Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the May 21st Traffic Commission. Everyone, let's rise for the pledge of >> 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. Unfortunately, our clerk Lori is out tonight, but we have a quorum and everyone else is in attendance, so we
can begin. We'll start off with our public hearings. Item number one, amend title 10 of the revised ordinance of the city of River. The object of these updates is to provide vendors and members of the public with definite unambiguous
ordinance language that can be accurately mapped to their corresponding violation. These amendments do not propose in new prohibit prohibitations, increased fines, or changes to existing parking restrictions.
Director Babo. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, as I was before you last month, this is more of a housekeeping item to make sure that our ambiguous language is cleaned up and clear. Um, some old old pieces of language in there such as
hacknes that no longer exist. There's no horse and buggies in the city. Um, and some other things as we dive into our new modern appeal process and try to provide um upfront reason behind any upheld violation. We wanted to make sure that those reasons were crystal clear
and understood for anyone that read them. >> Thank you. >> Happy to answer any questions for any member of the commission. >> No, I reviewed it. It seemed pretty straightforward. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Did anyone else like to comment before we open the floor?
No. Are there any other proponents for this change? Seeing hearing none, any opponents to this motion? Seeing hearing none,
with that said, um I would like to entertain a motion to approve public hearing item number one. >> Mr. Chairman, I did look through uh what was presented by Director Babau and um >> I agree. I don't see anything that is uh
going to change. It's more of a housekeeping. um endeavor. And so with that, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed. Public hearing item number one has been
approved. Moving on. Item number two, amend schedule 11 of title 10 handicapped persons parking by adding 54 Carlson Avenue. Are there any proponents on this matter?
Thank you, sir. Just name and rec um name and address for the record, please. >> Sure. Richard Serino, number 50, Carlson, here in support. Uh basically, I'm a direct to butter. It's the house right next door. Uh the handicap spot would be for my grandmother who lives in the apartment uh downstairs next door.
And there was a handicap spot there with the previous owner of the home and the previous tenant. So it should be pretty straightforward. But the main issue is that the driveway is on the opposite side of the house as I left some photos for you guys on your um deis. U the driveway is up a hill compared to like
the front of the house right kind of at the base of the hill and her walkway is right there on the left. So, if she were in the driveway, she would have to come all the way around the house and uh it would just be easier. She has some ambulatory issues if she were parked right in front. So, thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other proponents? Seeing hearing none, any opponents to this item? Seeing hearing none, commission? >> Motion to approve. >> Thank you. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed. Item number two on the public hearings will be approved. Thank you. Item number three, amend
schedule 8 parking restrictions generally by generally of the revised ordinance of the city of River is hereby amending by inserting the following. Rivere street easterly from Belleview to Northshore Road. No parking anytime.
Is there anyone like to speak on the Thank you. Council lady Angela Goa W five. Um we we mostly discussed it last month. Um I think it's just the easiest way to let
the traffic flow a little bit better. Um there's about four maybe five cars parked there sometimes um during the day. Mhm. >> And if they were not there, the traffic can take the right easily and go
straight and then the other lane which is designated to take only a left turn can do can take that left turn. So if possible, I would really appreciate this council even if we try it and see what happens. We can do like a 90-day trial
or something and see if it does flow better and we get if we get a lot of feedback from the neighborhood that they don't want it then we can always revert back. It's up to this um >> I think that's actually a good idea. I
would like to see this in effect. I I think it would help out with traffic on River Street and that is a major issue in the area. Granted, I don't like taking away parking when we can, but this does seem important. Um,
>> it'll just make it go faster. >> I think we should just approve it if there is any issues further down the road. I mean, we can if anyone likes to I I don't see the issue with this being on the books. I really don't. I think it'll just improve traffic drastically, but
>> I agree. >> Commission, >> it's a public hearing, correct? Oh yeah, I'm sorry. Well, are there any other proponents on this item? >> Apologies. >> Good afternoon, gentlemen. Iron Novaski,
53 Dehorn Street, W 2 counselor. I know this isn't my neighborhood, but uh I think it's a good idea uh least to try it for, you know, through over the summer. M >> uh the most I've ever seen there is maybe three cars and it is it would be
