Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the November 20th traffic commission. Let's all stand for the pledge of allegiance please. I allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. All right, I'd like to start off with a quick roll call. Chief Levita >> here. >> City Planner Frank Stringy >> present.
>> City engineer Nicholas Rystrom >> here. >> And Chief Cullen >> here. >> All right. Before we get started, I'd just like to give a quick shout out to one of our members, Frank Stringy, who has been serving on the traffic commission for 41 years and is going to
be leaving us. This is going to be his last and final meeting. So, congratulation. That is truly an achievement. You're always free to visit, Frank. All right, let's get this going with our public hearings.
Um item one on the agenda is amend schedule 11 of title 10 handicap person by removing five denim street. Now this was requested by one of the counselors. I believe the um there was an email sent over to us that the
resident had moved from that location that needed the handicap. Okay. So is there anyone to speak on this? Seeing and hearing none proponents opponents. Um I think it'd be a good idea to
entertain a motion to approve item number one. >> Mr. Chairman, make a motion to approve. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed. All right. Public
hearing item number one has been passed. All right. Public hearing item number two, amend schedule 11 of title 10, handicapped person parking by adding 37 Tapley Avenue. Everyone should have the packet in front of them.
There is no parking on I'm sorry, there is no off-site parking at that location. There's also no parking on that side of the road, but I do believe this one looks justified. Is there a proponent or opponent here
for this one? Seeing hearing none, >> the chair, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? All those opposed? >> I.
>> All right. Item number two is approved. All right. Moving on. Now we're to the that that concludes the public hearing for the agenda. Now we
have agenda items. So item number one to three were submissions um sent in from community development all in regards to adding resident 24-hour parking seven
days a week on three roads Pearl Avenue, Crescent Avenue, and Summer Street. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of those? Any proponents? Any opponents?
Seeing and hearing Commissioner Babo. Director Babo. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. >> I'm not an opponent or a proponent, but just some perspective from the parking department on this one. Um, I was reached out to probably about a year, 18
months ago from the city's resiliency manager, Kristen Hmire, who's uh on board with the signature of this and Tom Skroski from DPCD. Um, what they were experiencing was flooding within the lower bottom portion of Beachmont, Pearl
A, um, Crystal A, Summer Street. And so just from a parking perspective, what I had shared with the resiliency manager on a way that may help with parking regulations is that majority of Beachmont is 247 residential parking, which our team regularly enforces. These
streets listed here are one of some of the only remaining streets in Beachmont that do not have this regulation. Due to them not having this, this these streets only get enforcement during the hours of midnight to 6:00. This doesn't stop people that don't belong in the neighborhood that don't live there from
parking within the neighborhood at all during the day. So by the time midnight comes, if rainwater is settling in in the middle of the night, a storm is coming, those cars have already settled in for the night they're parked, jeopardizing the capacity for residents who actually live there to get further
up the hill and out of the flood zone. Um, so again, I'm not a proponent or an opponent, but what we had experience with this area of the city due to the offset of regulations that coincide with the rest of the neighborhood, um, we did a canvas of study of parking enforcement
on these streets. And within the course of a month during May 2024, we issued about 120 tickets to Pearl Lab with nine visits just over the course of the month of May. What that tells me and my team is that there is an abuse. There are people in this area that do not have
their vehicles registered to this area of the city or the city at all and do not have the proper permits. Therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to park to take away priority parking for our residents. So, again, not opponent or proponent, just some data that we had
discovered to kind of help um DPCD move along with the request that they made to you tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you, director. And I do understand the direction that you guys or the viewpoint that you guys see. It's just I'm never really a proponent for uh
removing parking enforcement. The only thing I would like also like to add is I I do I do see the benefit here. I just don't see the residents using it. I think it'd be more I don't see the residents parking up the hill just because of a flooding event's going
to happen. I mean, we have I think it'd be more beneficial to go through either with a siren or notice them that there's going to be a king tide in effect. I I just don't see people I wholeheartedly agree with you. I don't want to stand up here and tell these
