282 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Harris declared the hearing open. Mrs. Duca, 1045 Sunset Drive, stated she is totally opposed to this type of establishment. Mr. Brannon, Sunset Drive, stated he lives almost behind this area and he is totally against the proposed use. Faith Wescom, East Cherry Ave., stated she is against the proposed use. Mr. Ted Gibbs, applicant for the Use Permit, stated the hours of operation have been discussed with. the School Dis- trict and they have their blessings on it, which would be 3:00 to 8:00 P.M. on school days and 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays. He further stated they plan to work totally in cooperation with the law enforcement agency, who has investigated the proposed operat.onnat the request of Mr. Castro. He advised they have met all of the requirements of the existing statutes, as indi- cated by the report. He stated it was his feeling that the key question here is" whether or not they have right of ingress and egress to the property, and he suggested that the Commission tag the permit with the statement that if they did not have this right, the permit would become totally inactive and could be removed. There being no further discussion for or against the proposed Use Permit, . Chairman Harris declared the hearing closed and restricted further comment to. the Commission. Commissioner Moots stated regardless of the use, he couldn't see how the Commission could tie up the use of another man's_land, without clouding things pretty badly, and if he owned that property he would notwwant- somebody being able to put a bike rack and anything they felt, necessary.on that -.land without his permission. Commissioner Simmons stated she would be in favor of holding the permit over until the applicant gets something in writing from the owner indi- cating he has no objection to the use of that driveway and the parking on theelot. She further stated she has no objection to the pinball machine operation. Com- missioner Cole concurred with Commissioner Simmons regarding the letter . of agree- ment from the owner indicating his concurrence with the use of the property. She further stated she has no objections to the coin operated business. Commissioner Fischer stated she would like to have the matter continued until something more definite is submitted on the driveway and the parking. Commissioner.Vandeveer stated he would recommend denial of the Use Permit until such time it was assured that access and appropriate parking could be available for the applicant. 091 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4/17/79 Page 3 Chairman Harris advised he would be inclined to vote in favor of the use for a six month period, and that the hours of operation noted by Mr. Gibbs should be included as a condition of the Use Permit. As far as the access to the rear of the property, he suggested that the Use Permit be granted contingent upon a satisfactory letter of agreement from the owner being obtained by the applicant granting access to the area, and would include not only the parking for vehicles, but also should include the bike racks. He further stated it was his opinion that the two parking spaces in the back should be paved. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 79 -666 U RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 79 -282. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Simmons, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Cole, Simmons and Chairman Harris Commissioners Fischer, Moots and Vandeveer Commissioner Gorsline the foregoing Resolution was defeated this 17th day of April 1979. REVIEW - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 77 -269, FREE STANDING SIGN AT OAK PARK BLVD. & WEST BRANCH STREET IN AN "H -S" HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT (KVIDT). Planner Sullivan reviewed that the Planning Commission granted a Use Permit for a free standing sign to identify the Oak Park Acres development, and Mr. Kvidt is requesting a time extension for the sign to remain until September 1, 1979. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer and unanimously carried, that an extension for the sign be granted to remain until September 1, 1979. SUBDIVISION REVIEW - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 761, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, PARCEL MAP 77 -103, RANCHO GRANDE (RANCHO GRANDE PROPERTIES). Planning Director Castro read a letter, dated April 17, 1979 from Rancho Grande Properties stating their disagreement with some of the requirements recom- mended by the Subdivision Review Board on April 11, 1979. Mr. Castro reviewed the exhibits, noting specific areas of concern. He stated, in his opinion, Con- dition No..7 regarding architectural approval should be expanded to include even those buyers that may not necessarily be• associated with Rancho Grande Properties so that they are aware that there is architectural review required. And, secondly, he would like the addition of the requirement that the master declarations of the C.C. & R's shall meet with the approval of the City Attorney.' Mr. Castro advised, as far as the concerns expressed by Mr. Bennett in his letter of April 17th, that he would be opposed to deleting any one of the con- ditions made reference to in the letter. With regard to the Gifford and Fagan piece, the initial stage will require some sort of participation and agreement with Gifford and Fagan before they can actually do the grading. With regard to Item A.6, he advised that the Commission has always been aware that park fees are a requirement. He pointed out that private open space is a