convenient to allow the cars because to be able to take that right turn at Nasha Road. I know they I don't know if they can take a turn on red uh at that location, but >> at least they could queue up. >> Exactly. Exactly. Because there's some
cars that maybe five or six cars behind that can't make that little turn. >> Exactly. >> So I think it's a good idea and we'll try it out. See how it works. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other proponents? >> Director Babbo,
>> thank you. Um, just curious, was there any community engagement beforehand? Was any alert to the residents about removing parking to see if they thought that they would rather get home faster than be able to park somewhere? I just don't want to see >> be on the public notice. I don't believe so. I just don't want to see us removing
15 spaces without engaging the community prior. >> 15? >> Yeah, it's about 15 spaces you can fit over there between that bus stop and the last parking space right before Ford Street. >> I didn't measure it out, but you believe
it's 15 9. So, it's 18 by 15 >> 18 by want to measure it out. >> 18 by 8. And then just on top of besides the parking with the the ability to queue up, does that mean there should be a
second look maybe at the light signalization to move those along? Um, as the left-hand turn lane kicks out right around Ford Street to allow that left hand to queue up, it is narrow beforehand. So, if you do have six or
seven cars queued up for the left-hand turn, it is going to stop the ability to queue up the other side. I don't think the the double lane really opens up until the last section of this intersection closest to Ford forward. So, it only allows so many cars to queue up on the lefth hand turn lane. And if
you can't open that space up more, then that backlog is still going to continue. >> Then how is it if there's parking? There's currently parking and there's a lane, right? So, wouldn't that theoretically show two lanes? But also there's only this there said to only be three cars that have been parking there.
So three cars have been disrupting the travel lane. >> Yes. If they if it's one lane travel lane, if you remove the parking, there could potentially be two lanes of travel lane. >> That that makes sense. >> I just I just think removing the parking without looking at anything else in here
is a little bit um >> like what are the recommendations? >> Whether the I'm I'm only looking from the parking side. Well, I'm only I can only trying to speak from the parking side, but I can see how that that double yellow line is not even throughout. So, I'm just curious on what the the lane
width is there that can you fit do you have 40 ft of room to fit two cars side by side to queue all the way down to that light? My issue is I see people going over the double yellow line to get into the lefthand turning lane. That's what that's what I see often is people
queuing up and they're waiting cuz the the left-hand turn allows you to go >> and no one can go straight through the intersection yet. So people veer off into the oncoming traffic to get around and take that left. >> So if we can stop that, I think it's a good idea. >> Absolutely.
>> That's that's all I >> had in mind. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Any other proponents? Seeing hearing none any opponents to this guess not
commission do we have any input on this >> Mr. Chairman, just a point of information um to roughly 300 ft >> from um Ford Street to the beginning of the uh bus stop.
>> Um there are a handful of driveways in there. Um if there weren't, you probably get about 15 cars, but I think because of the driveways, it's probably something less than that. You know, 10, you know, eight, 10, something like that. Um so it's a significant amount that you're that you're missing. Um,
based on just my, you know, quick cursory look, I think there is enough width, uh, to have the two lanes queued up next to each other, you know, as long as, you know, there isn't an Amazon truck, you know, stopped or something like that. >> Um,
>> and so I think that from a geometry u standpoint, it it works. Um, I do also share some concern with director Babau about uh losing parking just because it is at a premium. um in in the city. Um
but I would agree that if we were to um implement this as uh you know a trial basis, let's say 90 days, um I think that uh would be the appropriate uh path forward. >> Okay. So would you guys like to amend the item number three to just a trial
basis? >> Were we to implement a trial? Um, I think my only reservation would be I' I'd want to have data that we looked at where we were at before and after. So, I don't know um when the effective date
would be, but I would like it to be far enough away that we could actually get somebody to go out and do some level of service counts in the intersection, which I think we could do through our on call. Um, so we could see a before after and see if if this is all worth it ultimately. I do chair some of um the
parking director's concerns about taking away parking where there isn't much available. But I think if we ran a good pilot and tested this out and and and also then in that ensuing period heard from the community, I would be in support of doing something.