residents what I think is best for them. That's their job to advocate for themselves and tell us what they think is the better use case. Just from data that I was able to capture through my department, this was what we could see. But again, I think there should be some community community outreach, whether it's by the ward council or council at
large to make sure members of this area are fine with this as 247 can be somewhat disruptive as we've seen through this commission in the past with some neighborhoods wanting it and then not wanting it. Um, I think a calculated approach is always best, but again, I wanted to go up here and just share the data we found, but yes, community
outreach always outweighs the opinion, I think, of um, some of us. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah, the issues we had with the Riverside changing this to 24-hour parking, it just didn't seem to benefit them enough to the to outweigh
the positives, that's all. So, I mean, I I believe maybe motion to table this item until we can get some community outreach involved here. I I don't >> I'm really just not in favor of restricting parking in any of those locations. Just
>> Mr. because we think it could possibly benefit unless people are asking for it. >> Yes, >> Mr. Chairman, I' I'd like to just echo that. I know that we had some issues with um establishing 247 parking uh in the
Riverside neighborhood, for example, and it had caused some problems during the day with um residents wanting to have uh guests over or having, you know, contractors or other uh people visit. Um and it became a problem for them. Um
they didn't have the ability to um you know, make that happen during the day. Um, so I would tend to agree. I don't think 24 hours, seven days a week is really the appropriate um, approach. I think that, you know, there is some
balance there that we can talk about. Um, but I would, um, I don't think that as it's written, um, it should be sent to, uh, a public hearing. So, I will make a motion to table um, one, two, and three of the items on the agenda.
>> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed. >> All right. Agenda items one, two, and three will be tabled. Thank you. That brings us to agenda
items four, five, and six. These are updates to the police, parking, and DPW smoke snow emergency lists. Um, some of these are already posted. One is not Winterbe Southerntherly,
but the others are all we we kind of put our list together from the police parking and DPW and saw we had some issues with how they um work together. So now they're all consolidated into one list. And these are the changes that we
see need to be made. Um we will be adding Brad Street south southerntherly from Atlantic to Endicott, Winthre A Southerntherly, Broadway to Beach and Nant A Easter easterly from Campbell A to Shirley A. There any
proponents or opponents of this councelor? Thank you Mr. Chairman. Iron Velski 53 Dhon Street 2 counselor. Are you removing these or adding these? >> They're being added. They're already some of them are already up. I'm sorry.
Removing Nant AB Easter. >> That's all right. >> The other two are being added. Um the reason for that being what's easily I don't have usually >> it's been I know it's been posted for years
for no parking during uh snow emergency but it's never been enforced. >> Yeah. I I don't think that I think we concluded with the DPW that the parking on one side of that street is not an issue for plowing.
That was my conclusion >> because it's also you have the other end of >> the other end is open. >> So you're >> So this is just from that that piece from Campbell to Shirley. >> You're going to remove it from there. >> Remove it. Yes. >> Yeah. Like I said, it's it's
>> you can drive through it when when they plow it as long as they plow it >> wide enough at certain points, you know, but uh it can be down to one lane. >> It can't be down to one lane. >> It It would be It would be down to one
lane. You'd only get traffic one way if you if you leave both sides. >> What? Just mean parking or you mean because of the snow? >> No, your travel lane in the middle would only be, you know, only one cars won't be able to go by each other
>> at all. What do you mean just in general? They can't when they're parking on both sides. >> Yeah. >> So, you're saying it should be one lane like just now without snow? >> No. No. I'm just saying when it's snowing during the snow emergency, I
don't think you should remove that. >> Okay. >> And and actually do it. You know, like I said, it's been posted but never been done. But it does get tight there, especially >> Yeah. That's what I'm that's what my I think we're we're noticing if if we're
not currently towing there and we've been able to get through it for all these years, >> but it's been down in one lane. And it had, you know, if if a car's coming down and a fire engine's coming down, they kind they could not get by each other. >> I understand. I just didn't think that
was one that we we needed to list as like a major artery. >> Yeah. Um >> I'd like to keep the snow removal those for major arteries and places that we have parking issues. >> I didn't see um Nahan have as one of those.