request the appli- cant can propose but the fees are required for expansion of City park facilities. On Public Works requirement No. 3, Mr. Castro stated he feels the conditions are in accordance with. the action of the City Council. On the Frontage Road and James Way improvements, Mr. Castro advised staff feels that the conditions are necessary and are in accordance with the standard requirements of any subdivision. With regard to the Pedestrian Parkway Treatment, Items 1 through 10, Mr. Castro•stated he didn't know precisely what the disagreement was and, basically, the section approved is what is noted on the plan itself, and that even the pre- vious conceptual plan projected a parkway system along the Rancho Grande collector street, it is his opinion that the recommendations are proper. Item No. 9, under "General ", Planning Director Castro advised staff is re- questing that a finding be made by thePlanning and City Council that " the development of City Standard local streets within the tract take precedence over Item E2 of Summary of Mitigations. That Summary addressed itself to a mini- mum of grading described to the Commission in the past and, with the requirement that public streets now be installed in the development, it will require more grading. Staff wants the Commission to be aware and recognize that the mitigations will no longer be true. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4/17/79 Page 4 Mr. Stan Abbott, Attorney for the applicant, pointed out with regard to Items A.2 and A.3, the applicant has no power to compel Gifford and Fagan to convey any easements, and all the applicant owns is a 5Offt. easement. It seems that what the City could do is, at some point in time the Gifford and Fagan prop- erties may develop, at that time the City could impose those conditions on those applicants; it is not a condition that can legally be imposed on Rancho Grande because they cannot comply with it. He further advised with respect to Item B "Pedestrian Parkway Treatment ", there is a question of interpretation on this. When the Conceptual Master Plan was before the Commission initially, the master plan showed this parkway landscaped area along the easterly edge of Rancho Park- way and, after the City Council cut down the project, the applicant thought he had communicated that he was moving it from the easterly edge of Rancho Parkway to the westerly side, for the reason that the topography that is there will re- quire substantial grading. After discussing the matter with Mr. Castro, it was his opinion that it belongs appropriately on the easterly edge of Rancho Parkway. He stated it makes no difference to the applicant, but with the reference to the minimal grading in the Environmental Impact Report, it is questionable whether it is really consistent with what the City wants. In any event, the applicant has agreed to provide a conceptual plan showing the parkway location on the east- erly edge as Mr. Castro has directed, however, they feel aesthetically it would be nicer to locate the parkway on the westerly side of Rancho Parkway. With regard to Item No. 6 under "Planning Department ", Mr. Abbott advised that the applicant asks in that regard if Rancho Grande should ever dedicate a park, they would like to be reimbursed for any and all park fees they might have paid. Next, with respect to A.3 under Public Works Department, the first sen- tence says "Tract Map to include commercial lot ". Mr. Abbott stated, in his opinion, any reference to the commercial area of this tract map should be delet- ed, and with reference to the balance of the language in paragraph 3, it goes a little bit beyond the offer that was accepted by the Council, in that it includes West Branch Street, which was not a part of the applicant's offer. He stated with reference to Item 3, they would ask that any reference to the commercial lot be deleted and that the specific language of the applicant's offer accepted by the City Council be incorporated in here so that it would be very clear as to what the agreement is. Under Item B "Streets ", Item 2.a "Frontage Road /W.Branch Street ", Mr. Abbott stated it looks as though it is suggesting two alternatives; (1) the ultimate alternative and, (2) a main alternative. What the applicant would suggest is, . that under "ultimate" they are perfectly agreeable to constructing facilities identical to those in front of the County facility rather than having it indef- inite and open to future review. With respect to Item 2.b, "Frontage Road" Mr. Abbott advised that the applicant would request the words "temporary improve- ment" be changed•to read "staged" improvement. Also, it is requested that anoth- er sentence be added to the effect that the applicant will improve two 14 ft. lanes on its 50 ft. of right of way in front of thegifford and Fagan property, and suggesting that the balance in front of the Gifford and Fagan parcel be im- proved by Gifford and Fagan when those parcels develop. Mr. Abbott further pointed out that with only the improvement of this one unit,they would submit that access from Brisco Road would be adequate to serve just this portion at this time. Going to Item 3, the construction of James Way, the applicant feels that the access from Rancho Parkway to Brisco Road is going to be adequate for this tract, and if they are compelled to improve James Way and the rest of Rancho Parkway to James Way at this time, it is going to add $13,636.00 per lot in ad- ditional costs which will have to be passed on to the buyer, and by adding this much in additional improvements, you are going to add over one third of the de- velopment cost of the lot. He pointed out