Good evening everyone. Um, welcome to tonight's May 15th uh, traffic commission. Would everyone mind please standing for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge 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. Um, the only person absent from tonight is Frank Stringy from Community
Development. Other than that, we have a quorum, so we can proceed. Our first item in the public hearing is the metering of um 17 public parking spaces designated for public use at the Gibson
Apartments. So this is up open for public hearing. Anyone would like to speak as a proponent or opponent of this? Zachary Babo, director of parking, 281 Broadway. Um, so I this came up as the development of Gibson Point looked
for additional conservation land to build out their parking lot. They petitioned at the state level. The state approved us, but with it being approved, they were to provide us with 18 public parking spaces. Um, this was a negotiated term between them and DPCD
with the approval of the state. And there's a restaurant opening up at the bottom of this building where the restaurant is going to need parking. Um, and that's what these spots are for, not only for the restaurant, for any member of the public that wants to view the pair and the conservation area over there. And I am supportive of this. I
think it's a benefit to both the city of River and this piece of property. Um, as well as honestly, it's a win-win. The development's willing to pay for the the materials, the meters themselves to be placed here. Um, if that if there were to be a public space in the future, and
the city is able to reap the rewards of that. I don't see how this is a a bad thing at all. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh Baba, would you one one quick question? Is there more than 17 public parking spaces or are there only 17? 17 public. Everything else is owned by the
private building itself. Understood. Thank you. Just to explain, this area wasn't um developable um until there was a special permit provided by the state, but there were certain parameters this building has to follow through with in order to have these as public parking spaces for their building. Okay.
Thank you. Any other proponents or opponents? Seeing and hearing none, any comments from the commission? No. Well, in that case, I I recommend motion to approve. I think
this is necessary measure to keep those parking spaces open so there's people can utilize the parking for the restaurant and whatever may be down there. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? I I. All
those opposed. Motion has passed. Item number two for public hearing is a request to change the speed of the following. Campbell A, both directions from Centennial A to River Beach Parkway. Change of speed
from 25 miles per hour to 20. Are there any proponents or opponents for this councelor? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Iron Novaski, 53D home street 2 counselor. Uh, I'm requesting this as a
um request for my constituents that live on Camelav. Um, and Campbell Lav is a pass through for cars avoiding Northshore Road down by the Sonokco station because of the lights and it's always backed up there and people are flying down that street.
Um, I happen to be at the construction site, you know, with the Mccurio's building and I was with an officer and some car came by. He was going 50 miles an hour and he was going so fast the cop couldn't get the information from this car. He went
by so fast. So, and he said, "Why is speeding why is everybody speeding?" Because they want to speed. Um, so, you know, I've spoken to some of the uh residents and they would like to see the speed reduced. And if you go into the police records over the last three
years, there's been 11 accidents on the lower going down on the hill part of of Campbell A with multiple vehicles being damaged. The last one being a flip over right by around 48
Campbell av. So people want this and we'd appreciate if you can go to mass dot and see if we can get this uh speed limit reduced to 20 miles an hour. Thank you. Thank you. Any other proponents
opponents? Council, are they just quickly if through the other traffic calming measures would 25 miles per hour be acceptable? Is it because you like people are speeding currently? So if they were at 25, would that make the
residents happy or would we you still 20 is the what they would? Still the 20 with the speed coming. Okay. Issues that are going to be requested. I gotcha. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Commission, do we have any input on
this? Yeah. Yeah. Understand that this still has to be You could make the speed limit 5 miles an hour and people are still going to speed. So, I mean, I don't know that, you know, whatever the road is designed to the speed that's designed to hold is is the is what they make the the
uh the limit at. Correct. Agreed. But we still don't have the authority to make this change regardless. It has to go to MASDOT for a what is it called? A speed limit review from them before we could even put this into effect. So, I'm sorry. Correct. Correct.
And uh and and the thing is even the machines that are set for the 20 or 25 miles an hour to check the speed limits, you know, that may change, but I don't suspect that's going to change before we get to the uh the speed calming
issues, you know, as as far as lowering it because when they set the machine, they set it for 25 miles an hour if it's 25 on the street or they set it for 20 miles an hour if it's 20 miles on an hour on the street. Okay. But just for clarification for the traffic calming
measures, I believe we should set it at 25 for the speeding. I I don't want to estimate. I don't want to have the posted speed limit be 25 and then do the traffic calming study as if it should be 20. Do you know what I'm saying? I And I know exactly what you mean. I don't
expect this is going to be changed by mass dot so quickly. I think we're going to come first on doing our thing. Agreed. So we, you know, use it, use it as the 25. Okay. Well, it it can't hurt to send a submission to MASDOT, although
we have to we have to consider what measures we end up putting in place for the traffic calming study that was also submitted. So yeah. Well, basically, you know, we're either going to put more speed bumps in or we're not or we're going to put some other measures in.