>> Yeah. Well, uh I I have I'm concerned about it if you >> do remove it and don't enforce it. >> You know, I I think it would it would open things up a little more if cars
were removed there, then they're allowed to go back after the snow and you could potentially get there with two vehicles going by each other if the snow is pushed against the curb. >> Okay. >> So, like I said, I'd like to see it
there and and enforced. All right. So, we'd like to the council would like to um >> leave that the way it is now. >> Leave the hot a and and start enforcing because that hasn't been enforced. Okay. >> Well, council, I mean, the main driver
for that in the past has been the JCC saw the hot and keeping that area clear. >> That's correct. They have the daycare there now. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. So, let's break this up into
two separate pieces. Um, item agenda item number four and five, which would be adding um these are pre-posted signs. We're just correcting the ordinance because
they're not listed in the ordinance. Um, and we're actually enforcing Winterb, aren't we? No, Brad Street A. We're actually enforcing for snow emergencies. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission,
um, like you stated, it's cleaning up of the books. Um, over the years there's been one list that exists within city ordinance, one list published by either the city or the River Police Department. Um, there was discrepancies within both. uh this year we identified those and we presented them via email um for
discussion here and that's where we had seen Brad Street was one that would had been enforced over the years listed as a snowy but not actually recorded. Um, Winterb was recorded, but the parking side changes. Uh, Winterb was classified from Broadway to the Parkway and then
the Parkway uh, River Beach Parkway to Winther Parkway where the problem lied where the portion of Winterb from Broadway to Re Beach Parkways alter. They reverse. >> And so we had to make sure we covered Winterbath from Broadway to beach as
well as beach to Winter Parkway. Winter Parkway that won't um Beach Terra Beach Parkway was correct how it was written in ordinance. We needed to get this subsection in here to make sure that the other section was properly recorded. >> Perfect. Thank you.
>> All right. So, item number four and five. I I believe we should entertain a motion to approve those. >> Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to move agenda items four and five to public hearing. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second that.
>> Thank you. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed. So item number four and five be moved to public hearing. All right. And that leaves us with item number six, which is removing Nahan A Easterly from
Campbell to surely have um parking restricted for snow removal during a snow van. councelor stated he'd like to leave this on the books and start enforcing this. I have no objection if that's beneficial to the community
commission. >> Um >> I agree that hold it from a public hearing. Leave it as it is. Make a motion to maintain that status the way it is. >> So motion to deny. >> All right. Thank you. Is there a second? Second.
>> All those in favor? All those opposed. Item number six been denied. All right. Item number seven, amend schedule 8 of section 10 general parking restrictions generally by adding
Kerav Northernly Eastern Mount Nav River High School parking lot. No parking anytime on Easterly side. Oh yes, that's right. The counselor submitted this saying that um one of the residents came to him saying they had
issue getting out of their driveway. Um although I do not again like to take away parking from residents if we can help it and I don't think this is the smart move here. Are
there any proponents opponents for this one? >> Um, just a question, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, this roadway did have recent sidewalk redesign on one side of the roadway. Is that correct? >> I think that I'm not sure which side that that sounds like it would be the easily, which is the side they're asking
for the no parking. Mhm. >> Um, again, I don't want to I'm not an opponent or proponent, but I can I can actually visualize how this could be difficult um with now the curbing being bumped out further into the street where it used to be transition or non-defined sidewalk.
>> So, we only moved the curbing out, I believe, a foot and a half at most. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, with that said, it did narrow the road. And if we take away the parking, we're widening the road again. And the issue with this neighborhood is speeding. A wider lane of travel. I I believe that people drive faster,
creating more of an issue here than a benefit to this neighborhood. My opinion, um I don't believe it's necessary to remove parking on the the only side where there actually is parking on the street. There's a lot of curb cuts on the other end. >> Mr. Chairman,
>> yes, if I may, it looks to me like um seven and eight are >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, they want to remove the oneway street as well. >> Okay. I was I thought I misunderstood. I thought it was they were trying to switch. Never mind.
>> Nope. That's fine. Um I'm seeing hearing no proponents or opponents to this. I I would suggest denying this motion. To be quite honest, I don't see the reason to restrict parking.