>> The only other concern I think I have is I'm afraid that we might lapse from like in between the when the school gets out. So, I think that might kind of convolute the data a little bit.
It's a fair point. Um, I mean, if if we were to schedule this, say, two weeks out, I think we could get counts between now and then. Okay. >> Um, and then we would just have to implement counts immediately thereafter,
and we could probably fit it in before schools close. >> Okay. I do think that will change the outlook. >> I think that's a good idea. >> All right. I I do understand director Babau's issues with the parking and yes,
parking is something you never want to take away, but River Street is does back up quite frequently. And if there's a way we can fix that, I think we kind of have to. All right. So, is there a motion on the floor? Anyone?
>> Mr. Chairman. Um I will make a motion to uh approve uh with the amendment that um uh Commissioner Skowski um stated and also with the amendment that it is uh on a trial basis. >> So what would you like? We'll put on the
record 90-day trial basis. >> I think you have a counts for a total of 30 days, two weeks and two weeks and then a total of 90 days for trial. >> Okay. Yes. And if it doesn't benefit, if the counts don't work out in favor,
we'll just remove >> if there isn't the whole project, >> right? If there isn't significant improvement. >> Okay. >> Then >> All right. I think that's a good idea. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor? >> I.
>> All those opposed. All right. Item number three with the amendment is approved. Thank you everyone. Moving on to item number four. Amend schedule five of title 10 one-way
streets by adding actually I apologize. Four and five go hand in hand, I believe. So four and five. Amend schedule five. Amend schedule five of title 10 one-way streets by adding Genese Street northbound
from I'm sorry to Mountain A one way also Furnace Street southbound to Park A one way. Is there any public comment on behalf of this? >> Thank you councelor.
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman, members, Paul Aenzio, 245 Reservoir Avenue. I'm the wad 4 counselor that represents this area. Uh when this was proposed, I went and I passed out a flyer to everybody on Jennese and Furnace. I gave you a copy of it, uh so you could look at it and
some people in Park and Mountain. Uh I did get some feedback. All of it was positive. Uh everyone was in favor of the one-way streets. Um they thought it was a great idea. They like the idea that the rest of the streets uh prior to
them were one way and they uh appreciated u following along with their streets. Um I did get a little uh feedback from the people on Jenna C Street that felt that there was a lot of speeding. Um so a resident initiated a
petition uh to go through the process of seeing if a speed bump is warranted. I believe that's in your packet, but I did send it um to the traffic working group on Tuesday. Uh that obviously is a separate issue, but uh when that can be addressed
or looked at, I would appreciate it. But I uh urge uh urge you to approve this and the uh neighborhood's looking forward to it. >> Awesome. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Are there any other proponents on this item? Seeing hearing none, any opponents to
this item? Seeing and hearing none, with the councelor's blessing, I would recommend a motion to approve item number four and five. >> Mr. Chairman, um I echo the sentiments
of Councelor Aenzio. Um I think um this is appropriate and um will benefit uh the neighborhood. And with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve uh both four and five of our public hearings. >> Thank you. Is there a second?
Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? >> Items number four and five have been approved. Item number six, amend schedule four of title 10 isolated stop signs by adding
the following. Walnut Place westbound Sumar stop sign councelor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, um knowing this area, people the small street. It's a small street holding in
place and people are flying actually flying down it and taking a turn onto some street. So trying to slow them down and at least they have to hopefully they'll stop, but at least there'll be a stop sign there to prevent any potential
accidents. So and that's going from um from Walnav to S Street. >> Thank you, counselor. >> Okay. I actually I have no issue with number
six. I think that's a fair ask. Are there any other proponents? Seeing and hearing none. Any opponents to item number six? Seeing and hearing none.
>> Commissioner, we had done uh speed studies after the council had submitted a petition um and it found that it well it didn't meet the criteria for speeding, weather and volume or 85th percentile speed. This could be one of the secondary measures we could take to
ensure any other speeding issues would be covered. So, I'm certainly in support of this. >> Thank you. >> I motion to approve. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I I >> All those opposed?