that another thing that doesn't make a lot of sense is that if you go ahead and improve and construct James Way, there are going to be utilities in the roadway serving nothing for years, or you are going to require the applicant to put in the road and then take up the road to put the utilities in. He further stated there was some prior discussion relative to the construction of James Way, and the applicant has agreed toim- prove James Way concurrently with Phase 2 and prior to the development of Phase 3. In answer to Mr. Abbott's comments, Planning Director Castro advised, with regard to Items A.2 and A.3, it is not an unusual requirement to ask a developer to secure land for whatever purposes are needed for his development and, in his 093 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4/17/79 Page 5 opinion, the Commission can make that requirement. He pointed out that if Gifford and Fagan do not develop their property, the City may wind up with a sub - standard road. Regarding Item B, Mr. Castro advised that if the Commission wants to change that parkway landscape alignment, they should be aware that any change in the master plan would require a new public hearing on the entire plan. He further advised the reason the parkway system was located on the easterly side was because of the cluster development on the westerly side, and the fact that the Council deleted that portion at that point in time is no reason to change the parkway system. Regarding Public Works Condition No. 3, Mr. Castro advised he does not necessarily agree with Mr. Abbott because when the Council did, in fact, tell the Commission to proceed with the subdivision and not include the commercial, they did not say anything about excluding the streets and, in his opinion, they should be included to protect the City. Mr. Castro further advised that he would caution the Commission about deleting the James Way improvement, in that he didn't feel we should permit all the traffic to flow on to Brisco where it is going to be further compounded by the South County Facilities. Mr. Douglas Hilton, Member of the St. Patrick's School Board, pointed out that the traffic that is being created by the projects in the area has to be dealt with very carefully, and that there is a lot of foot traffic by the stu- dents and the increase in traffic presents quite a problem. He further advised that the School Board is very concerned and they support the staff's efforts in trying to plan for the traffic. He stated it should be up to the developer to have adequate access and adequate roads in there and the City should not be asked to accept something inadequate. He further advised they are concerned about the safety of the students and would urge the Planning Commission to support the - staff's recommendations. There being no further comments, Chairman Harris restricted further com: =.n ments regarding the project to the Commission. Commissioner Moots stated he basically agrees with staff's presentation and, in his opinion, the streets are the main concern in that we have adequate street width all the way across, and he backs the City staff on their minimum of 56 ft. for the width. Commissioner Simmons stated she is in agreement with the staff's recommendations, and she believes that James Way should be through and that the Frontage Road should be through. Commissioner Cole stated she is in accord with the City staff and would go along with the conditions as stated. Commissioner Fischer stated she shares the same opinion with Commissioners Moots and Simmons. She further stated she doesn't think. the 56 ft. will be adequate and the City should have the ultimate review power to go back and say whether or not more will be needed. Commissioner Vandeveer stated he agreed with the•staff's presentation to a point. He recalled that Mr. Langworthy remarked sometime ago about the large uncharted areas of the map being inadequate, and the Planning Commission did cover the entire area, however, the Council shot it down and we are now "piece- mealing ". Now we have a choice of $16,600.00 per lot, or to develop it and develop it poorly, or say that the City should build and improve the streets and hope_to collect it later on if and when the property is finally developed. He further stated he felt it is inappropriate to ask any developer to add that much more overhead to a lot and have someone pay for it and, in his opinion, we are going about it in- correctly, which is unfortunate. In answer to Chairman Harris' question on Item A.3.if the City staff has a problem with the alternative of the retaining wall, Planning Director Castro statedhhe felt it is up to the Commission to also review what the applicant said, and that is do you want a 20ft. retaining wall. Mr. Bob Flowers, Engineer for the applicant, advised it would be approximately 6 ft. maximum if they pull it back towards the existing right of way, and ultimately that frontage would ap- propriately be improved by the land owner. City Engineer Karp stated he doesn't have any problem with a retaining wall resolving the slope problem; it is un- desirable but we do it,and the State Highway Department does it. Chairman Harris stated he doesn't haveaany serious objection to the majority of the conditions and he definitely feels that the roads should be through, and particularly the frontage road. Chairman Harris asked when off -site improvements are improved on other property by a developer, what is the policy on reimbursement? Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4/17/79 Page 6 City Engineer Karp advised that the policy is that access be provided by the developer creating the need, and that the Council has refused this exact request in the Terra de Oro Tract on two occasions. Chairman Harris stated he believes this policy is wrong and should be changed; he sees no great diffi- culty in the City entering into such agreements, and he feels this is the fair thing that should be' done. Also, unless there,is some strong objection on A.3, he didn't see why there couldn't be an alternative slope retention of some type. Planning Director Castro suggested leaving the condition as stated and adding the wording - "or retaining wall subject to the Planning Commission and De- partment of Public Works approval;':' He also suggested adding Item "F" to the effect that "The Master Declarations of the C.C. & R's shall meet with the approval of the City Attorney prior to recordation of said tract map ". With regard to Item No. 7, Planning Director Castro recommended that the condition be re- written to read: "Architectural Review and approval shall be required for all development proposed by Rancho Grande or any individual buyer within the tract, plus a certificate stating same to be on the final tract map ". Commissioner Vandeveer stated he objected to the extension of James Way, and moved that Item B.3 be deleted from the recommendations. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cole and lost due to a split vote. With regards to Items A.9 and A.10, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, that: (A.9) the Commission finds that the development of City Standard local streets within the tract takes precedence over Item E2 of Summary of Mitigations and, (A.10) finds that the proposed tract conforms with Zoning (186 C.S. in particular) and the General Plan. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 79 -667 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT NO. 761, AND REFERRAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR APPROVAL PURSUANT TO CITY ORDINANCE NO. 186 C.S. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Simmons, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Moots, Simmons and Chairman Harris NOES: Commissioner Vandeveer ABSENT: Commissioner Gorsline the foregoing Resolution was adoptdd this 17th day of „April 1979. REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - REZONING CASES 79 -124 AND 79 -126, CANYON WAY, JAMES WAY AND PORTIONS OF TALLYHO ROAD (CANYON WAY PROPERTY OWNERS AND BOB SHIGINAKA), There being no discussion for or against the Request for Negative Declar- ation, the following action-was taken: RESOLUTION NO:. 79 -668 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Moots, Simmons, Vandeveer and Chairman Harris NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Fischer ABSENT: Commissioner Gorsline the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of April 1979. 095 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4/17/79 Page 7 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING Chairman Harris reported that at the last City Council meeting they de- cided they do not like the idea of reviewing projects on which there is going to be a public hearing held. They felt it was appropriate for the applicants to come in, in the normal procedure as outlined in the City, Ordinance, and only at the public hearing after listening to the public comments, should the Planning Commission and Council give opinions regarding a project. Chairman Harris stated he objected to this at the time, particularly since the items that were discussed were physical layouts of projects. ELM STREET SPORTS COMPLEX Planning Director Castro reviewed the by San Luis Engineering for the Elm Street ties that are to be developed. He advised under construction, and that there are 109 220 parking spaces are proposed in the new ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Castro advised, with regard to the Wildwood Ranch de- velopment, the rezoning of the property was considered by the Planning Com- mission on August 15, 1978, at which time Commissioners Gorsline, Vandeveer and Harris voted in the affirmative; Commissioners Fischer and Simmons voted "no "; and Commissioners Cole and Moots were absent. Mr. Castro pointed out that a 4 affirmative votes are needed before any rezoning action can be finaled, and he would request the Commission adopt a resolution of intention to recon- sider the rezoning of the Wildwood Ranch development at the May 1st meeting, at which time the subdivision and the Focus Report will also be considered. On motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, to reconsider the rezoning of the Wildwood Ranch property at the meet- ing of May 1, 1979. In regard to the City Council's recent policy with respect to the Planning Commission reviewing projects, Commissioner Cole stated she is opposed to the Council putting this kind of a restriction on the Planning Commission. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and unanimously carried, opposing the Council's policy of restricting the Planning Commission from reviewing projects and requesting that this action be rescinded. Chairman Harris stated he has aiproblem with the City policy regarding re- imbursement agreements for off -site improvements on property that does not bene- fit the development itself and, in his opinion, it would be appropriate to con- sider changing that policy. He further stated that he will include-with the next agenda a' recommended resolution on this matter. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 10 :40 P.M. ATTEST: ,a R L eX, �_ 4 24 Secretary master plan that has been prepared Sports Complex, noting the facili.- that the restroom facilities are now parking spaces already existing, and plan.