Mr. >> Chairman, do we know where this request originated from >> um it was submitted from the counselor. Councelor Kagirandrew passed it along, but I believe it was one of the residents on the street asked for it. >> Okay.
>> Again, these are these are big changes. I mean, I if this is something that needs to be considered, I would like a petition from the neighborhood, not a complaint or two. That's not the way I'd like to make these changes. Um,
four on either side. Four or five on either side. Yeah, if they all agree to it, then I'm by all means, but if not, I'd rather not make a change like this. So, maybe table it until we have community outreach and all the other residents of
the street are on the same page. >> That was going to be my motion, Mr. Chairman, to table it. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. All those in favor? All those opposed. Item number seven will be tabled.
All right. Item number eight, schedule five, one-way streets by removing Kerry Northernly from East Mountain A to RE High School parking lot.
I believe the residents there want to remove the one-way street on the books because I was told someone got a ticket for driving down that way. One of the residents that lived in the area.
So, it only makes sense that they have access to the street without driving through the parking lot itself. Um yeah, I have no objections to this one. There any proponents or opponents? Seeing hearing none.
>> Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, uh following if this were to ultimately pass, then Karav would be a two-way street. Is that correct? >> It's a good question. Al on the books, yes, it would be a one-way street. There is a do not enter resident only sign
that's existing on that poll as well. So, there will be nothing on the books to stop them from driving down that street. Yes. Is that what you're >> Yeah. If I may, I think um I'm not sure if this is the answer, but they would literally have to go through the high
school parking lot to get to their houses. There would be no other way to get there except to violate the oneway law. So, I don't know if we could suggest maybe like a time limit where it was one way during certain certain hours of the day. I think the problem arises
when school lets out and the parking lot empties and they come up karaav. So if we could limit the one way by hours, that would be something to consider, I think. But yeah, there's no way for them to get to their house except to use the high school lot as a street, which we
don't really want to do either. >> Agreed. Um, director Babo, >> I do the parking side, but I I I read this uh chapter 10 uh all the time. There are a few of our streets that fall into this category. Harris being one of
them, the other one being Hitchborn. They have uh one way directional during certain times during rush hour traffic for that just for a template to follow within the current ordinances. >> Okay. The only thing is I just
So we're saying that the residents have a time frame to get to their homes be >> I think they wouldn't be able to get to go toward the lot during the hours that the school was letting out. So we could literally limit it if we could, whatever
the options would be to an hour or an hour and a half where they weren't allowed to go down to get to their house, but every other hour of the day they would. >> Okay, I like that. That makes sense. >> So between the hours of arrival and
dismissal, Okay. So, let's let's amend that to 7 to nine and what you said two to four. Is that what Harris Street is?
>> Yes. But I think the needs here are a little bit differently. I think we're only concerned about school entry and dismissal. high school lets in about they have different times during the day of the week. Um, Monday, Wednesday I think is 7:50. Uh, or Monday, Wednesday, Friday I think is 7:50. Tuesday, Thursday
is 8:10 and then they're out at 2:20. Uh, but you also have the Romney Marsh to consider there. Rumy Marsh is out at 2:45, in at 8:20. So, I would suggest 7:30 to 8:45 in the morning and then two
o'clock until 3:30 in the afternoon. >> Okay. Why don't we, >> Mr. Chairman, >> why don't we hold off and we'll get the actual school times of those two schools and we'll mirror the do not enter to coincide with the times that those
schools are either arriving or dismissing. >> Yes. Just a a point of uh correction. Uh Romney Marsh um is uh 7:35 and they get out of 220.
>> Okay. So, but we well I'm in favor moving this to a public hearing but with the addition of the actual school arrival and dismissal hours for the oneway. So we can um if everyone else is okay.
Yes. >> I make a motion to move this to a public hearing given that the times of the oneway are predicated on arrival and dismissal of uh the high school and the remn.
>> Thank you. Well said. Uh is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor? All those opposed? This will be moved to public hearing and times will be changed between the arrival and dismissal of those two
schools. All right. And last but not least, oh, you know what? Isn't there one more? I'm looking at the old agenda. Oh, item number nine, amend schedule 11
of title 10 handicap persons by persons parking by adding 29 Moba Street. All right. Are there any proponents or opponents for 29 Makoba Street? Seeing and hearing none.