Item number seven has been approved. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. Item number six. Whoa. Getting ahead of myself. All right. Amend schedule I'm sorry. Item number seven. Amend schedule four of title 10 isolated stop signs by
adding the following. Overlook drive. I'm sorry. Overlook A eastbound at Campbell A stop sign. Councelor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um again, Iron Overski 53 Deorn Street. Uh again, this
is a T intersection and uh people are coming out of uh Overlook onto Campbell and sometimes the cars parked in the corner, you can't see them coming down the street. So, I'd rather have them stopping at that location. It is a tea location. It's not a big intersection,
but again, rather be safe than sorry. And I know we're going to be uh repaving that sometime this summer. >> Yep. And um I think it would be good good time to put in the stop sign there. >> Well, I would agree with you that people
do go down Campbell without seeing the entrance to overlook. So, >> right, >> it's fair. >> Any other proponents? Any opponents? No. Commission?
>> Uh Mr. Chairman? >> Yes. Um it's amazing to me that anybody would approach a inter intersection like this without stopping. >> Yeah. >> Turning. Um >> and so I would say that a uh stop sign
is absolutely um required here and I'll make a motion to approve. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> No. No second. Second. Thank you. All those in favor. All those opposed. Item number seven approved.
Item number eight, amend schedule 4 of title 10 handicap persons parking by removing 54 Eastern Avenue. I believe this came from um Ralph Chico,
the disabilities commission, and he stated this is no longer in use, if I recall correctly. Um are there any proponents for this? Seeing none, are there any opponents to
removing this sign? Seeing none commission >> motion to approve. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. Thank you. Item number eight is approved. All right, on to the agenda items.
Agenda item number one, amend schedule 11 of title 10, handicap purses parking by adding 77 Reservoir Avenue. There are no proponents. Are there anyone here to speak on this? No. No
proponents. Any opponents? I'm sorry. This isn't public hearing, but um no, it's the agenda. I apologize. The request comes due to I believe they have a quasi driveway in the front of the
home and they're being ticketed for blocking the sidewalk. So, I know um Mr. Chico wrote that they did have a driveway, but technically they do not
have a driveway you can park legally, if that makes any sense, >> Mr. Chairman. >> You did. >> Yes. >> Is this um on and can we confirm this is on the side
of reservoir as you're going down towards Broadway? It's on the left. Is that correct? Yes, it's on the park side with no parking. >> Okay, that's So the handicap spot would be across the street. >> It would have to be correct. >> Thank you. >> All right.
I I think it is. They also cited that there have been other locations in the city that has been allowed to have parking on the opposite side of the street when there's not been a driveway. I think they cited two separate cases. Um, I have no issue with pushing this
forward to a public hearing. If anyone like to motion >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor? All those opposed? Item number one, move to a public
hearing. All right. Item number I'm skipping item number two. I believe it was a mistake that did not get pushed over to the public hearing. Item number three, amend schedule 8 section 1099.080
parking restrictions generally by adding Enzy Street Westerly from Halman to Sullivan Street. No parking anytime. Is there anyone here to speak on this one? No. I think this came from um councelor
Cogleandro. Um and there's a note that all properties have a driveway on the opposite side of the road. I am just unsure why we're trying to restrict the parking here, but um maybe we could move this to a public
hearing and just allow the counselor and whoever else would like to speak on this the ability to do so unless anyone else has any other comments. >> Mr. Chairman, is this just the piece of Venson that's between home and Sullivan?
>> Correct. >> But not the other two sections. >> It's just the grassy side. I yeah, I don't I'm unsure. I I don't know why exactly this would be put forth, but >> I'd like I would like some a little bit
more clarification on, you know, what the reasoning is prior to um moving this to a public hearing. My opinion only. >> Anyone else? I mean, I I guess I I feel as though
that would be what the public hearing is for. I trust councelor Kaggleandro has a reason. >> I'm sure there's some reason to it. I just it would just be nice. So, I I think we could give them the ability to show up and let them voice their opinion
if nothing else. >> So, I guess I'll move to send it to a public hearing. >> There you go. Is there a second? >> Second. All those in favor. All is opposed. Doofully recorded. All right.
