PC 021016 - Laserfiche WebLink

at this issue and to explore getting rid of the signs. But, I think the first step in doing so would be getting a letter from the two HOAs indicating that they do indeed want to get rid of the "no parking" signs. Just today, we received a letter from the Ironwood HOA indicating that they are absolutely not interested in getting rid of the "no parking" signs, so that's where we are today. We are happy to look into it if we get indication or support for doing so from the HOAs. Nagler: If I could just follow up on that, so then given the letter today from the Ironwood HOA, unless the City were interested in trying to push the conversation forward, you would in fact just drop it based upon that letter today, right? Weinstein: I think it's unlikely that the City would just go in single - handedly against the wishes of the HOAs and get rid of the signs since that was something they requested. And Gerry mentioned a good point, which is that per conditions of approval for this Vesting Tentative Map, Ponderosa must create a construction period parking and traffic management plan that will address exactly the issues that Mr. Webster raised, making sure there is adequate parking on the frontage site during the construction period so residents can park. And I also want to emphasize too that as part of the development project itself, Ponderosa is ensuring the provision of increased number of stalls designated for Garden residents. I think 22 stalls would be designated for Gardens residents on this site as compared to 15 stalls right now. So even during the project operational period, after the project gets constructed there will be more parking spaces for Gardens residents than exist today so the parking supply issue should actually get better with construction of the project. Nagler: Aside from the spaces being contiguous with where Ponderosa is proposing to put up these homes, and the Gardens, the very good question that Mr. Webster is asking isn't really relevant to this project, is it? Or to the approval of the project? Weinstein: It's sort of indirectly related. The development plan was already discussed quite a bit when this came to the Planning Commission last year and to the City Council. That was the time to talk about how much parking was being developed as part of the project, how that parking affected off -site uses, what the buildings look like, how big they were and so forth. This action that you are taking tonight is really just to verify that the Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the development plan and then to make the findings required by state law. O'Connor: I understand that parking issues that were brought up tonight are not directly part of our decision tonight, but I know we've heard before and we did hear when we had our hearings that parking here was inadequate and they were looking for a way to get even more parking, even for the 25 homes that are being built here. These are public streets we're talking about, right; the ones where the HOAs have asked for "no parking" signs? They are public, so that would put the decision clearly in the hands of the City. I understand trying to cooperate with an HOA, they have quite a few members, but if we are severely lacking in parking, is there not some area /part of these streets /part of that area where we could squeeze in any more parking? The parking we're talking about tonight is seven extra spaces above and beyond that needs to be there, which isn't very many when considering the number of units that are in the Gardens as well as the new development and what's there. Is there any way to take a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 10, 2016 Page 6 of 10