So, I did actually go by this um building. The building itself has no handicap parking spaces on the entire site. So I don't believe it would be the interest of us to
Yeah, I still I don't there's no it it looks like the resident has a spot peritted inside the um lot itself and they're asking for one off street as well, but I believe there's only one person with a handicap spot. So, by
definition, the person with the handicap spot, I'm sorry, handicap placard should be using the spot that they have on site within the building. Um, I don't know how it would be beneficial for them to have one on the street unless they need unless they have two
handicap placards. That's the way I see it. But, do we have any um commission? Do you guys have any input on this one? They're allowed one um director Bob can
speak to this, but I believe that each of those condo units is allowed one on street parking permit per unit and I believe that's the out of the two vehicles that one would have the handicap parker on the road and then
they would have a spot in the lot itself. >> Yes. So, the River Parking Department does issue one resident permit, one visitor pass each unit within this building. Um, because there are some two bedrooms with this in within this complex, but each unit only has one off- streetet parking space, so we
accommodate the additional. Um, as far as I'm concerned, I believe this person does have a spot, but I'm not sure what may have been submitted from Ralph to Chico. I know this came from him. Um, but I believe this person does have an off- streetet spot. Again, what the commissioner said, I'm not sure what the request was for.
Chief, I'm going to make a motion to table this until we get a uh a final on the parking situation down there. And >> if there's any handicap parking spaces
within the parking lot designated >> Well, there aren't there are no handicap spots spots in that building. >> There aren't. Okay. And I believe the that would be the closest point for them to have a parking spot on site rather
off the street. I mean, >> do we know the distance >> that they would be? >> It really depends on what unit they have in the building. I believe >> just a suggestion maybe uh reach out to ADA uh chairman Deico to make sure that
the building is following the legal standards of how many HP spots they have to provide due to how many spaces they have. Uh maybe have him check on that. Make sure they're following that. And if they're not, um address that with the apartment complex. If not, maybe the building management can better
accommodate this resident with a closer spot to his closest door by maybe designating an HP spot in a different location. Um but yeah, maybe building can handle it internally is my suggestion. >> Yeah, there's not one on site. And also
um the handicap director Ralph also stated that he would not recommend approving handicap sign installation either. So >> yeah, because they're required to have one hand in handicap space for every 25 parking spaces. So >> I I would deny the request. Make a motion to deny. >> Thank you. Is there a second?
>> Second. All those in favor? All those opposed. The last agenda item will be denied. Number nine. Next, we have some notes from the traffic working group. Would like to present some findings on speed data and traffic calming measures for the
following areas. Riceav, Mills Aav, East Mountain A, Lantern Road, and Atwood Street. Julie, thank you. >> Uh, good evening everybody. Julie Dearo, Department of Planning and Community Development. Um, before I deliver the
data report for the streets that uh, the chair just mentioned, I just want to acknowledge that tonight will be uh, Frank String's last traffic commission meeting. And I just want to thank you very much for all of your guidance for
the past 10 years. So, I know you've been on the commission for a lot longer than I've been here, but I just want to say thank you. >> 41 years. >> 41 years. So, so congrats. Welld deserved break for you. But I just want everybody to know Frank is not going
anywhere. He's just not going to be here on the traffic commission. So, everybody stop panicking. Um, I just want to bring our updates to the traffic commission. of the over the last couple months we looked at Rice Avenue. Um we also looked
at Mills Avenue, Lenton Road, and East Mountain Avenue. Out of the four streets that um we collected traffic data for, only two of them qualify. Uh Rice Avenue, um we surveyed the street back in September
and then we went back out there in October. Um, we had a more definitive address of 265 Rice Avenue. And what we saw that the total car volume uh was about 9,200 cars for the 13-day study
period. And uh average daily car volume is anywhere from um like 900 to 950 cars per day. And that's really all local traffic going in and out of the pines. um the 85 percentile because it's such a
high car volume per day um the 85 percentile was 25.7 26 miles per hour. So we are recommending that this um street be proposed for a temporary traffic calming
measure. maybe putting one or two u removable speed humps in between Lancaster and Rice A just to see how this all plays out. Um we had a significant car count jump from the um
collection point in September till now. Um but we did notice that there was an increase of 100 cars or more traveling between 25 and 30 miles per hour. So, there is something happening in the neighborhood.