Item number four. The mayor would like to request the addition of a painted crosswalk at 425 River Street in the interest of public safety for a newly operational child care center at this location. Is there anyone here to speak
on this? No. Um I am a little unsure as to why this would be pushed forth. There is currently a crosswalk that connects the two um ramps going across the property to the
front of this building already. And there's no other location where you can install a crosswalk. There are only driveway curb cuts where you cannot um install those. So I mean I would note um this is a
location, one of the two that we received an RFB flashing beacon crosswalk. Um, so we're currently working on engineering plans to make sure we can install it with proper um, uh, wheelchair ramps and making sure
we're not compromising any of the drainage in and around there. So, um, I don't would this otherwise have to go to a public hearing or >> I don't think this does this isn't really an item that would be approved for public hearing. I think we have the liberty to install crosswalks as we please. >> Okay. I think this might have come through from a motion from a >> Okay.
>> council meeting. >> It was okay. Okay. Um, so >> so we'll take this under advisement and we'll add it to um we'll see if we can squeeze it in under the current project
installing those RFPs. RF I'm sorry. >> I think that'll happen. Okay. >> All right. I think we can remove this from the agenda though to be honest. >> Mr. Chairman, is is any type of motion needed for that? >> You know, I am unsure. I'll make a
motion to um not send this to a public hearing and to address it as we have discussed here today. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> All those opposed.
>> Not going to a public hearing and it will be added to our current project. All right. Item number five, amend schedule four of title 10 isolated stop signs by adding the following. Centennial A direction eastbound at
Campbell A stop sign. It looks like they're trying to create a three-way stop if you consider item number six as well. That would be my understanding. Counselor, >> thank you. This is something I've been
talking to Tom about uh over the last several months. Um, again, it's a a speeding issue. Um, and Tom was talking about potentially putting in a raised crosswalk right at the new entrance of the dog
park right by the across from the fire hydrant. So, um, we talked about putting stop signs going up the hill and a stop sign coming down the hill. So, that'll make that a three-way three-way stop. And I I think the people are feeling
more comfortable because when they fly up that hill, they fly. So again, it's traffic calming issue. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um I I do see
the reason why you would not want to install a raised crosswalk because it's a pretty steep slope right there. Um, as far as a three-way stop, uh, I don't have any feelings for or
against it. So, I'm if anyone we after doing a speed study here, the 85th percentile speed wasn't speeding, but there was a high volume of cars going above 25 and 30 miles an hour, particularly those going above 30. So, if you ever been at the park, you see
people gunning it up and down that hill. So, um I think stop signs the best tool we have in our toolbox. Um given um a raised crosswalk or a speed hump wouldn't be viable given the slope. It's at least something worth trying. And there are other tools I guess we have,
but one's more complicated than just throwing down a stop sign. >> Even even if we put a painted crosswalk there, the cars will know that people potentially crossing at that location. >> Are there wheelchair ramps on either side of this? >> Yes. >> You're saying instead of the stop signs?
No, the wheel the wheelchair ramps are there. >> No, no, no. I mean, see the crosswalk, too. >> Put the crosswalk there, but put the stop sign there, too. >> So, we're doubling down. I see. >> Okay. All right. Well, >> let's stick with the stop sign right
now. >> Okay. >> Agreed. All right. Are there any motions from the commission? >> Motion to send uh these two items to a public hearing. Number five and number six on Centennial Avenue. Thank you.
There's a second. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed. >> Item number five and six, we move to a public hearing. All right. Item number seven, amend schedule four of title 10 isolated stop
signs by adding the following. Garfield A northbound to at Centennial A stop sign. A lot of stop signs in here. This one already exists though, I believe. >> Well, but it's not in the books. That's why this is putting it on the books. And even the location that the sign was put
is not the best location because so far past the intersection going up to the bridge, the MBTA bridge at OR Square. So, if we put it in, we should put it in down at the corner, the very corner of uh Centennial. But wouldn't you want someone I believe
that you the way I see it is people are coming around Shirley have that bend and I would definitely want the traffic coming down Garfield to stop instead of just having two directions coming together.
