is there a paper that has more detailed text and photos?

Congratulations, Cora, for coming up with such a great project! I agree, this little cul-de-sac is a bit of an eyesore right now, even though it has served as a useful access point to the I-205 bike path for many years.

This proposal, however, would drastically change the character of the street, definitely for the better.

I wonder if the elimination of all on-street parking is necessary, however, given the existing R-O-W width? Or, is there a way to keep on-street parking in the median (between the planter strips), or on one side of the street, or even on both sides of the street?

I just know that existing residents like their on-street parking, and if you can find a way to accommodate it in the design proposal, I think you'll find much more unanimous support for this concept among the neighbors.

Off-street shared parking could work, sure, but at what cost? Would this take away space that might otherwise be used for transit-oriented development, given the close proximity to the station?

I definitely understand the concerns about the loss of on street parking, but I based my recommendation to go ahead and remove it based on the following:

1. The current off street parking lot is large and sees little or no use, even though the building it serves tends to generate the most on street parking use.

2. The key to having the shared space concept work is psychological traffic calming. Including on street parking contributes to the idea that the street is for cars and a "parking area" creates an artificial segregation of motor vehicles and pedestrians. Likewise, the residential units all have ample off street parking. The plans for the MTIP improvements to 92nd and Foster also include increasing the amount of on street parking available, so the loss is likely to be off set and actually closer to the retail core.

3. The configuration of space that I am recommending provides more room for other activities like cafe seating or hosting Farmer's Market booths.

So, no it's not necessary, but it is definitely preferable and possible.

Currently, there is a TOD in the works for a 3 acre site just to the north of the cul de sac. I'm on the CAC for that development, and there seems to be a sentiment to at least try to house additional parking in a compact structure. If the plan amendment for the URA goes through, there is also potential for the current multi-family units to be acquired/redeveloped and radically made-over. Hopefully this will include more creative approaches to supplying the amount of parking demanded by a TOD.