We want to test that again. So, we're going to putting speed humps out, temporary ones. That's what the group decided. As for the second street that we're recommending for um traffic calming is Lantern Road, and we
all were in agreement on this. It this total car volume was over 20,000 cars for the 13-day study period. Um, it also qualifies because the 233 cars are traveling between 25 and 30 miles per
hour per day. So, we look at this and we feel that there's really a speeding issue. But because of the way the roadway is designed, we're kind of at a struggle right now as to where best to place uh some sort of trafficcoming
measure. The driveways are they're kind of double driveways. the telephone poles. There's also a parking issue that we need to be mindful of on the street. Um so we're in the spring we're going to put down a temporary speed hump at 136
Lantav and see how that goes. Um we'll put the speed radar data collecting machine back out there and see if that makes a difference of the two streets that didn't qualify. um Mills Avenue on the Riverside that
was also studied twice once Sep in September and then once again in October. We did not find speeding in both data collection points. Um it has low car volume. It's mostly the residents living in that section of the
pines of Riverside. So we're not recommending that to go further. And lastly, East Mountain A. This roadway was surveyed twice at the East Mount Nav at Karav and at both times speeding was not
a factor. This time the car count was a little bit lower. Um and the speed the 85 percentile speed was lower to a 22 miles hour. I think the last time we surveyed this, there was quite a bit of um construction going on in that
neighborhood and that was kind of like the cut through street. People were using that to cut through to get either back onto Beach Street or get through um Bell Circle. So, those are the four the streets that we studied. the next street on the list,
but we don't have the information for it yet at WAB and that is a resident petition that was that was sent to us. Um, but that's all I have for the traffic working group. If anybody has any questions, I'm happy to answer.
Uh we as a commission now have to endorse this and and uh make a motion to approve the loca location of these traffic calming measures. >> Public hearing. >> Yeah, they should probably go to a
public hearing. Rice Mills, I'm sorry. So let's >> Rice >> and Lantern >> would be the two >> Rice and Lantern approval of temporary speed bump placements at let's go with
the traffic working group DPW's discussion. Um I think vote to move to a public hearing. >> Motion to move to public hearing. >> Motion move public hearing. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor? All those
opposed. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I was just surprised. >> It's It's a dead end street. >> Me, too. Me, too. That one caught me off guard. >> Okay. Next, we have Commonwealth Electric Technologies would like to
speak regarding three on street EV charger installations. Thank you. >> Hi, good evening everyone. Um, my name is Steve Ki. I work with Commonwealth Electrical Technologies. We are a electrical contractor company
out in Worcester, Mass. Um, and I just want to speak with you all about a project that we have going on currently with uh the city of River and hopefully get your approval and uh go ahead on on the project. Um, so our company is currently implementing a program with the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center.
Um it's a federally funded program uh through the previous administration to put in on street electric vehicle charging stations in municipalities across the state. Um there's a component of the program where we're doing feasibility assessments for about 25
towns and cities. And then there's the other component where we're actually putting uh physical on street electric vehicle charging stations in for 15 municipalities across Massachusetts. This is a grant that uh we're you know through the mass clean energy center our
funding for the municipality is at no cost. Uh it's free uh EV charging infrastructure and planning and uh ongoing um financial support with um operation and maintenance of the stations as well. So, working with the
city of Rivier who had applied for and was uh approved for this grant back in uh January of this year. Uh working with the planning and community development department. Um Abdazak Abze is the sustainability manager who we've been kind of corresponding with the most.