>> Well, that's what's happening now. They're coming together because the stop sign is up at the bridge intersection, not back at the I I know I see what you're saying, but I'm just talking about Shirley Aav itself. As Shirley Aav continues and goes all the way down to the beach >> in Yeah. >> that stop sign
>> gives them a pause. So if there is any oncoming traffic or square >> at or square, correct? >> Yeah. That's that's not the issue. The issue is on the other side of the intersection. >> So as they come >> coming up from Garfield
>> along the MBTA fence. >> Yep. >> Okay. Right now it's at the end of the fence up by the bridge. >> Yeah. >> So which people can't stop up there because there's a parking space across the street and there's no way that you can do a a southbound and a northbound
uh maneuver there to take the turn on or take the right turn onto uh Shirley from Garfield, you know, right at the bridge. >> Yeah. >> So they really there's no room for really double direction. Okay.
>> But the way it stops now, >> so you're saying remove that stop sign, >> move it back to the prior intersection at at Centennial Lav. >> And they would be stopping for what traffic? >> They would be stopping for the traffic coming off the bridge to do the bend
from Shirley onto Centennial. >> Because right now people come up Garfield. >> Yeah. They can take a turn, a left turn onto Centennial, >> correct? >> Or go straight up. >> Yeah. >> To Shirley. So what's that what's
happening is that crossing at Centennial and Garfield and Shirley, if you want to look at that, is not is not really safe because cars come around Garfield onto Centennial without stopping. And the cars coming
down from Shirley don't stop either. I feel like that stop sign at the top there needs to be there though. It's right at the 127 127 C uh Centennial is the address.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. If you move this back, then you're going to have a problem here. >> Yeah, exact. That's what I'm saying, >> right? >> Okay. All right. Let's Let's look into this a little more because it might mean you might need one more on Centennial. It
looks like then >> that that's they're not even stopping at the one that's there now. I know that for sure. But >> I don't even know how it got there in the first place because I didn't even ask for it. >> It just one day it just showed up. >> You want removed? >> Because you know why? There was an empty
pole there that Marches put in a couple years ago and never put a sign back on it. So, I think whoever did it had the empty pole already there and just put the sign on. >> Okay. All right. Let's look at this one a little bit further because I don't
This one's not making much sense to me. >> Can you put it up for the public hearing so maybe by the time we have next month you'll have seen what's going on. >> But we're looking at a different location. You're talking about Garfield A and we think belongs on Centennial. >> I'm looking at Garfield and Centennial.
>> On Garfield though. >> On Garfield. Yes. >> So, it's gonna be stop sign stop sign right one after the other. >> Well, the one the one up further is not legal. It's not even on the books. >> So, take that one down. >> That's what I'm saying. Because I think if they stop down at on
Garfield at Centennial, they they'll have that hesitation for any cars coming around from >> I feel like if they we remove the one further up, they stop at Centennial, then they just go and they you can cause a potential accident on Shirley Avenue. >> But if they Yeah, it really wouldn't be.
It would be Pawa Square, I guess. I don't know what the real name of that intersection is. It's Shirley A and Garfield. I guess it's actually >> All right, let's hold off on this one till we can figure out the correct location because I don't think removing
that sign and adding one is going to fix anything. I think it's going to be dangerous to be honest, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah. >> Um I think that the sign that's there needs to be there at Shirley to stop so that people aren't just going right around that corner. >> Yeah. Um, I think more appropriately
rather than remove that and move it backwards, I think more appropriately you would want to add one at Centennial >> so that you're stopping the traffic stopping the traffic at Centennial. >> Then they're merging into the traffic on Garfield which is also stopping at Shirley. >> Coming up Centennial.
>> No, you don't come up Centennial. It's a one way going down. >> Why are we going to have a stop sign on Centennial? >> Stop sign would be on Garfield coming up. I don't have a >> be northbound on Garfield
and Centennial runs uh east to west one way. >> So what are they stopping for then? I'm just I'm just not getting this one. Yeah. top right corner. >> All right, Council, give us some time.