Yeah. So, understood. Commissioner, you have any other thoughts, Mr. Chairman? Uh just a question. Um is it appropriate for us to approve prior to u masdot? Uh in other words, would they
require a change or a um adjustment by the city prior to their consideration or is it we can't make any change until mass dot approves this? Understood. But will
Masdot not think not consider it unless the city already has that uh kind of in place or are we putting the card before the horse here? I don't think so. I don't think we can make any change until Masdot approves it at all. So So then
this this needs to be tabled at this point. No, we can we can table it and send it to Mass for approval and then bring it back up if it gets approved by Mass Do. Yeah, if I may remain, Mr. Chairman, from what I read, Mass Start, in order for them to proceed, have to get approval from the
city that we will that they want. So, that that's my question. Do we do we have to show that we're in the process of implementation um before they'll consider it or is it a situation where we request it and they approve it and then we implement it?
Sounds like they want to have our first approval first. They want what we're requesting to change. So if we want to change it to 20 m per hour, we have to submit that to mass dot and they have to approve it before we can enact the 20 m per hour change. Understood. So I agree.
We can't go through with approving this until we get the okay for mass. Well, actually Mass is looking for your approval before they start. Yeah, understood. But we can't change it
on the books. No, no, no, no, no. But we we're saying we you're approving it pending pending consideration from mass dot. Yes, that's that's that's fair. So it's really an it's an approval with implementation to be contingent upon
mass. Yes. Correct. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve um this change uh with the implementation being contingent upon um application and approval by Masdot. Thank you. Is there a second? A second.
All those in favor? I I. All those opposed. Thank you. So we can move forward with the submittal to mass dot but we cannot change any language contingent on their approval. Thank you everyone. Item
number three to amend schedule 19 on street parking meter zones by adding a decent amount of spaces. We have four on Dion, 12 on Northshore Road, 12
on Shirley, two on Oh, yep. That's all. I'm sorry. The other section is removed. Well, it's just a switch of Let me just read them all. Four spaces
on Dehon Street. Northshore Road direction Easterly from Centennial to Shirley approximately 12 spaces. Shirley A northernly from 72
Shirley A to Walnut A approximately 12 spaces. And then they would be removing Shirley A from 75 Shirley A. Two parking spaces, two 15 minute spaces. Shirley A. Oh, that's the same
one. Shirley A northerly from at 158 Shirley a 15-minute parking only. 102 Shirley A 15minute parking Centennial A Northern Leafly Northshore Road 30 ft
east 1 hour parking Northshore Road Eastly Centennial 154 Northshore Road to the north end of the property line two-hour parking all right so there's a decent
amount of changes here counselor I was informed that you wanted to have a public meeting with the residents over there before. Yes. Um and I mentioned this for the parking director that before this got approved, I wanted to have a neighborhood meeting, but I didn't have
it in this format, you know, be so to be able to put it together in my head uh because there's a lot there's a lot involved here and there's even some things that may be missing that may have to be added uh before we finalize this whole thing.
So, you know, I'm uh some people want the meters, some people don't. Some people don't realize that, you know, we're getting rid of the 15minute parking and putting in the 15minute button on the meter. So, that's what we want to explain to the people what the what's happening.
And [Music] um so that that's for that for number four. So I'm asking that be tabled and uh be for your next meeting and I will have a uh community meeting within the next two weeks. Okay. So that is for public it uh public hearing number three
and four and I would tend to agree with you. The more information we can get out to the residents before we move forward with something like this the better. Mr. Chairman, yes. make a motion to table both items three and four um in an effort to allow the ward
counselor to have a meeting with the residents uh and table to our next meeting uh next month. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? I I thank
you gentlemen. Appreciate it. Item number three and four will be tabled to our next hearing. Of course. Um, so just quick question on the last item. Um, do we know when the next scheduled meeting is or when we plan on having the next schedule track? Only
reason why is June. There was an essence of time with this because there is money a part of DPCD a grant um that is set to expire by June 30th that the funds aren't expun expended. Um, so my only concern is if we don't have a traffic commission meeting to kind of hash this out before that June 30th date, uh, the
product would need to be purchased and I believe installed to cover the grant. June 20th. June 20th. Director Ava, do you think that would be acceptable? 20th. I would have to I would defer to Tom if that would be appropriate. Um, but may I don't know if
Julie from DPCD may have more information on that grant if the June 20th is a little bit of a tight timeline on this item. Um, maybe she can help us out. The CBD next meeting that we're having June 20th. It's so actually the next meeting
is scheduled for June 19th which we are not avail we're not open that day so we should probably set a meeting date for the next meeting is Junth Junth is the 19th right Junth
I'm not aware we can do a week before or a week actually a week after maybe that'll give us four weeks after would conflict with what director Babo just stated about the funding. So, we should probably move it forward. Okay.