Um they had narrowed down to three sites in Rivier uh to potentially install these electric vehicle chargers. Um the charging station locations were selected obviously they well not obviously but the purpose of the program is to do these on street. So we were looking at
you know parallel parking and on street and not you know private or public parking lots looking in areas that um have a lot of residential um zoning so that the residents of Ravier would be able to benefit from this. The goal of
the program is to provide uh equitable charging access to residents of these cities and towns that might rely on on street parking and might not have their own off- streetet parking um setup. So, the three that we were looking at
and that I believe you have printed in front of you are on Proctor A, uh, Makoba Street and Hutchinson Street just off of, uh, Broadway. So, these are level two charging
stations that we're proposing. They're not, you know, fast chargers where folks come and charge for 20, 30 minutes and leave. It's really meant for more longer term residential electric vehicle owners who uh park on a street to charge their
vehicles. So, just wanted to field any questions that you all might have about the projects um the program itself, anything like that, and ideally get um approval for moving forward with these.
>> Yes. Um couple questions. >> Sure. So, first like the location on Makoba Street in Hutchinson. Are those Well, Hutchinson looks like six spaces. Makoba looks like six as well. Will those be six dedicated
EV charging spots? >> So, those were the numbers that were given to us when we kind of put these preliminary designs together. Um, as far as how you uh regulate who parks there, um, the requirement for the program for the grant is 12 hours a day. It has to
be EV only. So, if you want to make that, you know, overnight, a lot of municipalities have opted for that kind of regulation. And then the rest of the day, allow, you know, anyone who visits the area to be able to park there, EV or not. >> Okay.
And do these are these underground or these how how exactly do these work? >> The kiosk. >> Yeah. So they're uh kind of like the ones you see right behind city hall. Okay. >> Um they're pedestals. They have two plugs except for Proctor Street. We had
to do single plug stations, but um two cords on each can charge two vehicles simultaneously. But the EV driver would walk up um they would have most EV drivers have about five or six apps on their phone for all these different types of charging networks out there um that are linked to
their credit card. they would, you know, plug in the or scan the code on the station and just start their charging session essentially and it would be revenue potentially um that the city of River would be able to take in by setting, you know, certain uh dollars
per kilowatt hour rate that you would be able to charge the EV drivers who use these stations. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. And then ownership of this would so my so if we approve this Commonwealth Electric would be installing these.
>> We would be the installer. Um but City of River would be the owners of the stations at the end of the >> process. The city re will be maintaining this further down. >> Correct. We have in the package as something funded by the program. Um kind of a preventative maintenance checkup plan that we would be able to enroll you
in just kind of drive by every six months to make sure the stations are operating correctly. But um there is a warranty plan as well that we would fund for 5 years. Um if anything, you know, needs replacing on the uh the stations themselves that's under warranty, that's
something you can take advantage of, too. >> Okay. Now, I'm comfortable with these in parking lots because I mean, I just feel like there's less aptitude for people to hit these and take off. But how about is there any safety features with these if say a car comes by or
drunk driver hits it and takes off or is there just live electrical lines flowing to these? >> It's it's all underground the electrical just to >> I get that. But if they hit the the unit that's above ground, >> what's we would have protective ballards in front of the station. Um, you know,
one is shown per station on the drawings there, but you know, two would also work and still allow folks to uh access the chargers. Um, yeah, the ballards are the primary kind of protective measure. >> Okay.