Let me look at let me go down there and look at what's going on down there. All right, >> I'll move at that one. >> All right. Um, so let's let's table >> make a motion to table. >> Yes, please. Let's table this so we could actually look at this. Just actually see what's going on. >> Okay, good.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor? >> All those opposed. Let's table number seven till we can figure this one out. Item number eight, amends schedule four of title 10 isolated stop signs by
adding the following. Shirley a eastbound at Thornton Street stop sign. If I am incorre I believe there's already two stop signs at this locations. >> There's one one stop sign on Shirley F that was never approved by this
commission. It was >> but it exists but it's there. It's exa it exists coming down Shirley at Dorton Street which I think that was part of a traffic calming scenario at that location and the next one coming down.
So I'm just trying to get them on the books. Okay. To make them legal. >> That's fine. I understand that. All right. So this does already exist. There is a stop sign currently. I believe there's two one on either side. >> There's one one coming up. One one coming up Thornton Street of the Way
onto Shirley. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. All right. >> So, it's it becomes a three-way stop. >> All right. So, >> so do we need to add those to the public hearing? >> I don't know. I haven't seen if those are on schedule. >> Those are those are legal. The two on Don Street already on the books.
>> I'm sorry to complicate things then. Let's just send these two to a public hearing. >> The one in Shirley have is not is not on the books. >> Let's go ahead and do that. Um, is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Item number eight, send to public
hearing. Stop. Item number nine, amend schedule four of title 10 isolated stop signs by adding the following. Um, Chile a eastbound at Nahant stop sign. This one already
exists, I believe. Again, >> same same scenario. It's just not on the books now. >> Motion to send to a public hearing. Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> All those opposed. >> Move to public hearing. That looks like we we've reached the
end, gentlemen. Number nine. No, >> not on the one I printed out. Wow. Okay. >> Mr. Chair, >> what's that? >> I don't have those two either. So, >> you don't either,
>> but I'm following along with my peers. >> Clearly, I need to uh get the best and latest and greatest. Um item number 10, amend schedule 8 section oh by parking restrictions
generally by adding Prospect Avenue direction Northeast from Broadway to 74 Prospect A resident sticker parking only 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Counselor,
>> you may want to add the next one. >> Okay. Um, amend schedule 8, same. Reservoir Avenue direction northeast from 6 Reservoir A to 46 Reservoir A. Resident sticker
parking only, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Councelor, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. >> So, I was approached by the residents of Prospect Avenue uh to have the 24/7 uh in addition to the overnight because
um people on Broadway are doing a several things. They're using the businesses on Broadway and parking up on Prospect. They're trying to avoid the meters and there's some parking there and people are getting on the the bus.
So there is currently signage on Reservoir Avenue. This Reservoir Avenue is much like what Ira was just talking about. It was passed by the traffic commission quite a few years ago uh when I was sitting in your spot there. Uh but it never made the ordinance. So
Reservoir Avenue, those signs are up and have been being and have been enforced for years. >> Okay. >> Prospect um they're just at the beginning I think up to about 14 or 18. prospect. This would extend it to 74. And again, the
reasoning being people getting on the bus, people using the businesses and trying to avoid the meters. >> All right. >> And if you could send it to a public hearing and then we could, you know, further hash it out. >> No, I think that's fair. >> Okay.
>> Commission, do we have any objection or motions? >> Not to move it to a public hearing. Um, no objections to that. Perhaps objections to it itself, but I'll speak those with the counselor in advance of the next meeting. I mean, I I guess one
thought I have is, but why don't we just add meters to some of these locations and control it in that way? >> Well, they'd be in front of people's homes. >> Okay. All the ones we're referring to are in front of homes, not in front of >> Right. Or in front of homes. Everything's in front of a home. Uh the reason the Reservoir Avenue one is from
number six that allows those spaces right across the street alongside the convenience store. Okay. So so they can >> I have no objections. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Is there any motion? Thank you, counselor. >> Motion to send to a public hearing. >> Thank you. Is there a second?
>> This is item number 10 and 11. >> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? Item number 10 and 11 will be moved to public hearing. All right. Now, I believe we've reached the end of our agenda.
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Have a good night, everyone.