I would request for the 12th just to Yeah. June 12th. Give us enough time to Tom to make sure that grant can be secured and used appropriately. Understood. Thank you. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. All right. Moving
forward. I believe that wraps up our public hearings. The next item would be item number one of the proposals to re to follow I'm sorry. The following new and proposed multif family residential developments shall be
included under section 1034.020 020 as non-eligible for residential parking stickers. 8 Avon Amaya at Suffach Towns 650 Beach 51 to 53
Centennial 21 Green Street 1510 Northshore Road 1499 Northshore Road 1198 Northshore Road 1473 Northshore Road 110 Ocean A 100 River Street 571
River Street 8 River Street 451 River Beach Boulevard 459 River Beach Boulevard, 37 River Beach Boulevard, 133 Salem Street, 163 Shirley A, 38 Walnut A, and 55
Walnut A. Now, if I'm not mistaken, this is due to the approval for these properties to be developed without the ability to park with residential stickers. So, this is more of a clerical cleaning up the books
type of item. Are there any proponents or opponents to this? Mr. Chairman, just a point of information. Some of these properties are yet to be built. Understood. Understood. But they are
currently in development. They're in various various stages of development. Correct. Mr. Chairman, if you want, you can blame me for this. I reached out to Frank Stringy and just asked to be updated on any uh properties that were either came online recently or set to come online that fall under the no
parking uh variance meaning no permits just to make sure that we enter these addresses appropriate in my system as sometimes we find out 6 months after the buildings are already completed occupied and somebody might have fooled something into my computer system and got a permit through. So this was more of me getting ahead of the game and I think when I
asked Frank he realized it had to come in front of you guys just in case uh just for confirmation. Uh, so that's why this is here and we're asking for a public hearing on this item. Thank you very much. All right. I tend to agree with
Director Babo and Frank on this. It is probably the right move to get these ahead of time before we these get occupancy and then these residents move in are able to obtain parking if they're not allowed to in their lease. Counselor. Yeah, most most of these are
already done. I know like uh 51 53 Centennial Lav is is not even constructed yet. You know what they want to do? They're adding six units. It's part of a seven unit building and they're adding six units. So that's why they want to he wants to increase say
put them on a different list. Correct. But they would not be eligible for on street parking. Correct. That's correct. Okay. That's correct. You know, they're basically losing it. They're going to have parking underneath the new construction. Okay. On site. On site.
Perfect. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, another point of information, 21 Green Street, um, once constructed will be known as 349 Lee Burbank Highway. Good to know. So, we can make that correction.
349 Lee Burvank. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 163 Shirley A third one from the bottom. Um that project was uh fell apart. So they're they're not doing it right now. It's still two stores and
it won't it won't be built. Do they have a a approved building permit? They they got they got u they got approval from the council or the CBA, but what happened? It's over two years ago and they haven't done anything with it.
Okay. So, that that's not that property is not going to be constructed at all unless they come in for re a revision on it. All right. It might be good just to add it to the book now in case it gets transferred in ownership and somebody starts to move forward with the project.
That's fine. It just, you know, gives gives more reason to restrict them to their height because it was reduced to a four four floor. Okay. Building. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, there's some concern about including that one only because
if if it doesn't move forward within the next year, then doesn't that put in jeopardy the people that living there having trouble getting a permit if it's just a two family right now? Is that the Shirley A? It's not a two
family. It's a retail store. Okay. Okay, my mistake. Okay, in that in light of that, I think we should just move forward with if there's an open building permit
or rather have it covered if it's if it has been approved. All right, council. Any motion to approve? Move this to a public hearing. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to move um these addresses uh to public hearing.
Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed. Move to public hearing. All right. And item number two is a request from councelor Kaggleandro
to place do not enter residentonly sign at the beginning of 18 Rosetti Street and 19 Rosetti Street. Oh, I believe that's right past
the commercial portion of that street. Yes. And then Prince Street due to vehicle using street to park all day and night. Any comments, proponents, opponents? Just more points of information. Um,
respect to the council. He's trying hard for his constituents. He's getting creative and trying to find different ways to protect that area as it's an influx. It has seen an influx of vehicles due to the construction in the zone. And to confirm what you said, yes, 19 Rosetti would start after that parking lot of uh the May Institute and
the auto body to the left side. That's where the residential would pick up. Um, just points of clarification. I'm not a proponent or an opponent for this, but just wanted to reassure you. Yes, that is after the parking lot. Okay. Well, me myself, I'm not completely opposed, but
I don't believe we have any way to enforce a measure like this. Mr. Chairman, um, I think that the request uh is slightly uh inaccurate. I don't think that a do not enter is
really appropriate. I think it's more of a parking restriction uh that needs to be implemented. Um I would agree. I don't know how you wouldn't prevent people from driving, you know, down that street if they weren't a resident. Parking, I
think, is the concern, not the the entrance, so to speak. Okay. So, maybe a more proper um item would be to We move this to a 24-hour residenton only parking for these two streets. Does
that make more sense? I would think that that does make more sense. Um, all right. Well, if that's the case, we can move this to a public
hearing as resident only parking 24 hours because I believe it is already resident only at night. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to um move this to a public hearing with the as
amended to remove the do not enter and uh instead implement a 24hour resident parking. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? I. All those
opposed move to a public hearing. Although it is amended to a 24hour u resident parking only from 18 Rosetti. I don't want to disturb the
um the auto body shop or the the institute down there. Item number three is to amend schedule 11 of title 10 handicap person parking by adding 35 Fernwood A and 11 Wave
A. Okay. I believe has there been a submitted handicap? Okay. Well, we need the information to go to public hearing. Okay. I suggest we table this until we
actually receive the handicap application. Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a motion to table both um until we receive uh the application as stated. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? I I All
those opposed. That agenda item will be tabled. Thank you. Item number four, Department of Planning and Community Development would like to present the traffic calming, I'm sorry, the traffic commission. This present to the traffic commission the city's
traffic working group findings for Mill Street, Charger Street, Proctor at Adam Street, and the group. Oh yeah, Proctor again. Julie. Okay. Uh Julie Dearo,
Department of Planning and Community Development. So, what I'm going to be, we're going to take each uh street one by one. So, we have received several petition. Um the first one we're going to start off with Mill Street. Um this was a petition that was put in by
councelor uh McKenna and um so we put the boards out there and what we found that there was the um 85% tile speed did not exceed the speed limit. So there would be no
traffic calming measures for that street. Um we're not suggesting anything. Maybe the VI Police Department could do some driver education, driver enforcement, slow speeds. Um the second one is Charger Street. So this was the
petition that was put in by a resident. Um they followed they have 10 uh residents also on the street that are supporting this petition. We collect data at 52 Charger Street and 181 Charger Street.
Um and it was found that there is speeding um and that we are recommending that a flashing speed sign be placed on Charger Street. Um and then we are also recommending and this would be have the second part of this recommendation would
have to go to a public hearing. We're recommending putting a stop sign on Charger Street at the Grover Street um intersection. There's already one on Grover Street heading out to Charger, but there is not one right before Grover
Street um at Charger. So, that is what we found. Um what really is needed here is sidewalk reconstruction work. Um and that is we're gonna we're going to use these um tools that we have right now.