The only question I have is um are these intended to be 24hour restricted use just for each EV charging only? >> So the requirement is minimum 12 hours a day, seven days a week. So if you want to open it up to anybody for the other
12 hours, that's up to uh up to river. >> How exactly were these spots chosen? Was this >> a lot of back and forth uh looking at available power supply? um you know where the utility poles are. You know we've spoken with National Grid about these as well because they are going to
be new services from you know either the I think all three of them actually are from the overhead lines. Um but yeah again like kind of citing them in locations that would benefit the residents so near neighborhoods but not necessarily in front of individuals
homes >> I think was kind of the the good balance that we were trying to streng. >> Yeah. Mr. SH cognizant of uh putting these stations in areas where there was a a strong demand on on street parking for residential use. So these areas are
seem to be opened up more often than a a typical residential street. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chairman, just a question for the presenter. >> Yes. Um what's the footprint look like for the pedestal and the um uh the
ballards together? Do they is there any impact on the pedestrian access for the sidewalk? That sort of thing? >> It's about uh 2 feet by two feet um footprint. So we would we tried to sight these on sidewalks that were wide enough
to maintain kind of that minimum ADA compliance for a sidewalk width. So two feet plus the ballards. >> Yeah, the ballards can kind of be off to the side a little bit as long as they're in front of the station itself. The base is a little bit wider than the station itself,
>> but yeah, roughly two feet. >> Thank you. >> Um to your knowledge, do you know if there's been any surveys or public reach out done for this? >> Yes. Uh, sorry, I should have mentioned that there was a robust community engagement uh part of the program that
was kind of taking place over the the summer. Um, we had surveys that were live on online for I'm sure they're still live, but that were uh published out to, you know, the residents of Revier. Um, I would have to check my notes on what exact um measures were
done for, you know, getting that word out there if it was social media posts or just on the website or something like that. But we did collect all of the responses. Um we asked folks answering the survey to grade each site, you know, one through five on their preference of having a charging station at that
location. Um and I kind of took that data into account as we're making these final site selections. There were roughly I want to say 10 sites that we looked at initially. We kind of whittleled it down to these uh three. >> If you could u forward that information
along, that would be Yeah, that would definitely be. I have one question too. Is that is that Lighthouse Nursing Home in on the Proctor AV? >> Yes. >> Was there any coordination with them? >> Yes. Um, one of our team members, I believe she had gotten in touch with him recently, the director over there at the
rehab center, but I know that was a concern of um, Abdazak, who's the point of contact I've been working with, but he wanted to make sure that they were aware because this is in front of their facility and >> they were in favor of this. >> I would have to double check because this is like a recent conversation they
had. Yeah. Um I don't have any more questions that but that information >> move this to a public hearing anyways to designate these restricted parking spaces and determine what window we're going to >> Are you guys even are you guys at that
point yet or is this justformational? >> Uh we'd be looking to move forward with procurement and permitting and all that stuff soon. Yeah. So we're just trying to get all the final approvals within the the city. >> Okay. Um >> Mr. Chairman, one more question. Um,
what are the what are the size of the spots that are being utilized? So, if you have a pedestal that has two um charging units and then you have another one that has two, are you are you designing them for,
you know, 18 foot spots or 16 foot spots? What's the what's the standard that you're using? So, at the stations that we were, you know, requested for these projects, um, they have a cable management system that, you know, retracts the cables up to like the top of this kind of post and they've reach I
think the extended cords go about 25 ft. So, if your, you know, charging port on your vehicle is on one side of the space or the other, you'd still be able to kind of extend it over to reach. >> What's the size of the spot though for spacing wise? Like if you have, let's
say, four spots that you're going to take up on a street, how much of that curb line is actually being? >> Uh, I think we were going with 20 ft, but we can make it whatever you guys need. Um, you know, just whatever your standard is for a on street parking
space and we wouldn't have any issues with the chargers kind of reaching. >> Thank you. Um, I would like to try to solidify what this would look like. If we're going to go with, would you say the minimum was 10 hours?
>> 12 hours. >> 12 hours. Or if we would go with full EV, I think that's something that we have to have an internal discussion with. And it'd be nice to have that uh the survey data before we >> throw this into a public hearing.
Any disagreements there? >> Mr. Chairman, I would agree with uh looking at uh partial, you know, maybe the 12 hours. I know it's a minimum, but maybe that's also a maximum and that's only concerned for overnight um you
know, parking other vehicles, you know, residents and things like that. >> I just want to see these surveys and make sure everyone's on board with these before we go and install something that's >> I I don't I'm not saying it would be underutilized, but could potentially be underutilized and would have to have a lot of
I mean, we'd be maintaining these from here on out. So, I just want to make sure these are appropriate and everyone's these are going to be used well. Otherwise, I'm not against it. All right. Yeah. Uh motion to table the item until
we can um actually conclude what this will what this change will actually look like on paper. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I make a motion to table um until we are able to uh receive some
additional information as described. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? All those opposed. >> It's not on the agenda, so we'll table it. >> Thank you. Thank you for your time.
Perfect. And that concludes tonight's agenda. Um Motion tojourn. Is there a second? >> Approved. Good night everyone.