And then if that doesn't curb the speeding, we will look into um chapter 90 or complete streets or something like that to reconstruct the sidewalks, narrow the roadway. So for tonight um we are requesting a public hearing to
install a stop sign at the intersection of Charger Street at Grover. councilors, I'm sorry, commissioners, would you guys like to uh weigh in on that? I believe that this
should move forward to a public hearing. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Any proponents opponents? I'm a proponent, right? Okay. Yeah. I'm Christine Robertson. I live at 187 Charger Street. I'm here to support the petition that was submitted several
months ago to Mr. tomorrow. The transportation coordinator for the city requesting a speed bump to be placed on Charger Street. Actually, our neighborhood was the first petition to be filed with Miss Dearo. Although the speed bump will not stop the everinccreasing traffic on the
street, I believe there is data to show the extreme number of cars that utilize this residential street daily. It may well slow down the speed sters heading for the light at the intersection of Charger and Squire Road. I'm sure that many of you are familiar with this street and some of you may use it on a daily basis when you are going to the
shopping center or to the cityard or to the commercial end of Charger Street. My hope is that you will approve this petition and place the badly needed speed bump on Charger Street to help alleviate the speeding and perhaps encourage drivers, especially the truck drivers. We get 18 wheelers all the time
to use Squire Road to get to their destination and not cut through a residential neighborhood. Thank you for listening and your consideration and thank you Mr. tomorrow for your help. Thank you. I was not at the working group meeting, but I think the group decided that a
speed bump would not be would not work there because of the number of vehicles. I mean, we're exceeding 20,000 cars a day. Um, and we're we're most of those cars. So, you have that first stretch of roadway, there's only like 13,000. But
that Rumny Road, that right from Rumny, the left from Grover contributed to an additional 7,000 cars. That's quite a bit. Um, so I think I think let's try this. Let's see what happens. If not, I think the the real the next step is for
us to really look at sidewalks. I have to tell you in all honesty, we have a very wide driveway and my h we usually park in the driveway. My husband has been parking one of the cars on the street because the guy across the parks and it has slowed them down tremendously
because they can't there's no two lanes they come down two at a time has slowed them down a lot and I hate to do that because I'm sorry but yeah so if you so what as I said my husband has been parking on the street because our
neighbor parks across the street and it has slowed the traffic down slowed the speeders down considerably because they can't come down two at a time anymore but the issue is is he's already had one of his the driver side mirror smashed because of being parked on the street.
So, you take the good and the bad, I guess, is what you do. But, um, any help, we'll take any help at this point because 20,000 is what you saw, but believe me, there's much more. We've lived there for
45 years and basing it off the counter that we have. Yeah. Because of course, as soon as they see those counters, they slow right down because they see the number flashing. But thank you. Thank you. And I definitely agree. There's definitely a volume problem on that street. There's a lot of traffic.
So, do we want to So, I guess my next request would be uh I'm seeking a request for a public hearing for stop sign at Charger at Grover for the next meeting. Yep. I'm in support of that. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to
move the request for a stop sign on um Charger at Grover to a public hearing. Thank you. Is there a second? Okay. Second. Thank you. All those in favor? I. All those opposed.
And then move to public hearing. Then our second um petition what happened in my sheet has to do with procra. Um, so Proctor A is a two-cart project. We had a resident
reach out to us before the traffic working group was actually established um, seeking some speed relief at the southern end of Proctor AB, around 25 Proctor AB. We found there was no violation of the speed there. Um, he
sent in another request and we honored it. We brought um, the speedboards out. We put them out at Proctor at Adams both uh west and eastbound. Um and we did find that there was speeding at this location. The 85% speed exceeded the
speed limit at both the locations. So what um the location also met other criteria because it's right near the um River Housing Authority senior housing. There's a senior housing there and there's also daycare. Um so that gave it
a few more points. So, what we are recommending is that a speed hump be placed west of Smith Street and a stop sign at B Street. So, we are requesting a public hearing for the next meeting to
put in a speed hump west of Smith Street and a stop sign at B Street. Thank you very much. Um, as part of the being part of the traffic calming commission, I do
agree with this move. There is a decent speeding problem on Proctor A. So, I think these measures would definitely help out. Commission, do we have any motion to approve? A motion to send
a public hearing. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Hi. All right. Proctor and Adam Street, the installation of a speed hump in a stop
sign at B Street. We'll move to a public hearing. Is that all? Yep. All right. We just the last item is that um in the midst of reviewing the items we talked about tonight, we got a petition from a
resident in councelor Novascowski's ward. Um I don't like to use people's names even though this is public record, but this resident did get 10 signatures, household signatures. They're looking to do um a traffic calming study between 79
and 8 Campbell a um on the downhill area heading towards Riviera Beach Parkway. Um so we are going to be placing the boards out there next week. Um and uh we if I hopefully by then I'll have the
information and I'll bring it back to this commission to tell you what we found there. Okay. So that's just really just an just a to let you know that's the next project that we'll be reviewing. Ira, do you want to talk? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Iron Novaski, 53 Deon Street Board 2 counselor. Uh this is a request that I had from the neighbors like Julie mentioned and um I told them what they had to do and this is what we're doing to see what we can done do to try and slow down traffic
besides slowing down the speed limits. So appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Um, thank you very much. So this does not need our approval to go to the traffic caling policy. So I'm sorry, the traffic working
group. When when that report is complete, we can then move forward in whichever way they decide. I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda. Is there a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. Second.
Thank you.